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

Forums - Nintendo - 3DS is cannibalizing Wii U

theshonen8899 on 27 March 2014

The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.



Around the Network
nitekrawler1285 on 27 March 2014
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

Nintendo is cannibalizing wii u -_- they just don't know how home console market works, every console since the SNES has sold less, wii was a miracle.

Wii wasn't a miracle, it was a conscious and brilliant insight into the market; insight they completely failed to exercise with Wii U.

Wii U is the antithesis of the Wii; the Wii's success was due to its recognition of a changing market, Wii U's failure is due to its lack of recognition of a changing market.

The whole point of the Wii was: do something that hasn't been done before, break new ground. The Wii U is just "try the same strategy that worked last time."

I do agree however that Nintendo is cannibalizing Wii U.

You can call it fluke, miracle, luck, whatever. The numbers are there and wii u is struggling to even surpass Gamecube.

It was none of those things; not a fluke, not luck, not a miracle. It was a deliberate, premeditated, and thought out smash hit.

The Wii U's struggles are due to the way it itself was handled; confusing name, too expensive, delayed software, but most importantly, a failure to account for the current market.

There's always a degree of serendipity when anything is that successful. 

Michael Jackson's Thriller is a miracle. So is James Cameron's Titanic. So is TV's Seinfeld. 

Of course these things were deliberate in their design, but to the degree that they are embraced by the public requires a certain amount of timing and (sure) luck. 

Because otherwise you should be able to make a hit product everytime just by execution and that's not always the way things work.

Michael Jackson tried his damndest to top Thriller multiple times but never could do it, because it's not that f*cking easy, lol. I think that's one thing Nintendo fans don't get, you can't just pull a Wiimote type idea out of your ass every 5 years, that's not how basic creativity works. That's an idea that comes around maybe once every 20 years. 

Not even Apple is capable of doing that ... they had an incredible streak with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, but since then haven't been able to come up with a new idea as strong as that ... because it's *difficult* to do (you think they haven't invested billions in trying to find the next big thing?).

Umm Cameron himself has managed to beat Titanic with Avatar. By almost a billion to boot if wikipedia can be believed.

 



Soundwave on 27 March 2014
nitekrawler1285 said:
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

Nintendo is cannibalizing wii u -_- they just don't know how home console market works, every console since the SNES has sold less, wii was a miracle.

Wii wasn't a miracle, it was a conscious and brilliant insight into the market; insight they completely failed to exercise with Wii U.

Wii U is the antithesis of the Wii; the Wii's success was due to its recognition of a changing market, Wii U's failure is due to its lack of recognition of a changing market.

The whole point of the Wii was: do something that hasn't been done before, break new ground. The Wii U is just "try the same strategy that worked last time."

I do agree however that Nintendo is cannibalizing Wii U.

You can call it fluke, miracle, luck, whatever. The numbers are there and wii u is struggling to even surpass Gamecube.

It was none of those things; not a fluke, not luck, not a miracle. It was a deliberate, premeditated, and thought out smash hit.

The Wii U's struggles are due to the way it itself was handled; confusing name, too expensive, delayed software, but most importantly, a failure to account for the current market.

There's always a degree of serendipity when anything is that successful. 

Michael Jackson's Thriller is a miracle. So is James Cameron's Titanic. So is TV's Seinfeld. 

Of course these things were deliberate in their design, but to the degree that they are embraced by the public requires a certain amount of timing and (sure) luck. 

Because otherwise you should be able to make a hit product everytime just by execution and that's not always the way things work.

Michael Jackson tried his damndest to top Thriller multiple times but never could do it, because it's not that f*cking easy, lol. I think that's one thing Nintendo fans don't get, you can't just pull a Wiimote type idea out of your ass every 5 years, that's not how basic creativity works. That's an idea that comes around maybe once every 20 years. 

Not even Apple is capable of doing that ... they had an incredible streak with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, but since then haven't been able to come up with a new idea as strong as that ... because it's *difficult* to do (you think they haven't invested billions in trying to find the next big thing?).

Umm Cameron himself has managed to beat Titanic with Avatar. By almost a billion to boot if wikipedia can be believed.

 


He would be the exception to this rule but even there, I don't Avatar was quite the pop culture phenomenon that Titanic was. It benefitted a lot from higher ticket prices (especially the 3D markup). JK Rowling and Harry Potter is a more apt comparision ... fairly unlikely Rowling will ever top Harry Potter even if she writes a book 10x better. Things like that are just hard to repeat. 



Azhraell on 27 March 2014
nitekrawler1285 said:
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:
curl-6 said:
leyendax69 said:

Nintendo is cannibalizing wii u -_- they just don't know how home console market works, every console since the SNES has sold less, wii was a miracle.

Wii wasn't a miracle, it was a conscious and brilliant insight into the market; insight they completely failed to exercise with Wii U.

Wii U is the antithesis of the Wii; the Wii's success was due to its recognition of a changing market, Wii U's failure is due to its lack of recognition of a changing market.

The whole point of the Wii was: do something that hasn't been done before, break new ground. The Wii U is just "try the same strategy that worked last time."

