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?

Conina on 26 May 2014
SnK0610 said:

The name Wii U is very confusing.

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

That only speaks for the lack of interest into a new (Nintendo?) console, if the name alone constitutes an insurmountable barrier. People who are interested in a new console will find informations about every actual console in a heartbeat. And people, who lost interest in console gaming years ago (a part of them switched to smartphones and tablets) won't care, whichever name Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony chose for their products. 

A few years ago, many people claimed that "Xbox 360" instead of "Xbox 2" is a very confusing name.

Apple doesn't have a problem to market a product with a confusing name or confusing numbering (iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S... why not 3, 4, 5, 6...). They even have no problem to market a new version of a product when they keep the old name (iPod touch, iPad, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro...), because the general interest is there and consumers are already waiting for a new version to be released and keep themselves informed.

Car manufacturers also have no problem keeping the old name for a new model (Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Porsche 911...) and it doesn't hurt their sales... customers interested in a new car will inform themselves about the differences between the different models with the same name.

The "people are too stupid to find out that a new Nintendo console was launched"-meme is an urban legend IMHO... those few who really haven't got that information after 18 months aren't interested in a console in the first place.



Around the Network
Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Chasesdaddy84 said:
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.

I understand the name is confusing for the average joe.

But for the average joe, if you say to him "Wii 2", what does that mean for him ? He's perhaps stupid, or ignorant about gaming, casual. Could your brother try it ? Tell the client "What you saw in advertising is a Wii 2". Does it make in anyway straight forward ? I don't think so.

I'm myself an average joe for fridge, if you tell me "it's a fridge 2" I have no idea what you are talking about. The guy doesn't care about and don't really get things that makes a new console like power, design, best version of COD, Full HD, etc. What he sees is a new accessory, how do you explain what is it a "Wii 2", why does he have to spend 300$ for the box ? I really think that whatever name and advertising you do, the Wii U is confusing at core for its public. And not as appealing as the Wii was : the casual guy that don't want to buy a Wii U as an accessory will have a hard time to understand the value of a new console that for him consists essentially in this new accessory.



Nirvana_Nut85 on 26 May 2014

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.

Nintendo did not fail in the design that is not why the Wii U did not sell. The name and marketing of the Wii U were the largest factors.

I find your response rather hypocritical and amusing at best. You claim that the companies I`ve listed aren`t credible and give a poor excuse as room to expand. Have you not paid attention to the changes in cell phone design over the years ? The iPhone (1) provided a layout that has been mimicked by the majority of cell phone companies. Apple could have easily have done drastic changes with the design but chose not to as by having minor changes, they could still implement new features and technology and cut costs by keeping a similar design, therefore proving future iterations of design irrelevant in order to communicate a new product to a customer. T.V`s are similar. Besides a minor tweak here or there you do not see companies doing drastic changes in order to communicate a new product. There are numerous electronics products that are now falling in line with this trend. They do this as they are able to cut costs in R&D and have a clear understanding that you only have to communicate new features to a consumer while being able to keep a similar design. Another industry that has followed this is the car industry. This unfortunately is the future.

 I didn’t answer your question about M$ and Sony spending money?  You’ve constantly ignored my facts and continually have changed the subject. You’ve provided two companies that differ in the vast sea of others who have been following the current trend as I have provided. That does not justify your argument  as I can point out numerous companies that follow the opposite (majority rules). Design is not a significant differentiator any more in the world of electronics. It is all about the features that are provided. M$ would have stuck to a similar design with the Xbone as the current iteration of the Xbox 360 slim if they were able to fit all of the hardware inside without issue. All you need to do is look at their line of electronics to understand this.

 I have already answered and deconstructed your points. I’ve proven why you’re incorrect in your false assumptions that Wii 2 would not have allowed for more casual consumer awareness and increased sales. I advised poor marketing was the largest factor by failing to communicate that the Wii U was more than an add on but you fail to understand as you either have a weak background in how business and target marketing works or simply uneducated in what impacts Western markets, which seems to be the case.

How about you look at the majority of responses in this thread which are not by people purposely trolling? You are a minority in your opinion. I’ll also now link numerous articles for you “In hopes it sinks into your head” how wrong you are.


http://mynintendonews.com/2013/10/15/analyst-says-wii-u-hurt-by-retailer-confusion-and-misinformation/

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/11/nintendo_addresses_confusion_surrounding_wii_us_name_in_latest_tv_commercial

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/04/iwata-admits-some-consumers-are-confused-about-the-wii-u/

http://www.destructoid.com/pachter-wii-u-is-two-years-too-late-has-a-dumb-name-203661.phtml

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/22/5237446/nintendo-reminds-consumers-that-the-wii-u-is-a-new-system


 



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

SnK0610 on 26 May 2014

There is no doubt the name has a major effect on Nintendo sales.

