"Been saying this for years"

>Product been on the market for 1 year 6 months

>Years implies more than one

Are you a time traveller? 

I agree with you that the Wii U would have sold a little better if the name was different, but I do not believe that the name and marketing are the main reasons why the console has sold so little so far. 

Why not? Well, let's review the Wii for a moment. Who bought the Wii? Tentatively speaking I think the Wii market can be divided in 4 different groups:

1st) Fans of Nintendo games that always buy any console launched by the company.

2nd) Dedicated gamers who always buy more than one console and that saw the Nintendo console as the perfect secondary console.

3rd) New players (or parents of new players). In this category we also have parents, uncles, older brothers etc,  who decided to buy the Wii for their children, nephews, little brothers etc, because: a) It was the cheapest option, and b) The Nintendo games are more suitable for the entire family.

4th) Finally we have the casual crowd. All those people who felt for the motion control novelty.

Now, I could very well believe that people from the 3rd and 4th group do not know what a Wii U is yet, but it is very hard for me to imagine that all Nintendo fans and all the dedicated gamers do not know about it 18 months later. I just can't imagine that. 

Now, what remains to consider is how many people fall into the 1st and 2nd group? Obviously it is impossible to say but, I'd say maybe 30 to 40 percent would be a reasonable number. So we would be talking about 30 to 40 millions of people. Nearly 40 millions of people who should already know very well what a Wii U is.

And finally there is the question of how many people from the 3rd and 4th group would buy the console if they knew about it? And this is a very difficult question to answer because the Wii had two things that the Wii U does not have: and that is novelty and low price. I mean I think we can all agree that for a father, uncle, older brother, etc. it is much easier to give a $200-250 gift than a $300-350 one.

And about the novelty aspect.. Well, as much as Nintendo fans love their Gamepad (and I like it too) I think we can all I agree that there is not much there to attract a casual gamer (and make him expend $300-350).

Sooooo.. to summarize, yes, I do agree that a different name would have helped a little, but the impact wouldn't have been that much in the grand scheme of things (maybe 20-30 more sales?)

After reading all of you nonsense one can draw two conclusions. Either this is a poor attempt at a account,  or you really don't have the slightest bit of understanding in how marketing a product works and should refrain from further commenting as your responses have literally lower the IQ of whoever attempts to read your nonsense.  You crioticized Michael Patcher, yet you make the guy look like a genius.

So as I've had to reiterate consistanly with you " Marketing & naming of the Wii U was the problem" . This was address by analysts, major news media and Nintendo themselves. Get it through your head!

I was updating, you are only doing that to be so fast ? Man, you are desesperate.

"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."

I agree. The Wii U wouldn't have sold substantially more (in comparison to Wii sales) and that was never my argument. If you read my previous arguments with "One flew over the coo coo'd nest" I provided Media, Analysts and Nintendo themselves who acknowledged the miscommunication of Nintendo in marketing the Wii U. If the Wii U was simply named Wii 2 it would have at least reached the 11-12 million units sold threshold by now. I'd say that under the Wii 2 name would would have seen  possible ltd sales of 40-50 million (even with the current fuck ups) whereas Nintendo will  now be lucky to surpass the GC.

I would rule out number 2 (Dedicated gamers) because they do not comprise of a large majority of the market. There are very few of these people percentage wise so it's almost relevant to cancel them out.

Alot of Nintendo fans who usually hop on the ship early haven't due to the lack of games. This will change over the next 6 months due to heavy hitters like MK8 and Smash but at the end of the day, Nintendo seems to have a smaller loyalty base than Sony & M$. I'd say maybe 20% of the Wii base was loyalists, 10-15% dedicated and the rest were casuals which is fine (Nintendo converts the younger casuals into gamers)
I would highly doubt and I mean highly doubt that 40 million people in the casual market have an understanding that Nintendo has a new console still and that it is not an add on. This will increase with the recent news of MK8 advertisements (Nascar, movie theatres,etc)buyt very well may go unnoticed now due to being overshadowed by the PS4.

Your claim that it does not have novelty is your own opinion. Touch screen gaming is a large market, except Nintendo took that and gave an interacted controller with a touchscreen that interacts and creates new gameplay as well as works as a second screen when the family wants the t.v. It may not been the innovation that the Wii mote was but every freind and family member of mine who is a casual has used it and found enjoyment from it (several have purchased). With the Wii seeing was believing where unfortunately playing is beleive for Wii U.

I disagree with the pricepoint as well. Many casual consumers are owners of tablets. My fiancee's Ipad retina I purchase for her was $419 (before tax) Canadian. Apple marketed the value of there Ipad efficiently and at a high price point they have sold exceptionally well.

As for 20 to 30 more sales? You have to be kidding me,lol. The general consumer needs things simplified for them in this day and age. Vita was an excellent product, new functionality and has sold terribly. Again, it's only speculation but it's a reasonable figure to say that 11-12 mill units would have been sold with a simple name change (Wii 2)

Only updating? No, you just don't have anything intelligent to say. Desperate? No, I saw your response before heading to bed and obviously I couldn't resist from calling you out. Speaking of responding quick, well look who's talking.

