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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why WiiU is the only viable strategy for Nintendo

 

The WiiU is the ONLY strategy

Yay 69 57.98%
 
Nay 50 42.02%
 
Total:119
AgentZorn said:

The problem with remote play on the PS4 is that you need to buy other acessories in order to use the feature. It will never take off because of the price needed to use remote play.

Yes, you do need to buy accessory for remote play (Vita being only one at the moment) - that's why it's not the main or even necessary feature, but additional convenience for those who would like to have it, and convenience being the main word here; it does nothing but let you play off your TV, so if that's what you need/desire there is a solution for that.

JWeinCom said:

Thanks for the link.  As for the Gamepad, having it integrated with the system is a huge difference from having it as an add on.  Remote play for instance would be impossible for 99% of games if you're using a tablet.  Out of the games we've seen in Nintendo Land, perhaps 1/3 of the games could be replicated using the tablets.  If you want to make a game that truly utilizes the functions of a peripheral, then you need to be sure that every gamer on a system has that peripheral, or else you're severaly limiting your audience.  There is a reason that the Move and the Kinect didn't catch on (or caught on then died off very quickly). 

Not any tablet, either Sony's potential gaming tablet, or 3rd party tablets like WikiPad, or any tablet in combo with gaming controller add-ons - as I mentioned earlier, I see Remote Play alike approach as convenience for those who want/need it, not like something that should be the main feature, so no extra game features would be actually possible in that scenario, other than playing a game off your TV.

So in line of what I said in my original post, I think Gamepad in that fictional case should've been what Remote Play is for PS4 - just a convenience, and main focus should've been keeping Wii like approach, but with adding bit more "mainstream" into the mix, with Game Pro controller and more IPs that cater to "core", all while having hardware that is actually capable of running all (or most) future 3rd party titles.

Well, at least, that's just my opinion...



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Gamerace said:
JWeinCom said:
 


I don't think the Gamepad is a problem, and I don't think the Wiimote was really the heart of the Wii's success.

I don't think that the Wii

"I see your point here but respectfully disagree.  The Wiimote was designed to resemble a TV remote and Wii Sports to be played with only needing to use one or two buttons, if any.   Nintendo understood that the dual analog controller was a barrier to entry for casuals.  And now they've gone back to it only now with a tablet inserted.   The tablet does not make it seem simplier, it makes it seem every less attractive to casuals.   Where Wii's sold themselves, with WiiU Nintendo must overcome the stigma the gamepad creates.   So far they have failed to do so.   I've tested the games in stores and when they've had all games available to play at mall demos, and while I didn't get to try ZombiiU, NintendoLand, NSMBU, Rayman Legends, and some other 3rd party games failed to justify the gamepad's existence.  It didn't add anything to the games, and from a casual viewpoint were less intuitive to play than a Wii game - or Kinect game - or tablet game."

I haven't seen Zombi U running on a demo unit.  Demoing rated M games is a legal problem and I'm pretty sure it's not available.  Which Nintendo Land games have you tried?  I think Mario Chase, Metroid Blast, Legend of Zelda, and Takamaru's Ninja castles are great uses of the Gamepad that are not exceptionally complex (except Metroid).  I haven't done market research, but pretty much everyone whose played Mario Chase got it pretty quickly and enjoyed themselves.

I think that having a complex looking controller is a disadvantage, but that can be countered by a simple looking game.  I work at an electronics store, and we have a Wii U display with Mario (among other games on it).  In that context, noone is afraid or confused or hesitant.  It's Mario.  They know it, and they know how to play it.  They simply ignore the extra buttons and move on.

I don't think that the precence of a second analog stick itself is really the problem.  The problem is that many games on 360 or PS3, even something that would seem to be kid friendly like ratchet and clank, use just about every button on the controller.  Appearances matter to an extent, but Nintendo can still, with effective advertising and simpler games, hit their target demographics with the Gamepad.

