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

Forums - Nintendo - If Wii U had a different name would sales be higher?

Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
 


Design is irrelevant. Not only Apple but other companies have proven this when it comes to desgin. You do not need a dramatic overhaul of the design of a device for it to be successful.The Wii U is not the exact same design as the Wii. It is similar but there are differences (size, edges,etc).

Pricing is irrelevant. I have said it several times now. The gamepad, the gamepad, the gamepad. The console may have only cost in the $200's to make but the actual gamepad was a significant partof the cost. This was the first time Nintendo lost money for each console sold. It wasn't a huge leap over the previous gen, but a huge leap over the Wii in terms of power.

You stated the Wii U did not have any games. I disagreed and provided the fact that the Wii U had better games at launch. I'll use meta scores as an example. NSMBU 84, Nintendo Land 77, Zombi U 77 vs  Killzone SF 73, Knack 54 vs Forza 5 80, DR3 78, Ryse 60. I'm not being biased. I prefer Sony over MS but had to admit that the Xbone had a better launch lineup than the PS4. Providing facts is not being biased. I also never said the Wii U was a success, it seems you like to put words in my mouth when your not able to properly address my counter argument :) If you recall my earlier statements, I included that marketing plays a huge factor in sales, which is why the Xboxne has sold well and PS4 is doing extremely well.

Wii U is a terrible name. If they had advertised properly, they may have been able to do better in sales whereas if the console was simply named Wii 2, it at least would have allowed the general consumer/casual to have a better example of determing Nintendo had a new console. As I've stated it would not had been a success story like the WIi but would have had better sales. News does matter, articles do matter especially when coming from major news networks. This easily creates confusion for the general masses. I also mentioned threads because I've read dozens where people have mentioned family or friends believing the Wii U was an add on. That proves quite a bit.

Your last statement was rendered inaccurate when you claimed "the clients do not care about the product".  Everything you mentioned (Internet, ads, news) was executed opoorly by Nintendo which created mass confusion. What I stated was that even with the  poor execution, if the console had simply been named Wii 2 it would have generated much higher sales. 12 million would have fallen in line with what the PS3 (12,295,797) had sold during the same time frame and ahead of the Xbox 360 (9,773,010). That is definately not unreasonable.

You don't even care to read what I explain.

So, your position is that design, price, power and a strong launch (if better in term of score than a poor launch for competition that no one can forecast) are irrevelant. The poor ads, internet, and news are "mistakes", and not related to a weak, confusing and unappealing concept (compared to people moving a wiimote in family for the first time a few years before). Name matters so much, "Wii U" is extremely confusing. That's your position, I disagree, and I think your position makes no sense.

My position is that the pricing, design, power, game at launch (not good but proving the hardware capability, and giving immensely popular license like COD), fanbase, positive PR, and concept (a basic "back to plain gaming + social networks") would have made a Playstation 4 a success even as a Playstation U. And for the same reason, even a Wii 2 would have had a very similar fate.

Excuse me? I've addressed each claim you've made and provided a well thought reason (and actually used examples instead of just OPINIONS) as to why it is false. Just because you cannot provide a better response to my statements does not mean you should make ignorant comments to try and detract from what I've stated.

 I am failing to understand where you are coming up with the assumption that I believe "a strong launch is irrelevant". I never claimed a strong launch was irrelevent. Nowhere did  I state that, please get your facts straight. I did say that the overall design of the console is irrelevant (Xbone sells well but it is hidious in terms of consumer electronics).  I said that the power of the Wii U was irrelevant to the higher cost in comparison to tthe Wii launch price due to the manufacturing cost of the actual gamepad which contributed significantly to the total cost of the console. Nintendo was not going to release it for $250 and loose $100 per console. The don't have the spending money like Microsoft and do not take losses like Sony. Poor marketing + the name of the console contributed to poor sales. The majority seem to be in agreement. News articles, analysts have stated this but they all must be wrong and you must be right. Unfortunately it seems that your misconstruing your opinion as reality.