Cars do not have design constraints (1920's-1990's proved that), phones and televisions do not have design constraints (look at previous iterations up until the past 5-8 years). Your argument fails on so many levels that it is embarassing. You can't even write a proper sentence for god sakes. I mean if you have a disability that I should be made aware of please let me know now and I will try to speak to you as I would my 7 & 8 year old because it seems that adult words go right over your head.

Marketing is the problem. The product is fine.  I read the articles I provided. Had you read the other articles you would have noticed that it was observed that the masses (casuals) are confused as well but of course continue to spout your nonsense and cherry pick, it doesn't help you. And why the hell are you talking about voting? The general consesu from Analysts, Media and Gamers alike is that the Wii U is a confusing name and with the lack of marketing caused many to either believe it was a add on for $349, while some did not even realize there was a new console. But of course you seem to suffer from OCS or as I call it (only child syndrome) where you beleive everything you say is right when reality states otherwise.

"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."

This whole paragraph was not thought out and very poor. Do you not read? It seems that anything anyone has posted just goes into your ear as "blah, blah blah blah" and then out the other. You've typed this several times and I've refuted it and destroyed your argument. Just get over it, You could not provide a good argument. You lost. If the masses are not aware of the console existing or beleive that it is an expensive add on, then they obviously will not purchase it. Common sense. Try applying it sometime.

I think it could make a difference, a number of people i know who don't keep up a ton with video game news just think its a newer wii model, so they don't plan to buy the Wii U because they already have the Wii.

I strongly agree with that. To summarize, in term of novelty, cost, concept, accessibility, timing, the Wii was an exceptional product, and the Wii U failed (and I think it was very difficult) to be a Wii 2, not just in term of name. I hope it can be a Gamecube 2 in term of excellent games (give me fzero...) !

The problem is that you don't want to discuss, you want to "destroy arguments", as you repeated multiple times.

I take the first example from your explanation, where you want to destroy my explanation about cars.

So, you said "Cars do not have design constraints (1920's-1990's proved that)"

Cars have weels. Car are heavy and it put constraint on shape. Car needs an engine and fuel tank that takes place. Car have constraint in term of aerodynamic. Constraint to reduce gasolin consumption. Width can't change so much because, well... road widht doesn't change so much. Car safety put constraints in term of material, of shape. And last but not least, you have the design constrained by buyers. Car have design constraints. That's a fact.

In fact, about anything usefull has design constraint. How much this constraints impact the design is the subject, how much changes in constraint (new material, gasolin cost and engine performance) had impact can be discussed, how much these constraints impact design cost/time and reduce design change speed, how conservative the public is. How it makes it different from a console. I could agree with an explanation, but I will not be intimidated by your insults and violence.

You don't want to think or discuss about it, you want to destroy the argument. So you say cars do not have design constraint. Because design changed a lot. And a long string of insults, even for not having native English level, follows the violence of your attempt to destroy. But that doesn't make sense, because constraints are still there. You know, car have design constraints. Ask a car designer "do you have any constraints on your design ?", he will certainly not tell you "no, there is no design constraints on cars".

There is no discussion with you. Your lack of comprehension on the matters we discussed makes it difficult to maintain a reasonable argument. I wasn’t out to destroy your argument. It's not my fault that you did not provide a reasonable one. 

Cars are not restricted to their design. We are in a generation where cars, electronics, ect no longer have to change much from previous iterations and look similar. Consumer demand is less focused on design and targeted towards functionality. Are vehicles restricted to their internal parts such as an engine, transmission, etc. For the time being, until technology advances, yes they are.Companies are currently focused on making ass little changes as possible by adding new features to increase profits. This is trend throught the majority of comapnies. If you had paid attention to what I was saying, previous generations did not apply restraints on the design or size of their vehicles. 
 
Maybe in Japan you have limited road size but in North America, the width of the roads allows for numerous shapes and sizes of vehicles. If you're using a vehicle for off road purposes or on private property then you can basically design it and have it any shape or size that you feel like. Do most companies go for a generic design? Yes. Does that mean it is limited? No. You’re obviously not a car enthusiast or you would be able to see that your counter argument holds no merit and paints a picture that you really do not know what you are talking about. The following pictures I shall provide prove that there is not a limit to the design of vehicles.

I can provide alot more proof if need be be, but needless to say you were quite inaccurate with you false assumption on the design limitations of vehicles.  I'm going to assume that due to you bull headedness you will still disagree but as I stated the pictures speak for themselves.

Insults? I would like you to refer to you previous ignorant comments in earlier posts. Before you attempt to pull the stick out of my eye, pull the log out of your own. Violence? Now your just being ridiculous. It seems you are try ing to create a scenario out of nothing, because your upset due to failing in every aspect of this debate. In no way, shape or form have I attempted to intimidate. How you've managed to misconstrue my words is your own problem, not mine.