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?

ICStats on 24 May 2014
PigPen said:
Zekkyou said:
PigPen said:
DarkRPGamer007 said:

Let's pretend the Wii U was called the "Nintendo Ultra." Would sales be a lot higher, a little higher, or the same? I highly doubt it could get any worse. I know too that sales wouldn't be that much higher but maybe it wouldn't of crossed the line in America and still be above the PS4 as of now? I don't know you guys tell me I honestly think it would have been selling more along the lines of the XBOX One if it had a different name.

Definitely!  That just sounds powerful and the Wii U perception right now is its not.

Low end PC specs make something powerful? :p Are the PS4 and X1 machines of god like strength to you? They reach aaaaaall the way up to a mid range PC :p

Well it don't need a fax machine or to run Microsoft Excel.  For a home console it's powerful enough.  Sony and a few developers say the Wii U is a little bit more powerful then the X360 you believe.  The Wii U has eDRAM which is very fast, it's a beast.

It's such a beast, a flagship game like MK8 can't do any Anti Aliasing at 720p.

 



My 8th gen collection

Around the Network
Norris2k on 25 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:

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

A new design : failed
Buzz on the internet, word of mouth : failed
A powerful product : failed
Good ads : failed
A good name : failed
A clearly different product/games : failed
A bunch of new games at launch : failed
Lot of happy customer hungry for your new product : I suppose it failed

Don't blame the name.

I really can't believe you can have 120 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. Even if it was for the confusion on the name, (I don't believe that but) the casual public saw multiple time the ads, with supposedly a new gamepad and new games, a name "Wii U" appeared... About 90% of them thought it was just a new gamepad, and 95% of them thought "whatever, I don't give a shit". They didn't think that's a new console, they didn't go ask to the shop for the new pad, didn't search on the internet, didn't ask to a guy that knows, whoever understood didn't dare talking or buzz about it. That's a severe problem, and that's what the problem is. Your naming problem is totally delusional. And I do hope Nintendo thinks better about that, because if that's the way they think, like it's just a little misunderstanding on a very little and stupid naming mistake, they are dead.

To address the first part of your response: 

New Design: Apple has proven that is irrelevant 

Interent Buzz: The name plays apart of that as well as poor marketing

A Powerful Product: Substantially more powerful than it's predecessor

Good Ads: Agreed, as I said marketing plays a significant role

Different Games: Have you even tried the Wii U?

New Games At Launch: Substantially more than PS4

Customer wanting product: Again poor marketing resulted in lack of consumer knowledge

I'm delusional? You obviously do not have a grasp on the basis of how marketing works. A poorly named product that does not clarify to the customer that it is a different product than it's predecessor is not going to acheive awareness and sales with the casual consumer. Simply naming the Wii U "Wii 2" would have allowed for substantially higher sales (I'd estimate the ltd would be around 12 million at this point) and led to a lot less confusion. Hell, even major news networks (CNN) ran storys about hte Wii U being an add on. People are not going to pay $349 for an add on.  I find it amusing that you do not believe the naming of a product matters. Why do you think companies like Sony, Apple, Samsung do so for alot of their electronic devices when releasing a predecessor? Because it's easier for the casual consumer (which is a large basis of Nintendo's base) to be aware that it is different from the previous entry. If Nintendo wanted to continue the Wii name, they should have used numerals until the third or  fourth iteration before changing it to something like Wii U.

You are very biased in your answer to make irrevelant a lot of things. And it's easy for you, because I didn't write a mandatory list, it's just a list of points that I think make a product new for customers, and Nintendo failed them all. No company can afford that.

Apple doesn't prove a new design is irrevelant, they prove they can afford to keep the same design because they do better in other area (like screen definition, not just better than previous model, but better than competition), have a fanboy (happy customers) base big enough, a design already among the best, and massive ads and buzz.

Being more powerful than a very outdated model is not enough. Powerful means more powerful or at the same power range than other products. Again, it's not mandatory, and there are lot of examples of products selling with an agressive pricing, appealing new features (like the Wii). The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years.