"This is the fundimental problem.  Casuals don't have a choice of Wii or nothing like in 2006, they now have vast choice - Move, Kinect 2, tablets/smartphones, WiiU of which WiiU is currently the least appealing choice due to price, lack of games, cost of games and lack of features.  The off TV gameplay is not appealing to casuals who don't want to play with a dual analog set-up.  Sure you could play Angry Birds on TV/gamepad but you don't need a WiiU for that.   Sure the WiiU has a cool internet browser, but you don't need a WiiU for that - tablet's do it just as well.   Yes you can control your TV off your WiiU but this is becoming a feature of tablets/smartphones too.    For casuals, who don't want to use dual analog - which is all those Wii Sports / Wii Fit / Just Dance players out there - There is no benefit to owning a WiiU. "

I wouldn't consider the Move or Kinect a viable rival for the Wii.  The technology is fine on the Move, but the software support is beyond terrible.  The Kinect also suffers from poor support, and is not always very intuitive.  It had a hot start, but it's basically a non factor.  Sony has shown where their focus for the coming gen is, and it's not on casual gamers.  The 720 is a wildcard, but I don't think they have what it takes to compete with Nintendo in that realm.

As for Smart Phones, I think that most people understand and appreciate the difference between a 50 dollar game and a 1.99 game.  It isn't like Modern Combat has killed the Call of Duty market, and I don't think Angry Birds is going to kill the Mario market.

As for the "tablets can do it" argument, you can say that about pretty much all of the multimedia functions on any  console.

"I concur that making the WiiU the same power as PS4/720 would not have helped them.  I agree a WiiHD would do little better than WiiU (unless they had some great new Wii____ ideas but then they could have just kept Wii going with them too.   They don't need the most powerful system (one more capable of playing 720/PS4 games would have been better) but they needed to extend that they did with Wii.   Take motion controls to a whole new level of immersion and fun.  A modified/enhanced Wiimote/Nunchuk with touchscreen(s) added would have been better and the touch screen could have even replaced some buttons or D-pad to make it seem even more natural to use."

I don't really see any place further to go with motion controls.  The device you've described really doesn't sound simple to me or like it would add anything to the Wii experience.  I'm guessing Nintendo didn't see anywhere further to go either.

"Basically they needed to provide compelling gameplay that other consoles - and now tablets - can't - that appeals to the mass market.  Much like Wii did.  From the WiiU games I've played, none of them do this.  ZombiiU is not appealing to the mass market and I submit, neither is NintendoLand or NSMBU if casuals (think women 30+) are forced to use the dual analog controller to play them."

How many Wii U games have you played?  3? 4?  People like to point out how the Wii instantly caught on, but what about the DS?  When you played Pac Pix, Mario 64 DS, and Ping Pals, did you think "most successful handheld ever right here"?  Nor did the 360 or PS3 have particularly strong launch up.  As I mentioned, nobody seems to be deterred from Mario by the Gamepad.  NSMB 2 has sold very well on the 3DS, which has all the buttons of the Wii U minus one stick and an invisible set of shoulder buttons.

"Unless they come up with some unforseeable NEW casual hit, the same old games Wii Fit U (again?), Wii Party U (again?) and Mario Kart U will not sell many systems.  Casuals want NEW experiences.   Mario Galaxy was not a hit with casuals - look at it's sales and especially SMG2's, it's primarily Nintendo Core.   NSMB IS a hit with casuals but the combination of dual analog controls/cost and that it's really not much different than NSMBWii all work against NSMBU having the success NSMBWii did.  Unless Nintendo really changes them up far more than we've seen thus far - I feel the same will go for the others mentioned here as well.  They are not different enough or enticing enough to overcome WiiU's immediate shortcomings."

 Mario Galaxy sold 800,000 copies last year.  Now, did those copies sell to gamers that were such hardcore Nintendo fans that they waited 5 years to buy the game?  That blows a whole right through the "only hardcore Nintendo fans buy Mario Galaxy theory".  And yes, I know there was a price cut, but the has sold 800,000 copies or more in every year since it was released.  You can't claim the game has no casual appeal.  Even galaxy 2 sold 300K last year.  Mario Galaxy's sales were on par with Halo sales, and Galaxy 2 sold more than any Uncharted or Gears of War game has.  Either Nintendo has a really strong hardcore fanbase (that for some bizarre reason waits for years and years to pick up games), casual gamers are also enjoying these titles, or your view of "casual gamers" is really narrow and you've therefore missed the cause of the Wii's success.  Remember, casual gamers are not just grandmothers who scream in terror of anything more complex than a toaster.  Casual gamers are also kids, 30 something parents who want games to play with their kids, college students who want something fun for their dorm room, etc.

