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

Forums - Nintendo - I feel like Nintendo is in big trouble at this point. Here's why:

Soundwave on 07 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
Captain_Tom said:

So that's it.  Because it was sold at an incredibly slight loss it is not following a similar strategy?  Yeah I didn't know what you were talking about because it was completily moronic.  Just because one thing is different, doesn't mean these things aren't true:

-It was launched with inferior processing capabilities that held it back to last gen ports.

-It's online capabilities and features are more than a generation behind the competition.

-It uses very little energy and comes in a small package.

-It has "Wii" in the name lol.

-It has an unconventional gimmick as its main selling point.

At the end of the day, any business is about the bottom line. So if two products, like the Wii and Wii U, differ so significantly in the effect they have on the bottom line, it has to be asked what the cause of that is. Calling it the same strategy is dead wrong in such a clear case. You go on to scramble for similarities between the Wii and Wii U (just like Soundwave did) in an attempt to uphold your belief that the Wii and Wii U used the same strategy, but that's a futile effort when the most fundamental part differs so greatly.

In order to come to any sensible conclusion, you first have to admit that you were wrong. Only then will you be able to provide a reasonable analysis.


And you're still in denial and scrambling to explain why the Wii audience has left. In Japan for example there is a Wii Sports bundle and all Wii Us come bundled with a Wiimote ... still very mediocre sales. I thought your whole arguement was that the Wiimote would carry Nintendo forever (or at least another hardware gen)? Surely we should see at least a slight bump in sales in any case if there was any truth to that.

Looks like that theory is simply bunk. 

Wii U is Nintendo's effort to remake the Wii phenonemon with the understanding that they needed to do something new because that's part and parcel of what the fickle casual audience wants. They don't want to play Wii Sports over and over and over and over again like core gamers gravitate to the same franchises for like 10+ years at a time sometimes. 

They stuck to the formula pretty closely actually a lot more closely than you want to admit, the audience just doesn't want that type of experience any more. Smartphones and tablets have taken the casual audience away from Nintendo. I think even most Nintendo fans are waking up to this reality now but there's still a group of them that are deeply in denial about what's happening, though the huge drop-off from 3DS to DS is becoming harder for them to explain away as well. 



Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 07 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
Captain_Tom said:

So that's it.  Because it was sold at an incredibly slight loss it is not following a similar strategy?  Yeah I didn't know what you were talking about because it was completily moronic.  Just because one thing is different, doesn't mean these things aren't true:

-It was launched with inferior processing capabilities that held it back to last gen ports.

-It's online capabilities and features are more than a generation behind the competition.

-It uses very little energy and comes in a small package.

-It has "Wii" in the name lol.

-It has an unconventional gimmick as its main selling point.

At the end of the day, any business is about the bottom line. So if two products, like the Wii and Wii U, differ so significantly in the effect they have on the bottom line, it has to be asked what the cause of that is. Calling it the same strategy is dead wrong in such a clear case. You go on to scramble for similarities between the Wii and Wii U (just like Soundwave did) in an attempt to uphold your belief that the Wii and Wii U used the same strategy, but that's a futile effort when the most fundamental part differs so greatly.

In order to come to any sensible conclusion, you first have to admit that you were wrong. Only then will you be able to provide a reasonable analysis.

Who's scrambling?  The similarities are obvious as night and day.  If it is your opinion that they didn't...That's fine, even if you are in the minority.  But don't say we don't know what we are talking about when we bring up several valid points of comparison.



Experimental42 on 07 June 2014

This thread is full of failure.

If you think Nintendo should invest a lot of time and man hours into a "standard" console to compete with Sony you're not exactly the sharpest marble in the crayon box, if you catch my drift. Two reasons:

1) Sony is a giant electronics company who has a little bit of experience with making powerful hardware, you're crazy if you think Nintendo can compete with them in that area. What's the point of making a similar "standard" console that's going to be weaker? Look how well that's working for the Xbone, which Sony is currently in the process of murdering by slowly standing on its neck until it asphyxiates.

2) Consoles are dying, period. Computers are vastly superior in arguably everything but controls, which is remedied by using a current gen console controller, and are quickly becoming cheaper and more accessible. My wife knows jack shit about computers, but thanks to Newegg she was able to build her own computer from the ground up and play games on max settings for pretty damn cheap. Services like Steam make games cheaper, easier to get, etc. So why focus all that money and energy into a standard console when there's a very strong possibility that there won't even be a next generation, and almost a certainty that if there is, it will be the last. Consoles like PS4 and Xbox are essentially trying to become more computer like, speeding off into their evolutionary dead ends. At least the Nintendo consoles currently offer things that computers don't and can't do, namely local multiplayer and Nintendo franchises.


It's also foolish to state that the Wii U is in direct competition with Sony or Xbone. Where exactly is this nonexistent competition? They barely have any games that fall into the same genre, let alone multiplats, which are the sole measurement for direct competition in today's market.


Nintendo simply needs to put out games and as the library expands, it will be fine. They have plenty of deals going to make the purchase more appealing now and they'll likely continue going forward with more ways to appeal to those who have yet to buy a Wii U.