Yes all those things combined contribute to sales. However, Playstation Vita had all of the above and was coming off the success of the 80+ million sold PSP, yet it has failed to move systems in the way it's predecessor did. The PSVIta had much more positive media coverage than the Wii U. The relaity is, due to Nintendo's poor choice in naming and marketing, the console has hit the abysmal sales level. Most casual consumers do not realize there is a new Nintendo console and probably never will till the next generation unless Nintendo pulls a horshoe out of their ass. Playstation U would have been confusing to the general consumer if they advertised in the same manner that Nintendo did. It's that simple.


I really fail to understand if you are mistaking it on purpose or not. Let's do that step by step.

Basically, from the very begining, you make each point irrevelant by example of products that suceed in most of the other points. I failed to explain, or you failed to understand, so let's explain one last time.

If a product like the XBone doesn't have a good design but have a very strong advertising campain, it doesn't prove the design is irrevelant. It proves a strong advertising campain is relevant. Other products will prove the design is relevant, other companies will be sucessfull by design, that's a plain fact. Steve Jobs was known to pay extreme attention to design, and provided a few examples of success. Can you just thing for a second and agree on that ? What you are saying, and repeating from the beginning is that if a product proves something is not mandatory, then this thing irrelevant. It makes absolutely no sense, you are confusing relevant and mandatory. You are saying it again "I did say that the overall design of the console is irrelevant (Xbone sells well but it is hidious in terms of consumer electronics).". So, even if I told you multiple time it's not about having everything right, you think you have a good example here, that you are making a good argument, and that I should be convinced. It's not the case, your logic is wrong. Something can be relevant, can matter, can have strong impact on sales, can really make a product new, and still not be mandatory for every products. Design does matter, so many people and companies spend a lot and believe in the impact of the design, it's a fact, the only way you can make design irrelevant is by having deep flaws in your logic. Your flaw is to make a confusion between mandatory and relevant.

Second thing, I'm not talking about a good design, but about a new design to help make it a new product. But you also made it irrelevant in a previous answer with exactly the same trick. Some products successful in multiple areas did prove it's not mandatory. So by an example you made it irrevelant, and that's again totally wrong. Nintendo proves it's relevant : except for the Wii U that is strongly similar to the Wii, they came with a totally new design every time. NES, Super NES, N64, Gamecube and Wii have totally different designs. Because, and again that's fact, a new design is relevant, why would Nintendo and so many companies fully change the design everytime if it was irelevant ? That does make sense, design change a lot, new product have new design, new design make a product new.

If you can agree you are making a strong logical mistake here, we can talk about price, launch, marketing, PR, naming, PS Vita failure, etc. If not, OK, I'm done.


Honestly, I may as well be speaking with a brick wall. You've constantly contradicted your argument throughout this discussion. You did not fail to explain your opinion, you failed to understand facts.

Throughout this discussion I have continually pointed out your fallacies. Instead of admitting to it you either try and put words in my mouth (to which I correct) or attempt to create another nonsensical rant that diverts from the matter that I addressed.  You claimed that one of Wii U's factors of it not selling was the design of the console. Instead of your tactics in argument, I actually provided companies that create new iterations in electronics while keeping a similar design of the previous release with some minor changes (like Nintendo did with the Wii U). I proved that they still managed respectable sales despite this. I also provided an example of the Xbox One which is nowhere near as sleak or appealing in appearance as the PS4 or Wii U, yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant . I don't think I have a good argument, I know I do.

Companies previously changed designs drastically because they were under the assumption that you need to have your hardware stand out from the previous elecvtronic iterations to have the consumer understand that it is different from the previous generation. We've seen a change in the tide over the past 5-10 years. Electronics companies have proven that this is not necessarily the case and that you can make minor changes in appearance while keeping the same design (cost cutting for them ost part). As I've stated, cellphones, tablets ,etc are fine examples. Nintendo was not wrong in using this concept. That is not the reason why the console is not selling. I will say this again to you and maybe you can do a little homework on it instead of going off opinion but the name of the console confused people, along with poor marketing that did not help either. Major news sites were confusing the console as an add one. Consumers have confused the console as an add on or are not aware of it's existence. What  else do you need ot understand that you are wrong? Is it really that difficult?