I do think if the client is interested, the naming doesn't really matters. Iphone S, xperia Z/T/T2/whatever, Geforce 4200 GTX, Intel Xeon E5-2650, DS instead of GB 2 or 3, Bravia (EX645, etc)... and XBox One (wtf, one) proves it. And you can buzz without a good naming/title, youtube is proving that everyday, twits doesn't even have titles. I do think that if the client have the slightest interest in the product, especially granted they are 120 millions, there is so many hardcore fans and news about a new product, Wii U, with a U added to Wii, is enough to be understandable and generate buzz.

The client understand if he is motivated, if moving a wiimote seems fun, it's easy to market, the client talk about it, the client buy it, the client shows it, and it become a 120 million user market. If the Wii U sells 4 or 5 time less than the Wii, it's a fundamental problem. And I will tell you my opinion : for now, a new controller is not a new and hot thing, and is not so much a selling factor (Kinect proves it, Sony not marketing too much about camera and all proves it), using a sort of toy version of a tablet to play on the TV doesn't seem fun, and that's why it's hard to market as fun. A lot of the Wii customers just forgot about their Wii they use once in a while with friends, and don't see a point in a new version, ask one of your casual friend if he want a new Wii.

I am anything but biased. If that was the case I would have stated that the Wii U would have sold an absurb amount of consoles in correlation with the Wii's sales over it's first 18 months. Instead I provided a logical assumption of where Wii U sales would be had they named the console with what I beleive would be a more casual friendly title (Wii 2), which as I stated we would have seen figures closer to 11-12 million instead of the current 6 million the Wii U has sold to date.

The problem is not the power. The Wii itself was not much more powerful than the original Xbox which was released in 2001. The Wii was less of a jump in power over the Xbox than the Wii U is over PS3/360.  At the time the Wii was relased it was more expensive than the Xbox so unfortunately your statement of "The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years" is not factual based on both the examples that I have given.

First of all the Wii never moved 120 million units of hardware. Secondly I phone is followed by numerical numbers which include S (for example Iphone 5S). Experia is a good name in comparison with Wii U, however experia does not generate substantial sales in comparison to Iphone. As for the CPU and and graphics cards you mentioned, there is a niche market that is able to differentiate iterations in hardware. That was a really terrible comparison.

The so called hardcore fanbase never jumped shipped with the Wii to begin with and constantly ridiculed the console. It did not have the internet buzz to begin with, the console was predetermined as a failure amongst many media outlets yet it managed to move a substantial amount of hardware. I do not see how that would even apply to this argument.

Again with the 120 million, please advise where you are getting these figures from. I'm also not trying to be rude but the last paragraph seemed nonsensical at best. I'm not sure if I have to list more articles or link numerous threads but the avergae consumer who does own a Wii, stil believes the Wii U is an add on and does not realize that there is a new console. Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral. To deny that the name/marketing is not a substantial factor in sales is to be in complete and utter ignorance.

100 millions, not 120, agreed.

Again, you are biased or fail to understand that you dont have and can't probably fill the full list I gave. I already explained that about the iphone.

But, failing in every area is a problem. Wii had a super new remote controller that made so much buzz. Wii U does not (even if the controller is "new", it's not hot, the kinect is not hot, casual does not know about Oculus). Wii had a new design. Wii U does not. Wii was easy to sell in ads with a strong concept. Wii U does not. Etc. And OK, the name is bad, but far from worst case. Wii U, it's kind of OK.

So, Wii sold a lot, Wii U does not sell well.

So, even if Wii can sell an outdated hardware relatively expensively (thanks to previous strong sale points), it doesn't make it OK to do so any time. It doesn't make it OK to sell at any price (like setting a more expensive price than the wii : 250$). Can you just agree on that to prove you are not biased ? I repeat, selling an outdated hardware relatively expensively, but still cheap, doesn't make any outdated product able to sell at 450$.