On the subject of games that keep selling, Wii Fit Plus sold over a million copies last year, and Wii Party sold 800K.  Not bad for such old games.  This clearly indicates that the brand still has plenty of gas left in the tank.  Nintendo will need some new franchises as well to kick things into the next gear, but these games are going to get a lot of Wii owners to upgrade.  I'll go on the record with this.  By June, pretty much all talk of Wii U dying will be gone.


I'm not going to disagree with your points, I guess it's just a matter of what we consider 'success' for WiiU to be.   Unless some game comes out with Wii Sports type appeal - which I don't think we've seen yet, I'm not seeing WiiU doing better than N64.   Which means absolutely I think sales will improve but not close to Wii levels.   Is that success (it's still profitable) or failure (lots most of their market)?  Nintendo games do have broad appeal.  Yes some casuals got Galaxy and Brawl and others but the lift they got compared to Mario Party 8 or Mario Kart Wii was small.    WiiU will be fine and I don't think Nintendo has any other choice but to execute on this now.   It just won't be a huge hit with the casuals (or core) like Wii was.    I'm still waiting for Nintendo to sell me on the system and that should've been easy pickings.



 

I agree that from a hardware standpoint, Wii U makes more sense than some people's ideas (not saying names here).

What I'm not sold on is the current software and marketing strategy. Nintendo has utterly failed to even distinguish the Wii U from its predecessor, perhaps because there was absolutely no marketing focus put on high-definition graphics or the myriad of other things the Wii could never do. Just the controller. As if the new product was the control, not a new system itself. Granted, this worked for the Wii because it introduced an entire new brand. Nobody was going to confuse Wii with GameCube.

As for software, Nintendo should've had more content ready. Especially more casual fare (wouldn't that be quicker and easier to develop?). It would be unreasonable to expect many AAA releases from Nintendo early on, going by their track record. Launch is a good time to release a bevy on smaller interesting titles along with a heavy-hitter or two. Heck, from this perspective, the Vita launch had better/smarter first-party support. Taking away the many late ports the Wii U has gotten in its launch window, the situation is pretty dire in most respects. The only bright-ish spot now is the eShop, which already has a handful worthwhile titles, some of which from studios that have never even touched a Nintendo platform before (Double Fine, Frozenbyte, ect.). And we have Shovel Knight to look forward too. :)



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

I'm not going to disagree with your points, I guess it's just a matter of what we consider 'success' for WiiU to be. "Unless some game comes out with Wii Sports type appeal - which I don't think we've seen yet, I'm not seeing WiiU doing better than N64. Which means absolutely I think sales will improve but not close to Wii levels. Is that success (it's still profitable) or failure (lots most of their market)? Nintendo games do have broad appeal. Yes some casuals got Galaxy and Brawl and others but the lift they got compared to Mario Party 8 or Mario Kart Wii was small. WiiU will be fine and I don't think Nintendo has any other choice but to execute on this now. It just won't be a huge hit with the casuals (or core) like Wii was. I'm still waiting for Nintendo to sell me on the system and that should've been easy pickings."

Compared to Mario Party 8 or Mario Kart, yes the boost for Galaxy was smaller, but it was still a boost of several million which is very significant in my opinion. The galaxy and smash franchises definitely have a fair amount of casual clout.

The difference between the Wii U situation and the situation with the Wii is that with the Wii, Nintendo had to sell the public on their system from scratch. Nintendo had a core fanbase of 20 million or so from the Gamecube days, but that was all.

The situation is different now. Nintendo doesn't have to come from "You've never played video games before, but they're really fun. Trust us!" Now Nintendo can say "Hey remember how much fun you had playing Mario Kart? Well, we have a new one now! And a new Wii Fit! And a new Mario Galaxy!" Logically, it should be easier to sell a console to people who have a prior positive association with the brand. I think that most people who had a Wii did enjoy it enough to buy a new one, when confronted with the software they enjoyed.