Wii U is a very confusing name.

Nintendo should have chosen a different name.

The sales would have been much better.



Conina on 26 May 2014

The name is sound and smoke. (Goethe's Faust)

If the product speaks for itself, the name is irrelevant.



Around the Network
Zadainie on 26 May 2014

A better name would have helped.I have been saying this for years.The Name "Wii U" does not help.Many casuals and hardcore gamers think that it's still a Wii console.



Jumpin on 26 May 2014

Nintendo Ultra is so 1995.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin on 26 May 2014
Zadainie said:

A better name would have helped.I have been saying this for years.The Name "Wii U" does not help.Many casuals and hardcore gamers think that it's still a Wii console.


Any proof of this? I have never heard of such a thing.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

brendude13 on 26 May 2014

Nope. Not at all.



Norris2k on 26 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

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.

Nintendo did not fail in the design that is not why the Wii U did not sell. The name and marketing of the Wii U were the largest factors.

I find your response rather hypocritical and amusing at best. You claim that the companies I`ve listed aren`t credible and give a poor excuse as room to expand. Have you not paid attention to the changes in cell phone design over the years ? The iPhone (1) provided a layout that has been mimicked by the majority of cell phone companies. Apple could have easily have done drastic changes with the design but chose not to as by having minor changes, they could still implement new features and technology and cut costs by keeping a similar design, therefore proving future iterations of design irrelevant in order to communicate a new product to a customer. T.V`s are similar. Besides a minor tweak here or there you do not see companies doing drastic changes in order to communicate a new product. There are numerous electronics products that are now falling in line with this trend. They do this as they are able to cut costs in R&D and have a clear understanding that you only have to communicate new features to a consumer while being able to keep a similar design. Another industry that has followed this is the car industry. This unfortunately is the future.

 I didn’t answer your question about M$ and Sony spending money?  You’ve constantly ignored my facts and continually have changed the subject. You’ve provided two companies that differ in the vast sea of others who have been following the current trend as I have provided. That does not justify your argument  as I can point out numerous companies that follow the opposite (majority rules). Design is not a significant differentiator any more in the world of electronics. It is all about the features that are provided. M$ would have stuck to a similar design with the Xbone as the current iteration of the Xbox 360 slim if they were able to fit all of the hardware inside without issue. All you need to do is look at their line of electronics to understand this.

 I have already answered and deconstructed your points. I’ve proven why you’re incorrect in your false assumptions that Wii 2 would not have allowed for more casual consumer awareness and increased sales. I advised poor marketing was the largest factor by failing to communicate that the Wii U was more than an add on but you fail to understand as you either have a weak background in how business and target marketing works or simply uneducated in what impacts Western markets, which seems to be the case.

How about you look at the majority of responses in this thread which are not by people purposely trolling? You are a minority in your opinion. I’ll also now link numerous articles for you “In hopes it sinks into your head” how wrong you are.


http://mynintendonews.com/2013/10/15/analyst-says-wii-u-hurt-by-retailer-confusion-and-misinformation/

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/11/nintendo_addresses_confusion_surrounding_wii_us_name_in_latest_tv_commercial

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/04/iwata-admits-some-consumers-are-confused-about-the-wii-u/

http://www.destructoid.com/pachter-wii-u-is-two-years-too-late-has-a-dumb-name-203661.phtml

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/22/5237446/nintendo-reminds-consumers-that-the-wii-u-is-a-new-system


 

Based on TV, car and smartphone which all have very strong design constraints, you see trends for console design that even Sony and MS are too stupid and old to see. About design your answer is so bad I give you more time.

Marketing is not a problem, marketing this product is. The first link quote someone telling than even sellers are confused, that's one problem and that the console don't have a game like wii sport to clarify and sell. Read your own link, I agree with her. And anyway we are not voting, especially not with Patcher.

You want to sell a console to casuals, but for them only the accessory change in design and functionality, it changes to something not as appealing, and there is no major game to sell and prove it fun. People that don't get Wii U would not get Wii 2. People that don't want the new accessory don't want a new console that for them offers only value in its new accessory. You can't market that.