Your right, this conversation is done because I could probably give you every educated response and provide you with every article necessary that for the majority would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my logic is correct yet you would still hold on to your pipe dreams that you were somehow right.

You still fail to understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, and try to divert in other subjects.

But that's the point, design is not mandatory but is (one of the multiple things) relevant. Proving it to not be mandatory by an example doesn't prove it to be irrelevant.That's very, very simple thing to understand. Anyone can understand this, it's basically the meaning these words have, you can't fail to understand that. And I said that to you, I explain that to you with simple words and examples, the way I would explain that to a kid... and still you reply "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". No. It's stupid to say that, really, it's a sophism. Could I say "The Wii due to its wiimote has sold well, therefore proving 3rd party support irrelevant" ? No, it makes no sense. And every single answer you provide is based on the very same sophism.



Around the Network

If it was called the Wii2 or something straightforward and self explanatory like that, it would have sold significantly higher. I don't see how anyone can refute that!! I know it is picking up (some) steam but my brother works at in electronics and he says the thing people say the most is "do you guys have the new Wii?" and he say's "Oh you mean the WiiU?" and they are like "no you know the Wii with the nun-chuck remotes" and they have no clue what the Wii U even is. Even my family members who have seen the commercials on TV that very clearly say for "Wii U" .. everyone just thinks it is the Wii. Maybe with like an Add On or something, hence the Wii "U" ... I know that is a VERY small sample size but based on what you see people talking about on forums or other gaming sites it seems pretty clear that the name has been a disastrous mistake. Obviously for us gamers it is obvious. Most of us are like "what are people stupid? They clearly said its the "Wii U" which is different from the Wii!" ... sorry to tell you, most people are stupid. or ignorant when it comes to gaming. and that's not their fault. The Wii had a very large casual crowd and so you can't expect casuals to be well versed in the gaming industry. Even as a gamer and knowing full well the Wii U is a brand new system, I hate the name. I know it's next gen, I know its new (ish) I know it is technically the Wii2.. but it bothers me still because they really messed up. I think it is a bigger deal than some hardcore fans admit. To the average Joe, "Wii U" just sounds like some sort of game or add on for the Wii... that's just the facts. And most people could care less about buying that stuff. Which explains why it has taken so long for the Wii U to have any momentum at all. Even now we are celebrating 34k a week as "good" because it has set the bar so low for itself. I think this thread is needed and I haven't read any other responses yet but I hope at least a few people say "Wii 2" .. or something intelligent like that. I didn't like your example you gave lol no hard feelings just thought it was worse than Wii U even haha ;p Everything would be fixed if this was named Wii 2 and marketed as a next gen Nintendo system. Rather than named Wii U and advertised as if it was an add on tablet to your current Wii. No one wants that. They did it wrong and it's very simple to see where they went wrong.



Alby_da_Wolf said:
PigPen said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Wii U is quite ugly, but it's not the problem: the biggest problem has been deciding to use the Wii brand and then taking the retarded decision of killing the first Wii too early, basically killing that very brand name that Ninty wanted to use in ts new console. Besides this, Ninty marketing did a really shitty job to let people know Wii U isn't just a Wii variant with a new contrellere, but a whole new console. This completed the disaster. A disaster that Ninty can now partially fix, but even doing its best, it won't cancel tha fact that Ninty wasted that whole year when Wii U could have been the latest and coolest console.
It can still fight to keep at least 2nd place, anyway.


I respect your opinion.  But I say the Wii U is one of the most beautiful consoles ever.  Nintendo didn't kill the Wii early, it was dead.  The Wii U doesn't have to settle for second, it can very well take first place.  You're feeling some type of way, jealousy.

