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

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

V-r0cK on 26 May 2014

Nintendo needed to change the name to Wii 2, keeping the "Wii" in the name, as it's only fitting since they use the same controllers as the Wii, rather than changing the name to something completely different. As well they needed to change the look of it as it's extremely similar to the Wii.

The Wii U sounds and looks like nothing more than an updated Wii, along with some of their games seem like its just updated (ie. NSMB, Wii Fit)



Around the Network
Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
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.

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and talk, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of this sophist reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true ! I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive and/or biased. I can't develop any discussion about design, it's irelevant, design is irrelevant. Even if Steve Jobs totally disagree with you about the importance of the design, that's shit for you, everything is irrelevant but your reasonning, so we can't discuss about design. Or about anything else.



Pavolink on 26 May 2014

With the same games? No.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Nirvana_Nut85 on 26 May 2014
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
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.

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and you think you are clever, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of the reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true. I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive or biased.

You keep claiming "sophisms" but it is very easy to determine that you do not have a clue what it means and do not understand that you are applying it incorrectly You do provide example's, you give  an uneducated opion based on no facts and revert to name calling when proven wrong. Yet you claim that I am the one who sounds stupid As the saying goes "those live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" I will repeat, efficient marketing does prove that design is irrelevant in the case of new iterations of hardware. You mock the design of the Wii U yet fail to acknowledge the majority of successful electronic devices and consoles such as the Xbone. You state that the Wii U's name did not confuse people and that the masses are aware Nintendo has a new console when that is false and "facts" have been provided to solidfy my points, unlike your opinions. You fail to acknowledge marketing as one of the most significant factors in selling a console. I don't know what magical land you live in but in the real world, your views are delusional at best.
.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
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.

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and you think you are clever, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of the reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true. I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive or biased.

You keep claiming "sophisms" but it is very easy to determine that you do not have a clue what it means and do not understand that you are applying it incorrectly You do provide example's, you give  an uneducated opion based on no facts and revert to name calling when proven wrong. Yet you claim that I am the one who sounds stupid As the saying goes "those live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" I will repeat, efficient marketing does prove that design is irrelevant in the case of new iterations of hardware. You mock the design of the Wii U yet fail to acknowledge the majority of successful electronic devices and consoles such as the Xbone. You state that the Wii U's name did not confuse people and that the masses are aware Nintendo has a new console when that is false and "facts" have been provided to solidfy my points, unlike your opinions. You fail to acknowledge marketing as one of the most significant factors in selling a console. I don't know what magical land you live in but in the real world, your views are delusional at best.
.

You switched to marketing and tell something I didn't say. Keep to design. I don't mock wii design, I'm not talking about the wii U name, I'm talking about design. Design is irrelevant, you said, that's what I'm talking about, I'm goin' to fix you. Keep to design. Why MS create a new design for every console, and even for new models, why Xbox one have a new design ? Why does Sony do the exact same thing. Why did sega did that ? Why Nintendo did the same for every single console but Wii U ? They are all, they were all living for 20 years in a magical land, with me ? Every single console for the 20 last years had a clear new design but the Wii U, millions of dollars have been spent on design even by MS, but still you are saying a new design is irrelevant to a new console. Explain why everyone is stupid to spend money on irrelevant things.



Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 on 26 May 2014

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and you think you are clever, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of the reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true. I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive or biased.

You keep claiming "sophisms" but it is very easy to determine that you do not have a clue what it means and do not understand that you are applying it incorrectly You do provide example's, you give  an uneducated opion based on no facts and revert to name calling when proven wrong. Yet you claim that I am the one who sounds stupid As the saying goes "those live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" I will repeat, efficient marketing does prove that design is irrelevant in the case of new iterations of hardware. You mock the design of the Wii U yet fail to acknowledge the majority of successful electronic devices and consoles such as the Xbone. You state that the Wii U's name did not confuse people and that the masses are aware Nintendo has a new console when that is false and "facts" have been provided to solidfy my points, unlike your opinions. You fail to acknowledge marketing as one of the most significant factors in selling a console. I don't know what magical land you live in but in the real world, your views are delusional at best.
.

You switched to marketing and tell something I didn't say. Keep to design. I don't mock wii design, I'm not talking about the wii U name, I'm talking about design. Design is irrelevant, you said, that's what I'm talking about, I'm goin' to fix you. Keep to design. Why MS create a new design for every console, and even for new models, why Xbox one have a new design ? Why does Sony do the exact same thing. Why did sega did that ? Why Nintendo did the same for every single console but Wii U ? They are all, they were all living for 20 years in a magical land, with me ? Every single console for the 20 last years had a clear new design but the Wii U, millions of dollars have been spent on design even by MS, but still you are saying a new design is irrelevant to a new console. Explain why everyone is stupid to spend money on irrelevant things.

You did in fact say it, go read through your previous posts, thank you. Keep to design ? the original conversation was the name. You consitantly keep changing the subject when you are not able to back up for statements when being called out. Plain and simple. I`ve already answered your question previously but I will again post it in the hopes that it might sink in. Design changes due to the creativity of the company. It may have been important in previous generations of electronics but companies like Apple, Samsung, etc have proven that you do not have to change the design of the product (drastically) if you can market and thoroughly explain to the consumer the difference between iterations. Nintendo was on the right track with this coming off the success of the Wii however they not only poorly marketed the Wii U and were not able to provide a clear understanding that Nintendo has a new console (to the general public) but the also gave it a name that confused people into believe it was an add on. The design of the electronic is irrelevant if the functions of it provide value to the consumer. The PS4 could have been bulky and ugly like the Xbox One but the majority would have still purchased it as Sony communicated efficiently the value of it`s product. They also could have followed Nintendo`s path and made a few minor changes and the result still would have been the same.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Ninricken on 26 May 2014

Yes, because nobody is interested in U.