Last, let's take your example, and ask a question. Let's believe you, even if I'm very surprised, because even my wife know that the Wii U is a new console.

"Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral."

So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?


Again, you call me biased without providing any reasonable fact. My opionion about the naming of the console playing a role in sales due to utter confusion of what the product is, is just just plain common sense. Also I am not understanding what you are trying to say about filling the full list you gave, I provided a response to each one.

There isn't any argument as I will have to reiterate again on whether or not the Wii you would have been a success in comparison to the Wii. If NIntendo had named the console Wii 2, there would not have been the same level of confusion and it would have sustained greater sales (though still not spectacular) and would have been at at least 11- 12 million units sold. This is not a biased or delusional but a reasonable opinion. If I were to have claimed 20 million sold, then your argument would have been valid. There still is a lack of consumer recognition at this point that Nintendo has a new console. This has been pointed out in countless articles and threads. 

The Wii was not that expensive as it was estimated to cost  Nintendo  around $200 per unit upon release. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, that is the point of business. As for the Wii U the fact that it had a higher price was due to the game pad. They were loosing money at $299-$349. I do not know where your $450 comes from. Would I have like to see a lower price point? Yes, I would have but that is irrelevant. I'm fine with the price point they released the console at and found it to be worth the amount paid to have a tablet/controller. However, it would have been better for Nintendo to redesign the Wii motes, add features onto them and releasea $249 bundle.

"So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?" I'm sure some people made purchases eventually after finding out it was a new console. People going to  purchase a game are not necessarily going to drop several hundred dollars on the spot when they find out the Wii U is actually a new console, that's just common sense. My statement is to give you an idea that the general consumer is not aware that Nintendo has a new console. As I previously stated even CNN had an article about the Wii U being an add on. That mistake would not have been made if it was named Wii 2. 

What I call biased is that :

- if I talk about a new design, you deny it, "apple prove it's irrevelant". You just can't, a new design contribute to a new product.

- if I talk about the pricing for outdated harware, it's again irrevelant, because the wii sold. But the wii was hype and 250$.

- If I talk about launch games, you say it's better than PS4/X1. So in your biased mind, it's a success ? It's not, because PS4 and X1 didn't have a great launch. But they had ads, hype, a new design, a new hardware, people waiting for the product, etc. Oh ! And even a confusing naming in the case of the xbox 1 (or is it one ?).

- If I say the Wii U is a name reasonnably good, it's denied. A few news can be wrong, there always are, it doesn't prove anything. You can find false news about any console.

My point is that given a reasonnable time, with launch ads, internet, correct news, starting from a very large customer base, if the sales are so bad they can be compared to GC or the dreamcast... the clients massively don't care about the product.  Selling twice as much, selling 12 millions is not reasonnable, it's not so far from the PS4 which have so much hype and strong points. Basically, it's excellent sales. If the client doesnt care, how could you possibly sell so much ?



Alby_da_Wolf on 25 May 2014

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.



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!   


SnK0610 on 25 May 2014

Nintendo should have chosen a different name.

Super Wii

Wii 2

Or maybe even a completely different name.

Because the names Wii and Wii u are so similar

Many costumers didn't know that Nintendo has a new console.

And that confusion effected sales.

They could have sold much more with a better name.



PigPen on 25 May 2014
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.



Around the Network
Nirvana_Nut85 on 25 May 2014
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
 

 


You are very biased in your answer to make irrevelant a lot of things. And it's easy for you, because I didn't write a mandatory list, it's just a list of points that I think make a product new for customers, and Nintendo failed them all. No company can afford that.

Apple doesn't prove a new design is irrevelant, they prove they can afford to keep the same design because they do better in other area (like screen definition, not just better than previous model, but better than competition), have a fanboy (happy customers) base big enough, a design already among the best, and massive ads and buzz.

Being more powerful than a very outdated model is not enough. Powerful means more powerful or at the same power range than other products. Again, it's not mandatory, and there are lot of examples of products selling with an agressive pricing, appealing new features (like the Wii). The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years.

