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

Forums - Gaming - Where Does Nintendo Go If Wii U Never Takes Off?

Gamerace said:

Nintendo's core audience can't lift their fortunes about a GC level.   If they could, then GC would have been more successful as it was more 'core' than Wii.

They need their expanded audience, but I think the dual analog gamepad is a huge deterient to that very audience which is why NintendoLand is no Wii Sports.

Again, the market has changed drastically since the GC days. People often buy more than 1 System a gen now which will be very beneficial to Nintendo due to its exclusives. Orbis + Wii U and Durango + Wii U will happen a lot IMO. Especially if Nintendo can continue to get exclusives such as Bayonetta 2. 

Also, the GC & N64 both had a lot going against it that had nothing to do with Nintendo's games. The N64 still used cartridges and that limited the 3rd Party games. The cartridges also made the games cost $60 to $70 each which was insane! If you adjust for inflation it would be about $85 to $100 a game today...yeah, that's gonna attract the average consumer.

As for the GC, for one, it used mini discs. This again limited 3rd party support. Not only did it limit support, it also looked dumb to many people. The GC also looked dumb to many core. It was purple. Also, doesn't look attractive to the average guy over 15. Also, quite frankly, back then everyone and their mom wanted a PS2. The PS brand was extremely strong and sucked up every game possible and made it exclusive. Add the fact that GC had very limited online capabilities and you can see why it wasn't the biggest success the world has ever seen.

I really enjoyed the GC and the N64 is my favorite System ever released but let's not pretend that the games and lack of Core Nintendo fans were the issue.

As for Nintendo Land not being a Wii Sports? I never thought it would be. It isn't casual enough and I can't see the average 60 year old playing it. I don't think it has anything to do with the Gamepad itself. Wii Fit U won't be as big as the previous Wii Fits but it will get some attention. Same with Wii Sports U once released. Nintendo is likely working on a peripheral or add on that will be its secret weapon though.

Lastly, Nintendo doesn't need their expanded audience any more than Sony or Microsoft. They all need Casual support to sell huge #'s. Microsoft without casual support = XB. Nintendo without casual support = GC. Sony without casual support = PSV. The PS2 sold so well because it was the obvious choice. This gen, Wii & 360 both took many PS2 casuals because PS3 was no longer the obvious choice.



Around the Network
Screamapillar said:
sales2099 said:
Nintendo has learned that they need casuals to stay alive. WiiU just doesnt bring in the same crowd that Wii did.

Expect this to be the last "core first" Nintendo console, because frankly, there aren't enough core to support them anymore.


Sure there are.  At the very minimum there are 20 million, as demonstrated that the GameCube exceeded that number, and that was even before the popularity explosion of the cross-over games like New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing series.  Those series have massive appeal to casuals that aren't non-gamers but aren't necessarily active gamers.  They're an inbetween.

If 3DS only primarily appeals to hardcore Nintendo fans, then there are at least 27 million of them already and the system is only two years old.

Do not group handheld buyers with console buyers. And 3ds has a dual appeal to casual and core, not primarily core.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Screamapillar said:
sales2099 said:
Nintendo has learned that they need casuals to stay alive. WiiU just doesnt bring in the same crowd that Wii did.

Expect this to be the last "core first" Nintendo console, because frankly, there aren't enough core to support them anymore.


Sure there are.  At the very minimum there are 20 million, as demonstrated that the GameCube exceeded that number, and that was even before the popularity explosion of the cross-over games like New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing series.  Those series have massive appeal to casuals that aren't non-gamers but aren't necessarily active gamers.  They're an inbetween.

If 3DS only primarily appeals to hardcore Nintendo fans, then there are at least 27 million of them already and the system is only two years old.

Do not group handheld buyers with console buyers. And 3ds has a dual appeal to casual and core, not primarily core.