Well, "one of the most beautiful consoles ever" is a very subjective opinion, so I'll respect it too and I won't contest it, as criticising it too would be subjective, and in fact in my previous post I criticised only Ninty's strategy in the transition and Wii U marketing in general (although MS and Sony ones can be even worse if they are in the right mood to do marketing disasters  ). About killing Wii early, Ninty consoles' system sellers are mainly their biggest 1st party games, so it's Ninty that decides when a console of its must die.


alby da wolf... I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, but I totally 100% agree with everything you said. Even the fact that all of our opinions are subjective.. that just is truth. There is no definitive right answer, it is all opinion and it is all subjective. So it's kinda silly to argue about. Then again maybe that's why it's so fun to argue about. Sharing opinions in an agressive way lol You're a good writer and you come off as a intelligent and level headed individual. I always like seeing that and people like you deserve to be called out (: 

Disclaimer:

*didnt mean for back to back posts, not sure if someone else posted since i last did* 



Maybe a negligible amount more or less.



Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:

I really fail to understand if you are mistaking it on purpose or not. Let's do that step by step.

Basically, from the very begining, you make each point irrevelant by example of products that suceed in most of the other points. I failed to explain, or you failed to understand, so let's explain one last time.

If a product like the XBone doesn't have a good design but have a very strong advertising campain, it doesn't prove the design is irrevelant. It proves a strong advertising campain is relevant. Other products will prove the design is relevant, other companies will be sucessfull by design, that's a plain fact. Steve Jobs was known to pay extreme attention to design, and provided a few examples of success. Can you just thing for a second and agree on that ? What you are saying, and repeating from the beginning is that if a product proves something is not mandatory, then this thing irrelevant. It makes absolutely no sense, you are confusing relevant and mandatory. You are saying it again "I did say that the overall design of the console is irrelevant (Xbone sells well but it is hidious in terms of consumer electronics).". So, even if I told you multiple time it's not about having everything right, you think you have a good example here, that you are making a good argument, and that I should be convinced. It's not the case, your logic is wrong. Something can be relevant, can matter, can have strong impact on sales, can really make a product new, and still not be mandatory for every products. Design does matter, so many people and companies spend a lot and believe in the impact of the design, it's a fact, the only way you can make design irrelevant is by having deep flaws in your logic. Your flaw is to make a confusion between mandatory and relevant.

Second thing, I'm not talking about a good design, but about a new design to help make it a new product. But you also made it irrelevant in a previous answer with exactly the same trick. Some products successful in multiple areas did prove it's not mandatory. So by an example you made it irrevelant, and that's again totally wrong. Nintendo proves it's relevant : except for the Wii U that is strongly similar to the Wii, they came with a totally new design every time. NES, Super NES, N64, Gamecube and Wii have totally different designs. Because, and again that's fact, a new design is relevant, why would Nintendo and so many companies fully change the design everytime if it was irelevant ? That does make sense, design change a lot, new product have new design, new design make a product new.

If you can agree you are making a strong logical mistake here, we can talk about price, launch, marketing, PR, naming, PS Vita failure, etc. If not, OK, I'm done.


Honestly, I may as well be speaking with a brick wall. You've constantly contradicted your argument throughout this discussion. You did not fail to explain your opinion, you failed to understand facts.

Throughout this discussion I have continually pointed out your fallacies. Instead of admitting to it you either try and put words in my mouth (to which I correct) or attempt to create another nonsensical rant that diverts from the matter that I addressed.  You claimed that one of Wii U's factors of it not selling was the design of the console. Instead of your tactics in argument, I actually provided companies that create new iterations in electronics while keeping a similar design of the previous release with some minor changes (like Nintendo did with the Wii U). I proved that they still managed respectable sales despite this. I also provided an example of the Xbox One which is nowhere near as sleak or appealing in appearance as the PS4 or Wii U, yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant . I don't think I have a good argument, I know I do.

Companies previously changed designs drastically because they were under the assumption that you need to have your hardware stand out from the previous elecvtronic iterations to have the consumer understand that it is different from the previous generation. We've seen a change in the tide over the past 5-10 years. Electronics companies have proven that this is not necessarily the case and that you can make minor changes in appearance while keeping the same design (cost cutting for them ost part). As I've stated, cellphones, tablets ,etc are fine examples. Nintendo was not wrong in using this concept. That is not the reason why the console is not selling. I will say this again to you and maybe you can do a little homework on it instead of going off opinion but the name of the console confused people, along with poor marketing that did not help either. Major news sites were confusing the console as an add one. Consumers have confused the console as an add on or are not aware of it's existence. What  else do you need ot understand that you are wrong? Is it really that difficult?