I do think if the client is interested, the naming doesn't really matters. Iphone S, xperia Z/T/T2/whatever, Geforce 4200 GTX, Intel Xeon E5-2650, DS instead of GB 2 or 3, Bravia (EX645, etc)... and XBox One (wtf, one) proves it. And you can buzz without a good naming/title, youtube is proving that everyday, twits doesn't even have titles. I do think that if the client have the slightest interest in the product, especially granted they are 120 millions, there is so many hardcore fans and news about a new product, Wii U, with a U added to Wii, is enough to be understandable and generate buzz.

The client understand if he is motivated, if moving a wiimote seems fun, it's easy to market, the client talk about it, the client buy it, the client shows it, and it become a 120 million user market. If the Wii U sells 4 or 5 time less than the Wii, it's a fundamental problem. And I will tell you my opinion : for now, a new controller is not a new and hot thing, and is not so much a selling factor (Kinect proves it, Sony not marketing too much about camera and all proves it), using a sort of toy version of a tablet to play on the TV doesn't seem fun, and that's why it's hard to market as fun. A lot of the Wii customers just forgot about their Wii they use once in a while with friends, and don't see a point in a new version, ask one of your casual friend if he want a new Wii.

I am anything but biased. If that was the case I would have stated that the Wii U would have sold an absurb amount of consoles in correlation with the Wii's sales over it's first 18 months. Instead I provided a logical assumption of where Wii U sales would be had they named the console with what I beleive would be a more casual friendly title (Wii 2), which as I stated we would have seen figures closer to 11-12 million instead of the current 6 million the Wii U has sold to date.

The problem is not the power. The Wii itself was not much more powerful than the original Xbox which was released in 2001. The Wii was less of a jump in power over the Xbox than the Wii U is over PS3/360.  At the time the Wii was relased it was more expensive than the Xbox so unfortunately your statement of "The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years" is not factual based on both the examples that I have given.

First of all the Wii never moved 120 million units of hardware. Secondly I phone is followed by numerical numbers which include S (for example Iphone 5S). Experia is a good name in comparison with Wii U, however experia does not generate substantial sales in comparison to Iphone. As for the CPU and and graphics cards you mentioned, there is a niche market that is able to differentiate iterations in hardware. That was a really terrible comparison.

The so called hardcore fanbase never jumped shipped with the Wii to begin with and constantly ridiculed the console. It did not have the internet buzz to begin with, the console was predetermined as a failure amongst many media outlets yet it managed to move a substantial amount of hardware. I do not see how that would even apply to this argument.

Again with the 120 million, please advise where you are getting these figures from. I'm also not trying to be rude but the last paragraph seemed nonsensical at best. I'm not sure if I have to list more articles or link numerous threads but the avergae consumer who does own a Wii, stil believes the Wii U is an add on and does not realize that there is a new console. Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral. To deny that the name/marketing is not a substantial factor in sales is to be in complete and utter ignorance.

100 millions, not 120, agreed.

Again, you are biased or fail to understand that you dont have and can't probably fill the full list I gave. I already explained that about the iphone.

But, failing in every area is a problem. Wii had a super new remote controller that made so much buzz. Wii U does not (even if the controller is "new", it's not hot, the kinect is not hot, casual does not know about Oculus). Wii had a new design. Wii U does not. Wii was easy to sell in ads with a strong concept. Wii U does not. Etc. And OK, the name is bad, but far from worst case. Wii U, it's kind of OK.

So, Wii sold a lot, Wii U does not sell well.

So, even if Wii can sell an outdated hardware relatively expensively (thanks to previous strong sale points), it doesn't make it OK to do so any time. It doesn't make it OK to sell at any price (like setting a more expensive price than the wii : 250$). Can you just agree on that to prove you are not biased ? I repeat, selling an outdated hardware relatively expensively, but still cheap, doesn't make any outdated product able to sell at 450$.

Last, let's take your example, and ask a question. Let's believe you, even if I'm very surprised, because even my wife know that the Wii U is a new console.

"Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral."

So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?


Again, you call me biased without providing any reasonable fact. My opionion about the naming of the console playing a role in sales due to utter confusion of what the product is, is just just plain common sense. Also I am not understanding what you are trying to say about filling the full list you gave, I provided a response to each one.

There isn't any argument as I will have to reiterate again on whether or not the Wii you would have been a success in comparison to the Wii. If NIntendo had named the console Wii 2, there would not have been the same level of confusion and it would have sustained greater sales (though still not spectacular) and would have been at at least 11- 12 million units sold. This is not a biased or delusional but a reasonable opinion. If I were to have claimed 20 million sold, then your argument would have been valid. There still is a lack of consumer recognition at this point that Nintendo has a new console. This has been pointed out in countless articles and threads. 

The Wii was not that expensive as it was estimated to cost  Nintendo  around $200 per unit upon release. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, that is the point of business. As for the Wii U the fact that it had a higher price was due to the game pad. They were loosing money at $299-$349. I do not know where your $450 comes from. Would I have like to see a lower price point? Yes, I would have but that is irrelevant. I'm fine with the price point they released the console at and found it to be worth the amount paid to have a tablet/controller. However, it would have been better for Nintendo to redesign the Wii motes, add features onto them and releasea $249 bundle.

"So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?" I'm sure some people made purchases eventually after finding out it was a new console. People going to  purchase a game are not necessarily going to drop several hundred dollars on the spot when they find out the Wii U is actually a new console, that's just common sense. My statement is to give you an idea that the general consumer is not aware that Nintendo has a new console. As I previously stated even CNN had an article about the Wii U being an add on. That mistake would not have been made if it was named Wii 2. 

What I call biased is that :

- if I talk about a new design, you deny it, "apple prove it's irrevelant". You just can't, a new design contribute to a new product.

- if I talk about the pricing for outdated harware, it's again irrevelant, because the wii sold. But the wii was hype and 250$.

- If I talk about launch games, you say it's better than PS4/X1. So in your biased mind, it's a success ? It's not, because PS4 and X1 didn't have a great launch. But they had ads, hype, a new design, a new hardware, people waiting for the product, etc. Oh ! And even a confusing naming in the case of the xbox 1 (or is it one ?).

- If I say the Wii U is a name reasonnably good, it's denied. A few news can be wrong, there always are, it doesn't prove anything. You can find false news about any console.

My point is that given a reasonnable time, with launch ads, internet, correct news, starting from a very large customer base, if the sales are so bad they can be compared to GC or the dreamcast... the clients massively don't care about the product.  Selling twice as much, selling 12 millions is not reasonnable, it's not so far from the PS4 which have so much hype and strong points. Basically, it's excellent sales. If the client doesnt care, how could you possibly sell so much ?


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.



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Norris2k on 25 May 2014
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
 

 


You are very biased in your answer to make irrevelant a lot of things. And it's easy for you, because I didn't write a mandatory list, it's just a list of points that I think make a product new for customers, and Nintendo failed them all. No company can afford that.

Apple doesn't prove a new design is irrevelant, they prove they can afford to keep the same design because they do better in other area (like screen definition, not just better than previous model, but better than competition), have a fanboy (happy customers) base big enough, a design already among the best, and massive ads and buzz.

Being more powerful than a very outdated model is not enough. Powerful means more powerful or at the same power range than other products. Again, it's not mandatory, and there are lot of examples of products selling with an agressive pricing, appealing new features (like the Wii). The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years.

I do think if the client is interested, the naming doesn't really matters. Iphone S, xperia Z/T/T2/whatever, Geforce 4200 GTX, Intel Xeon E5-2650, DS instead of GB 2 or 3, Bravia (EX645, etc)... and XBox One (wtf, one) proves it. And you can buzz without a good naming/title, youtube is proving that everyday, twits doesn't even have titles. I do think that if the client have the slightest interest in the product, especially granted they are 120 millions, there is so many hardcore fans and news about a new product, Wii U, with a U added to Wii, is enough to be understandable and generate buzz.