If Nintendo makes smart moves with publishing as they did with Bayonetta 2 and Lego City, and could create a few must have casual IPs, I think the potential to have Wii like success is there, especially if Microsoft and Sony **** up. If things keep going on the path that it looks like, I still think the Wii will be successful to the tune of about 70millionish lifetime.



F0X said:
I agree that from a hardware standpoint, Wii U makes more sense than some people's ideas (not saying names here).

What I'm not sold on is the current software and marketing strategy. Nintendo has utterly failed to even distinguish the Wii U from its predecessor, perhaps because there was absolutely no marketing focus put on high-definition graphics or the myriad of other things the Wii could never do. Just the controller. As if the new product was the control, not a new system itself. Granted, this worked for the Wii because it introduced an entire new brand. Nobody was going to confuse Wii with GameCube.

As for software, Nintendo should've had more content ready. Especially more casual fare (wouldn't that be quicker and easier to develop?). It would be unreasonable to expect many AAA releases from Nintendo early on, going by their track record. Launch is a good time to release a bevy on smaller interesting titles along with a heavy-hitter or two. Heck, from this perspective, the Vita launch had better/smarter first-party support. Taking away the many late ports the Wii U has gotten in its launch window, the situation is pretty dire in most respects. The only bright-ish spot now is the eShop, which already has a handful worthwhile titles, some of which from studios that have never even touched a Nintendo platform before (Double Fine, Frozenbyte, ect.). And we have Shovel Knight to look forward too. :)


I'm guessing that Nintendo put too much faith in 3rd parties and that they were not ready for launch. It seems dumb that Nintendo launched the Wii U without being ready themselves, but I think the year headstart is serving Nintendo well because they can bumb out out any kinks before Sony/MS launch their systems.



Around the Network

The 'Nintendo should make FPS' argument is incredibly flawed and short sighted. There is currently the best version of the most popular FPS (COD black ops whatever) on the Wii U and the sales are abysmal.



redgreenblue said:
The 'Nintendo should make FPS' argument is incredibly flawed and short sighted. There is currently the best version of the most popular FPS (COD black ops whatever) on the Wii U and the sales are abysmal.

Yes they are abysmal - it competes with PS360 and their userbase, so no wonder. But looking at exclusive FPS games, Killzone 3 sold 1/4 of CoD: BLOPS2 on PS3 (less than 2.5mil), but that will not make Sony ditch it, on the contrary. Nintendo should definitelly make FPS, but one that does not compete with CoD, just like HALO does not actually compete directly with it. Let them be creative and make something different that will bring that audience to their system.



HoloDust said:
redgreenblue said:
The 'Nintendo should make FPS' argument is incredibly flawed and short sighted. There is currently the best version of the most popular FPS (COD black ops whatever) on the Wii U and the sales are abysmal.

Yes they are abysmal - it competes with PS360 and their userbase, so no wonder. But looking at exclusive FPS games, Killzone 3 sold 1/4 of CoD: BLOPS2 on PS3 (less than 2.5mil), but that will not make Sony ditch it, on the contrary. Nintendo should definitelly make FPS, but one that does not compete with CoD, just like HALO does not actually compete directly with it. Let them be creative and make something different that will bring that audience to their system.


...Metroid Prime 4?
Nevermind. It would be better to try and develop a multiplayer-centric FPS. The only single-player FPS that seems to get attention is BioShock.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

I love that the OP is just coming to this conclusion now. As if 10yrs ago people didn't realize this to be the case...

Nintendo was never that great of a competitor in the face of ACTUAL competition lol. They failed as a company to stay competitive or relevant. No one to blame but themselves.

The smartphone revolution pretty much crippled nintendo's "we're the unique guys," "we do our own thing" strategy. It was fun while motion controls lasted, but now people want touchscreen tablets and smartphones. Nobody is willing to purchase dedicated nintendo hardware for a duel screen controller...