Of course handhelds don't have the exact same audience as home consoles, but there is a lot of overlap.  Nintendo's popularity has grown since the days of the GameCube and GBA.  Mario games sell better now than they did back then, and Animal Crossing and Mario Kart are now hugely successful with casual gamers.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

torok said:
Salnax said:
Worst case scenario, Nintendo repeats the GameCube era, sells 30 million Wii U's, tightens their belts, lives off of 3DS income, and releases a new system in 2017 or so.

After the success of the Wii/DS, Nintendo can survive a relative failure.

This. They survived the GameCube, they can survive anything. I think that they only would have problems if a home console bombed hard and their handheld bombed too (wich definitively isn't the case with 3DS).

 

Claymore said:
Little tip Nintendo made more money off the Gamecube than Sony did off the PS2.

 

Man, do you really think that a console that sold 160 million units with a great tie ratio made less money than one that sold 25 million?

 


Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.



JEMC said:
Soundwave said:

I could see Disney attempting a buy-over if the stock price goes low enough, but I would imagine that Nintendo would react very unfavorably to that.

A Nintendo platform with Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Marvel Comics (The Avengers, Hulk, X-Men,  etc.), Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Disney classic franchises, Pirates of the Caribbean, Tron, and Pixar properties all potentially exclusive would be something else though.

An hostile takeover (and this one would be hostile) wouldn't be smart. The key members of the Co could leave, specially Miyamoto, leaving a shell with half the talant that it had. And if that happens, what's the point of having all those IPs if you ruin them?

Look at what happened with Rare's sell, and that was amicable. Are their IPs still atractive now? Not even half of what they were.

Exactly right, something like that would destroy Nintendo.  That entire company is operated on the assumption that their games are only possible and can only ever be played on Nintendo hardware.  I think better part of 70% of the staff would depart if something occured where they were forced to make games for other platforms.  It's just not gonna happen.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

Around the Network
Claymore said:


Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.


You do realize that those figures also include Nintendo's profits from their handheld division, right?



Claymore said:

Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.


The GBA profits are embedded in this data, so it doesn't say a lot about GC. But it's impossible for GC to give more money than PS2, it didn't sell less, it sold abysmally less than PS2. And almost 50 million PS2 units were sold after the start of this gen, all sold at a profit. GC stopped selling quick, so it didn't had teh advantage of selling when it was cheaper to manufacture. Besides that, the software sales are completely different. PS2 was a monster in that regard. The top selling PS2 game almost outsells the GC lifetime hardware sales. It's not even a fair comparison in this case. Even with the model of selling it above cost price, PS2 simply sold too much to not being profitable. It's a difference of more than 6 times the installed base.



Jay520 said:
Claymore said:


Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.


You do realize that those figures also include Nintendo's profits from their handheld division, right?


Yes and it also includes the PSP.



torok said:
Claymore said:

Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.


The GBA profits are embedded in this data, so it doesn't say a lot about GC. But it's impossible for GC to give more money than PS2, it didn't sell less, it sold abysmally less than PS2. And almost 50 million PS2 units were sold after the start of this gen, all sold at a profit. GC stopped selling quick, so it didn't had teh advantage of selling when it was cheaper to manufacture. Besides that, the software sales are completely different. PS2 was a monster in that regard. The top selling PS2 game almost outsells the GC lifetime hardware sales. It's not even a fair comparison in this case. Even with the model of selling it above cost price, PS2 simply sold too much to not being profitable. It's a difference of more than 6 times the installed base.

And yet Sony didn't profit from it. They made a loss each fiscal year after the PS3 launch, the PS2 could have sold 200Mil and they would not have seen a single cent of profits.



Claymore said:
Jay520 said:
Claymore said:


Little hint Sony due to business model didn't make anywhere near the amount of money with the playstation brand as many seem to think.


You do realize that those figures also include Nintendo's profits from their handheld division, right?


Yes and it also includes the PSP.



That doesn't matter. The PSP didn't release until 2005. Nintendo's profits were greater than Sony's during the 4th fiscal year on the chart. But during that year, Nintendo got the majority of its profits from the Gameboy, not the Gamecube. The PSP hadn't beem released then.