The client understand if he is motivated, if moving a wiimote seems fun, it's easy to market, the client talk about it, the client buy it, the client shows it, and it become a 120 million user market. If the Wii U sells 4 or 5 time less than the Wii, it's a fundamental problem. And I will tell you my opinion : for now, a new controller is not a new and hot thing, and is not so much a selling factor (Kinect proves it, Sony not marketing too much about camera and all proves it), using a sort of toy version of a tablet to play on the TV doesn't seem fun, and that's why it's hard to market as fun. A lot of the Wii customers just forgot about their Wii they use once in a while with friends, and don't see a point in a new version, ask one of your casual friend if he want a new Wii.

I am anything but biased. If that was the case I would have stated that the Wii U would have sold an absurb amount of consoles in correlation with the Wii's sales over it's first 18 months. Instead I provided a logical assumption of where Wii U sales would be had they named the console with what I beleive would be a more casual friendly title (Wii 2), which as I stated we would have seen figures closer to 11-12 million instead of the current 6 million the Wii U has sold to date.

The problem is not the power. The Wii itself was not much more powerful than the original Xbox which was released in 2001. The Wii was less of a jump in power over the Xbox than the Wii U is over PS3/360.  At the time the Wii was relased it was more expensive than the Xbox so unfortunately your statement of "The problem is selling a product more expensive and not significantly better than what competion is selling for 7 years" is not factual based on both the examples that I have given.

First of all the Wii never moved 120 million units of hardware. Secondly I phone is followed by numerical numbers which include S (for example Iphone 5S). Experia is a good name in comparison with Wii U, however experia does not generate substantial sales in comparison to Iphone. As for the CPU and and graphics cards you mentioned, there is a niche market that is able to differentiate iterations in hardware. That was a really terrible comparison.

The so called hardcore fanbase never jumped shipped with the Wii to begin with and constantly ridiculed the console. It did not have the internet buzz to begin with, the console was predetermined as a failure amongst many media outlets yet it managed to move a substantial amount of hardware. I do not see how that would even apply to this argument.

Again with the 120 million, please advise where you are getting these figures from. I'm also not trying to be rude but the last paragraph seemed nonsensical at best. I'm not sure if I have to list more articles or link numerous threads but the avergae consumer who does own a Wii, stil believes the Wii U is an add on and does not realize that there is a new console. Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral. To deny that the name/marketing is not a substantial factor in sales is to be in complete and utter ignorance.

100 millions, not 120, agreed.

Again, you are biased or fail to understand that you dont have and can't probably fill the full list I gave. I already explained that about the iphone.

But, failing in every area is a problem. Wii had a super new remote controller that made so much buzz. Wii U does not (even if the controller is "new", it's not hot, the kinect is not hot, casual does not know about Oculus). Wii had a new design. Wii U does not. Wii was easy to sell in ads with a strong concept. Wii U does not. Etc. And OK, the name is bad, but far from worst case. Wii U, it's kind of OK.

So, Wii sold a lot, Wii U does not sell well.

So, even if Wii can sell an outdated hardware relatively expensively (thanks to previous strong sale points), it doesn't make it OK to do so any time. It doesn't make it OK to sell at any price (like setting a more expensive price than the wii : 250$). Can you just agree on that to prove you are not biased ? I repeat, selling an outdated hardware relatively expensively, but still cheap, doesn't make any outdated product able to sell at 450$.

Last, let's take your example, and ask a question. Let's believe you, even if I'm very surprised, because even my wife know that the Wii U is a new console.

"Go into your local Gamespot, Walmart, etc and ask speak with the employees about how many people have come in trying to purchase Wii U games when they only own a Wii and who have though as I have stated that the gamepad is a peripheral."

So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?


Again, you call me biased without providing any reasonable fact. My opionion about the naming of the console playing a role in sales due to utter confusion of what the product is, is just just plain common sense. Also I am not understanding what you are trying to say about filling the full list you gave, I provided a response to each one.