I don't see any realistic way for nintendo to make any progress this gen. Eventually a small profit after a few years? Once PS4/720 hit --it's all over but the wiimusic. (I still don't even know what wiimusic was)



MaxwellAllen said:
I love that the OP is just coming to this conclusion now. As if 10yrs ago people didn't realize this to be the case...

Nintendo was never that great of a competitor in the face of ACTUAL competition lol. They failed as a company to stay competitive or relevant. No one to blame but themselves.

The smartphone revolution pretty much crippled nintendo's "we're the unique guys," "we do our own thing" strategy. It was fun while motion controls lasted, but now people want touchscreen tablets and smartphones. Nobody is willing to purchase dedicated nintendo hardware for a duel screen controller...

I don't see any realistic way for nintendo to make any progress this gen. Eventually a small profit after a few years? Once PS4/720 hit --it's all over but the wiimusic. (I still don't even know what wiimusic was)

You're kidding right? It only takes 1 first party game for the Wii U to turn a profit, 2 third party titles. By the end of the year they will most likely start to see a profit on each Wii U sold, if not be damn close. It took MS a couple years to lower manufacturing and shipping costs enough to turn a profit and it took Sony YEARS. Even with profits on each unit sold, Sony and MS lost about $8 billion due to their consoles. In fact, Nintendo posted a profit for the third quarter of this fiscal year (Oct-December). If you count progess as only selling more than the previous gen, then no Nintendo won't make "progress" anyone who thinks the Wii U will sell around 100m without major MS/Sony **** ups is dillusional. By that logic though, Sony will never make progress.

The PS4 will likely cost $400-$450 if not more and it doesn't have that "thing" that will grab a massive audience from the start. The loyal PS fans will pick it up early sure, but people will have a hard time justifying the purchase if the launch titles are inFamous, Killzone, Knack and a bunch of cross-gen titles (in other words, the exact same thing that happened to the Wii U) We know extremely little about the 720, so predictions on how that will do are pointless at the moment.

If Nintendo has a price drop this fall plus the massive library of games they have lined up, it is going to sell gangbusters. Their (adjusted) 15m projection is VERY attainable and is only 7m short of Gamecube numbers if that's what you think it would take for the Wii U to "fail" by saying "it's all over but the wiimusic". That's before a proper Zelda, Retro's game (if it doesn't release this fall), Smash Bros, Miyamoto's new IP, and god knows what else Nintendo has up their sleeves.

The Sega vs. Nintendo era was more cutthroat and a tighter race than anything modern, that was REAL competition. The N64 suffered from the same problem the PS3 did by being late to the party even thouh aspects of it were more powerful than the PS1. The Gamecube suffered because Sony included the DVD player in the PS2 so people would buy that as a cheaper dvd player that could also play games....even though the Gamecube was more powerful in almost every way. Nintendo discovered that specs alone cannot sell a console so they let MS and Sony eat each other alive in the arms race, while they took a different approach. If they weren't competitive or relevant, MS and Sony wouldn't have jumped on the motion control bandwagon as fast as they did after the Wii's success. Nor would they have started to implement dual screen stuff with the Vita and Smartglass after the Wii U was announced. They are smart not to count Nintendo out, they did after the Gamecube and it came back to bite them in the ass.

Judging by the current state of the industry, it was an incredibly smart business decision to make the Wii and Wii U. Western devs are cosing left and right and development costs are insane (Tomb Raider = ~$100 million....hasn't broken even yet with 3.4 million sales) and that is only going to get worse when PS4/720 release. The Wii U is marrying the motion control concept of the Wii, the dual screen innovation of the DS, and graphics capabilites above what is currently available, but keeping things reasonable for developers who might not want to risk it all on one or two titles. Japanese developers (other than Square Enix apparently) understand that graphics alone can not sell titles and keep  them in business. I can't recall a single Japanese dev that has closed. They generally go for fantastic art styles and gameplay over "OMG THE WATER LOOKS REAL AND EXPLOSIONS HAVE A MILLION PARTICLES", which keeps dev costs down....big time.

Even IF the Wii U somehow bombs, Nintendo can take hundreds of millions in losses a year and still be around for 40 years. They aren't going anywhere.