Your right, this conversation is done because I could probably give you every educated response and provide you with every article necessary that for the majority would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my logic is correct yet you would still hold on to your pipe dreams that you were somehow right.

You still fail to understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, and try to divert in other subjects.

But that's the point, design is not mandatory but is (one of the multiple things) relevant. Proving it to not be mandatory by an example doesn't prove it to be irrelevant.That's very, very simple thing to understand. Anyone can understand this, it's basically the meaning these words have, you can't fail to understand that. And I said that to you, I explain that to you with simple words and examples, the way I would explain that to a kid... and still you reply "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". No. It's stupid to say that, really, it's a sophism. Could I say "The Wii due to its wiimote has sold well, therefore proving 3rd party support irrelevant" ? No, it makes no sense. And every single answer you provide is based on the very same sophism.

Do you actually read what you have wrote before posting? It seems you have a very, very hard time understanding  plain and simple English. All you have done is provided an opinion. Your opinion is not fact. You could not even provide a relevant example to back up your argument. Nothing you have stated is remotety close to being factual and instead of responding in a respectful manner when proven wrong , over and over again, you instead have diverted to using ad hominems. Your only embarrassing yourself. The following video sums up your attempt at logic.

No one is agreeing with you. You obviously have no understanding of the power of marketing in the Western world and should refrain from commenting. Your literally all over the place in your responses. What the hell does "The Wii due to its wiimote has sold well, therefore proving 3rd party support irrelevant. No. It's stupid to say that, really, it's sophism"? have anything to do whatsoever with anything we have been discussing? Please stop changing the subject.  I will breifly addressaddress this absurd claim. The Wii did not need huge 3rd party support. People were enthralled over motion gaming. Nitnendo would have sold the same amount of consoles without 3rd party support due to hype and excellent marketing.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Around the Network
Chasesdaddy84 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

[...]

Well, "one of the most beautiful consoles ever" is a very subjective opinion, so I'll respect it too and I won't contest it, as criticising it too would be subjective, and in fact in my previous post I criticised only Ninty's strategy in the transition and Wii U marketing in general (although MS and Sony ones can be even worse if they are in the right mood to do marketing disasters  ). About killing Wii early, Ninty consoles' system sellers are mainly their biggest 1st party games, so it's Ninty that decides when a console of its must die.


alby da wolf... I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, but I totally 100% agree with everything you said. Even the fact that all of our opinions are subjective.. that just is truth. There is no definitive right answer, it is all opinion and it is all subjective. So it's kinda silly to argue about. Then again maybe that's why it's so fun to argue about. Sharing opinions in an agressive way lol You're a good writer and you come off as a intelligent and level headed individual. I always like seeing that and people like you deserve to be called out (: 

Disclaimer:

*didnt mean for back to back posts, not sure if someone else posted since i last did* 

Thanks! And yes, I agree that as long as it doesn't really get nasty, discussion, even quite heated, can be a lot of fun, particularly if opinions differ (if they were all the same it would get boring quite soon). 



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


If they hade named it the Wii HD and launched it two years earlier it would have sold much better, especially at around $300 without the gamepad.

Sure it would have eaten away some of the Wii's sales but those hade already dropped a lot back then, and it would have created a much bigger install base for new Mario Kart, Zelda etc. games.

Then maybe launch the tablet controller in 2012, Wii Fit showed that add on hardware can sell really well.



I don't think so, the problem is the hardware design.



AnthonyW86 said:

If they hade named it the Wii HD and launched it two years earlier it would have sold much better, especially at around $300 without the gamepad.

Sure it would have eaten away some of the Wii's sales but those hade already dropped a lot back then, and it would have created a much bigger install base for new Mario Kart, Zelda etc. games.