There isn't any argument as I will have to reiterate again on whether or not the Wii you would have been a success in comparison to the Wii. If NIntendo had named the console Wii 2, there would not have been the same level of confusion and it would have sustained greater sales (though still not spectacular) and would have been at at least 11- 12 million units sold. This is not a biased or delusional but a reasonable opinion. If I were to have claimed 20 million sold, then your argument would have been valid. There still is a lack of consumer recognition at this point that Nintendo has a new console. This has been pointed out in countless articles and threads. 

The Wii was not that expensive as it was estimated to cost  Nintendo  around $200 per unit upon release. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, that is the point of business. As for the Wii U the fact that it had a higher price was due to the game pad. They were loosing money at $299-$349. I do not know where your $450 comes from. Would I have like to see a lower price point? Yes, I would have but that is irrelevant. I'm fine with the price point they released the console at and found it to be worth the amount paid to have a tablet/controller. However, it would have been better for Nintendo to redesign the Wii motes, add features onto them and releasea $249 bundle.

"So my question is : why these many people do not buy a Wii U now they know ?" I'm sure some people made purchases eventually after finding out it was a new console. People going to  purchase a game are not necessarily going to drop several hundred dollars on the spot when they find out the Wii U is actually a new console, that's just common sense. My statement is to give you an idea that the general consumer is not aware that Nintendo has a new console. As I previously stated even CNN had an article about the Wii U being an add on. That mistake would not have been made if it was named Wii 2. 

What I call biased is that :

- if I talk about a new design, you deny it, "apple prove it's irrevelant". You just can't, a new design contribute to a new product.

- if I talk about the pricing for outdated harware, it's again irrevelant, because the wii sold. But the wii was hype and 250$.

- If I talk about launch games, you say it's better than PS4/X1. So in your biased mind, it's a success ? It's not, because PS4 and X1 didn't have a great launch. But they had ads, hype, a new design, a new hardware, people waiting for the product, etc. Oh ! And even a confusing naming in the case of the xbox 1 (or is it one ?).

- If I say the Wii U is a name reasonnably good, it's denied. A few news can be wrong, there always are, it doesn't prove anything. You can find false news about any console.

My point is that given a reasonnable time, with launch ads, internet, correct news, starting from a very large customer base, if the sales are so bad they can be compared to GC or the dreamcast... the clients massively don't care about the product.  Selling twice as much, selling 12 millions is not reasonnable, it's not so far from the PS4 which have so much hype and strong points. Basically, it's excellent sales. If the client doesnt care, how could you possibly sell so much ?


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.



SnK0610 on 25 May 2014

Norris 2K Wii U name is extremely confusing.

The only reason Nintendo sales aren't much better is because of the name.

I myself as a gamer thought it was add on for the Wii because the names are so similar.

And i'm not talking about casual buyers that had no idea Nintendo has a new console.

The launch sales of the Wii U have been extrelmy effected by the confusing name

Many people didn't know Nintendo has a new console.

It also caused a chain reaction for the sales the came afterwards.

Just a better name could have created a strong buzz and big sales for Nintendo.

Try to imagine Sony would have called their console instead of

PlayStation 2 They would have called it PlayStation U.

I can guarantee you it would caused a big confusion and would have effected sales.

The name of the console is very important for marketing.

And the main reason Nintendo sales aren't much better is because of the name.



Nirvana_Nut85 on 25 May 2014
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.




" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

Soundwave on 25 May 2014

XBox One honestly is a worse name (XBox 360 vs. XBox One ... the 360 sounds superior and many people refer to the first XBox as XBox 1).

The name isn't the problem (though it's not an asset either). The central problem is they lost the casual market to more convenient/cheaper smartphone/tablet gaming and the Wii U doesn't offer enough of an upgrade over the PS3/360 to appeal to core players.

So that leaves just Nintendo fans, and it's selling like how you'd expect an expensive GameCube to.