I do agree however that Nintendo is cannibalizing Wii U.

You can call it fluke, miracle, luck, whatever. The numbers are there and wii u is struggling to even surpass Gamecube.

It was none of those things; not a fluke, not luck, not a miracle. It was a deliberate, premeditated, and thought out smash hit.

The Wii U's struggles are due to the way it itself was handled; confusing name, too expensive, delayed software, but most importantly, a failure to account for the current market.

There's always a degree of serendipity when anything is that successful. 

Michael Jackson's Thriller is a miracle. So is James Cameron's Titanic. So is TV's Seinfeld. 

Of course these things were deliberate in their design, but to the degree that they are embraced by the public requires a certain amount of timing and (sure) luck. 

Because otherwise you should be able to make a hit product everytime just by execution and that's not always the way things work.

Michael Jackson tried his damndest to top Thriller multiple times but never could do it, because it's not that f*cking easy, lol. I think that's one thing Nintendo fans don't get, you can't just pull a Wiimote type idea out of your ass every 5 years, that's not how basic creativity works. That's an idea that comes around maybe once every 20 years. 

Not even Apple is capable of doing that ... they had an incredible streak with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, but since then haven't been able to come up with a new idea as strong as that ... because it's *difficult* to do (you think they haven't invested billions in trying to find the next big thing?).

Umm Cameron himself has managed to beat Titanic with Avatar. By almost a billion to boot if wikipedia can be believed.

 

Key word: Inflation. But yes, no one can deny Avatar was a huge sucess.



curl-6 on 27 March 2014
theshonen8899 said:
The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.

Already addressed this: Wii and DS  were different enough that they did not cannibalize each other. Wii U and 3DS  are much more similar.



Around the Network
Seece on 27 March 2014
curl-6 said:
theshonen8899 said:
The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.

Already addressed this: Wii and DS  were different enough that they did not cannibalize each other. Wii U and 3DS  are much more similar.

How?? I fail to see much difference. Gaming on a handheld and gaming on a tv are so completely different that I can't imagine it's an either or situation for anybody, even if the games are similar ...



 

curl-6 on 27 March 2014
Seece said:
curl-6 said:
theshonen8899 said:
The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.

Already addressed this: Wii and DS  were different enough that they did not cannibalize each other. Wii U and 3DS  are much more similar.

How?? I fail to see much difference. Gaming on a handheld and gaming on a tv are so completely different that I can't imagine it's an either or situation for anybody, even if the games are similar ...

It's a way to get the Nintendo fix for a lower price.

Wii differentiated itself with the Wiimote and a more divergent library. 3DS and Wii U are too alike in both hardware and software.



zorg1000 on 27 March 2014
Seece said:
curl-6 said:
theshonen8899 said:
The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.

Already addressed this: Wii and DS  were different enough that they did not cannibalize each other. Wii U and 3DS  are much more similar.

How?? I fail to see much difference. Gaming on a handheld and gaming on a tv are so completely different that I can't imagine it's an either or situation for anybody, even if the games are similar ...

 look at my post on the previous page. Why is gaming on a handheld and gaming on a TV so different?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

curl-6 on 27 March 2014
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Let's look at the PS2 for a sec; it had a 150 million install base, and  yet...

- Goldeneye Rogue Agent barely sold more than Red Steel 2, despite being the sequel to a game that sold over 8 million.

- Critical darling Okami barely crossed 600k also.

- Silent Hill 4 barely crossed 500k, despite being from a popular series.

Clearly a big install base does not guarantee that every game will sell well.

But PS2 obviously had many instances of tons of hardcore games selling extremely well. The Wii does not. People used the Wii as their party console, but if they wanted to do any serious gaming beyond their Mario/Mario Kart sweet tooth, it's fairly obvious they bought one of the other two HD consoles. 

I had many friends that bought a Wii and were really excited about it in 2006/2007/2008, but by the second half of the generation, they were playing almost exclusively on their PS3 or 360 and rarely even bothering to boot up their Wii at all. 

There's also so many hours you can play Wii Sports before it starts to get stale. 

Core games outside of Mario could sell on Wii.

Twilight Princess is closing in on 7 million.

Monster Hunter Tri and Resident Evil 4 both cleared the 2 million mark.

Goldeneye 007 and Metroid Prime 3 are both about 1.8m. And if you count COD as "hardcore" in this context, then COD3, Wold at War, Modern Warfare, and Black Ops all sold between 1.3m and 2.2m.



Seece on 27 March 2014
zorg1000 said:
Seece said:
curl-6 said:
theshonen8899 said:
The Wii and DS both dominated within the same generation. Your point is moot.

Already addressed this: Wii and DS  were different enough that they did not cannibalize each other. Wii U and 3DS  are much more similar.

How?? I fail to see much difference. Gaming on a handheld and gaming on a tv are so completely different that I can't imagine it's an either or situation for anybody, even if the games are similar ...

 look at my post on the previous page. Why is gaming on a handheld and gaming on a TV so different?

Handheld gaming is more solitary, more mobile and generally has its own style, home consoles are the opposite. I can understand how someone is into one or the other, or both, but somebody deciding between the two? That's not happening en mass.