Then maybe launch the tablet controller in 2012, Wii Fit showed that add on hardware can sell really well.


I disagree. The console was launched in the right timeframe for Nintendo. People would have been just as confused with Wii HD and it would have failed due to the fact it was exactly like the Wii without that gamepad. Wii sales heavily dropped off at the end of the generation, they didn't pull a Sony and gain sales. The tablet also would have failed significantly. 

The Wii U is the significantly more powerful successor to the Wii. I like to think of the Wii U as a step from high school to University. Once Nintendo is done there, not only will they know their market they will create a system that appeals to hardcore and casuals, creating what I would like to call the "Master system" in which either Sony or MS will be forced out of the console market. But a lot of this is all opinion 

 

The Name

I found the name to be fine, the fact that Nintendo Wii U rolls off the tongue like the Nintendo Wii did, the same way PS4 does (4 is the bad luck number in Japan). If the console was marketed better it wouldn't have been in this mess. 

 

The "gamepad" argument

Everyone assumes the console would work without it, while it's true for some things, that's not true for all. It plays a big role in every major function of the console, not only as text entry, but eShop and Miiverse navigation and various other apps, netflix can't even be used without it. How well the gamepad is integrated with the console not only shows Nintendo's dedication but their innovations towards design. It offers assymetric gameplay, not just symetric like the Ps4 + Vita, which most developers lack the creative intent to make games designed for the gamepad. They say they have these ideas, but when it comes to put money where their mouth is, they're nowhere to be seen.

 

The marketing fallicies

If any console needed marketing it was the Wii U, the fact here is that Nintendo's marketing team should be fired, not Iwata, not Reggie, the damn marketing team.  The lack, there of marketing is what is/was hurting the Wii U in a big way. Although it helps that I see more Nintendo commercials than Sony where I am(Seems like Sony likes to fails to market to the other large market in NA). This is turning around but it was a huge problem. 

 

The "Power" argument

People keep saying that Nintendo should release a system, "Just like the other two next-gen" or release a "real next-gen console". Lets all face the realities, the Wii U, for fact, is 8th gen. It is next-gen as much as Sony and MS fanboys want not believe it. Arguably, power is nice, but design and power have to go together like bread and butter. The PS4 is just an eraser and the Xbox One is a VCR, their designs make sense to the power they output. The Wii U's design doesn't make sense, but the games that come from it are beautiful , in glorious native 1080p when available (Although 1080p is childs play when phones can reach it now). The console does everything you can ask it to do. Nothing more, nothing less. Hell as a future developer, I hopefully plan to one day create a game for a Nintendo console that can utilize all the power i can put in to it.

The pricing

At this moment, 250 dollars for a Wii U would be a perfect price point, though preferably with a redesigned and smaller gamepad. 300 is still one hell of a deal for what you get. 

 

 

Lastly, how I percieve this whole Wii U hate thing is just people making excuses. They see the game, they want the games. but they refuse to put 300 down on a console, opting to upgrade their phones for the same amount or purchasing a PS4 for $450(399 US), or an Xbox One 499 (soon to be 399) when they damn well know the game lineups are pure shit right now. People are cheap and love to find excuses to not purchase something if they don't have to. Well sir or madam if you want to play Pikmin 3 you need to buy a Wii U, if you want to play Mario Kart 8 you need to buy a Wii U (Don't get me started on people who think this game can run on 3DS). The Wii U, like the Wii is a fun social console with lots of appeal, it even plays the Wii games that you enjoy! Why play all the games everyone else enjoys, play the games that U enjoy, that U want, and U will play. 



The name Wii U is very confusing.

A lot of people don't even know Nintendo has a new console!

They  made a mistake with the name they have chosen.

Everything else with the console is great.

The design is great.

The console looks better then Xbox one.

It is the first Nintendo console that has HD graphics.

It has a library of popular Nintendo games with HD graphics for the first time.

The price is great.

It costs less money then the competitors.

The controller design is also great.

Overall There is nothing wrong with the console.

The only problem is the name.

They should have chosen a different name.