I don't hate Microsoft, I don't hate PC,
I don't prefer Sony, I don't prefer Nintendo.
...Ok, I love Nintendo but this is something about tolerance, ok?

I'm a gamer with one of the greatest hobbies and I want to share this greatness with everyone.

Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

That's the subject, you are full of sophisms to deny other the right to think and you think you are clever, so I tried to make a silly example to make fun of the reasonning. But even that silly reasonning made on purpose, you think it's true. I can do nothing for you, you don't understand the difference between mandatory and relevant, what ever explanation and example I can give you, and that's make you able to come up with "yet due to marketing it has sold well, therefore proving it's design irrelevant". So anything anyone can say is irelevant. Let's be clear again, that doesn't make an argument, that makes you sound stupid, agressive or biased.

You keep claiming "sophisms" but it is very easy to determine that you do not have a clue what it means and do not understand that you are applying it incorrectly You do provide example's, you give  an uneducated opion based on no facts and revert to name calling when proven wrong. Yet you claim that I am the one who sounds stupid As the saying goes "those live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones" I will repeat, efficient marketing does prove that design is irrelevant in the case of new iterations of hardware. You mock the design of the Wii U yet fail to acknowledge the majority of successful electronic devices and consoles such as the Xbone. You state that the Wii U's name did not confuse people and that the masses are aware Nintendo has a new console when that is false and "facts" have been provided to solidfy my points, unlike your opinions. You fail to acknowledge marketing as one of the most significant factors in selling a console. I don't know what magical land you live in but in the real world, your views are delusional at best.
.

You switched to marketing and tell something I didn't say. Keep to design. I don't mock wii design, I'm not talking about the wii U name, I'm talking about design. Design is irrelevant, you said, that's what I'm talking about, I'm goin' to fix you. Keep to design. Why MS create a new design for every console, and even for new models, why Xbox one have a new design ? Why does Sony do the exact same thing. Why did sega did that ? Why Nintendo did the same for every single console but Wii U ? They are all, they were all living for 20 years in a magical land, with me ? Every single console for the 20 last years had a clear new design but the Wii U, millions of dollars have been spent on design even by MS, but still you are saying a new design is irrelevant to a new console. Explain why everyone is stupid to spend money on irrelevant things.

You did in fact say it, go read through your previous posts, thank you. Keep to design ? the original conversation was the name. You consitantly keep changing the subject when you are not able to back up for statements when being called out. Plain and simple. I`ve already answered your question previously but I will again post it in the hopes that it might sink in. Design changes due to the creativity of the company. It may have been important in previous generations of electronics but companies like Apple, Samsung, etc have proven that you do not have to change the design of the product (drastically) if you can market and thoroughly explain to the consumer the difference between iterations. Nintendo was on the right track with this coming off the success of the Wii however they not only poorly marketed the Wii U and were not able to provide a clear understanding that Nintendo has a new console (to the general public) but the also gave it a name that confused people into believe it was an add on. The design of the electronic is irrelevant if the functions of it provide value to the consumer. The PS4 could have been bulky and ugly like the Xbox One but the majority would have still purchased it as Sony communicated efficiently the value of it`s product. They also could have followed Nintendo`s path and made a few minor changes and the result still would have been the same.

That's the first point I mentionned on my first post, I keep on the subject:

"There are many ways to make the customer understand you've got a new product.

A new design : failed
[etc.]
Don't blame the name.
I really can't believe you can have 120 100 millions of happy customers, 20 of them fans of the brand, have a new product good enough for them, and you don't sell well because of the name. "

So, here we are, you had to go in a lot of directions again, the quality of design (this one is a great trick, but you already used it twice), example based on a very different device that don't have room for large design changes like a smartphone, explaining it's a thing of the past (ignoring PS4 and XBone)... Then marketing, value for consumer, etc. and sure it does all matter a lot, but:

You didn't answer why MS and Sony spent money and time to come with a new design for their consoles because... you know you can't. They don't live in a magical world, they know the power of marketing, they explain concepts (social, kinect) and all, but they still have a new design, like every single console but the Wii U. You are done, and I've got my point.

We could now switch to the next point, and point by point, explain how much of a failure is the Wii U as a Wii 2, in term of value, marketing (this, you agree on, but I think it's not marketable), how it throws away the idea of moving and accessibility, the weak concept of a tablet, launch games (giving what wii sport was for the wii). And, overall that the Wii U is a failure as a new product and as a Wii 2, and that's the reason why it would not sell twice as much by a better name and less confusion. But here, I feel tired. I think I've got my point about design, that's good enough for me. Or... do you think you can talk again about smartphone design, and design quality, and all ? I will read it.



SnK0610 on 26 May 2014

There is nothing wrong with the Wii U design.

The Wii U design looks better then Xbox one design.

Also all the previous most successful consoles didn't have any special design.

What matters is the games the quality of the console and good marketing.

And the first thing that market your console is the name.

Nintendo have chosen a confusing name.

A lot of the costumers didn't know Nintendo has a new console.

And that effected sales.

Better name for the console would have given Nintendo much better sales.



Matthewconner2100 on 26 May 2014

Yes. Most people thought wii u was a new Wii with a controller