Soundwave on 07 June 2014

Look at Nintendo's 1st year release schedule for the Wii U:

Nintendo Land
New Super Mario Bros. U
Sing Party U
Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor’s Edge
Game & Wario
LEGO City
The Wonderful 101
Pikmin 3
Zelda: Wind Waker HD
Wii Party U
Mario 3D World
Mario & Sonic Sochi Olympics
Wii Fit U
Wii Sports Club

HALF of the lineup are mini-game casual/party titles. The only game aimed specifically at a hardcore gamer alone would be Ninja Gaiden 3, a 8 month old port of a mediocre PS3/360 game from Tecmo.

Even the two Mario games are very obviously tailored to the casual market.

To say this lineup was aimed at hardcore players and not casuals is simply laughable. They obviously thought casuals would come back and front loaded their lineup with tons of casual fare. 



Mr Khan on 07 June 2014
Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:
Captain_Tom said:

So that's it.  Because it was sold at an incredibly slight loss it is not following a similar strategy?  Yeah I didn't know what you were talking about because it was completily moronic.  Just because one thing is different, doesn't mean these things aren't true:

-It was launched with inferior processing capabilities that held it back to last gen ports.

-It's online capabilities and features are more than a generation behind the competition.

-It uses very little energy and comes in a small package.

-It has "Wii" in the name lol.

-It has an unconventional gimmick as its main selling point.

At the end of the day, any business is about the bottom line. So if two products, like the Wii and Wii U, differ so significantly in the effect they have on the bottom line, it has to be asked what the cause of that is. Calling it the same strategy is dead wrong in such a clear case. You go on to scramble for similarities between the Wii and Wii U (just like Soundwave did) in an attempt to uphold your belief that the Wii and Wii U used the same strategy, but that's a futile effort when the most fundamental part differs so greatly.

In order to come to any sensible conclusion, you first have to admit that you were wrong. Only then will you be able to provide a reasonable analysis.


And you're still in denial and scrambling to explain why the Wii audience has left. In Japan for example there is a Wii Sports bundle and all Wii Us come bundled with a Wiimote ... still very mediocre sales. I thought your whole arguement was that the Wiimote would carry Nintendo forever (or at least another hardware gen)? Surely we should see at least a slight bump in sales in any case if there was any truth to that.

Looks like that theory is simply bunk. 

Wii U is Nintendo's effort to remake the Wii phenonemon with the understanding that they needed to do something new because that's part and parcel of what the fickle casual audience wants. They don't want to play Wii Sports over and over and over and over again like core gamers gravitate to the same franchises for like 10+ years at a time sometimes. 

They stuck to the formula pretty closely actually a lot more closely than you want to admit, the audience just doesn't want that type of experience any more. Smartphones and tablets have taken the casual audience away from Nintendo. I think even most Nintendo fans are waking up to this reality now but there's still a group of them that are deeply in denial about what's happening, though the huge drop-off from 3DS to DS is becoming harder for them to explain away as well. 

The key to the Wii was about thinking outside the box, and you saw that with much of the leading software which was innovative rather than iterative: Wii Sports brought the core concept to life, Wii Fit helped expand it in other directions: Wii Sports Resort brought more depth in several dimensions: more accurate control and deeper games.

Wii U attempts to be iterative, to deliver the same experience as before, over again. This is the definition of a red ocean console which doesn't break new ground. Meanwhile Wii U was too expensive, designed around what is, ultimately, a very traditional controller, and attempted to capitalize on the idea of "retrieving the lost core gamer."



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 07 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:

At the end of the day, any business is about the bottom line. So if two products, like the Wii and Wii U, differ so significantly in the effect they have on the bottom line, it has to be asked what the cause of that is. Calling it the same strategy is dead wrong in such a clear case. You go on to scramble for similarities between the Wii and Wii U (just like Soundwave did) in an attempt to uphold your belief that the Wii and Wii U used the same strategy, but that's a futile effort when the most fundamental part differs so greatly.

In order to come to any sensible conclusion, you first have to admit that you were wrong. Only then will you be able to provide a reasonable analysis.

And you're still in denial and scrambling to explain why the Wii audience has left. In Japan for example there is a Wii Sports bundle and all Wii Us come bundled with a Wiimote ... still very mediocre sales. I thought your whole arguement was that the Wiimote would carry Nintendo forever (or at least another hardware gen)? Surely we should see at least a slight bump in sales in any case if there was any truth to that.

Looks like that theory is simply bunk. 

Wii U is Nintendo's effort to remake the Wii phenonemon with the understanding that they needed to do something new because that's part and parcel of what the fickle casual audience wants. They don't want to play Wii Sports over and over and over and over again like core gamers gravitate to the same franchises for like 10+ years at a time sometimes. 

They stuck to the formula pretty closely actually a lot more closely than you want to admit, the audience just doesn't want that type of experience any more. Smartphones and tablets have taken the casual audience away from Nintendo. I think even most Nintendo fans are waking up to this reality now but there's still a group of them that are deeply in denial about what's happening, though the huge drop-off from 3DS to DS is becoming harder for them to explain away as well. 

The bolded applies to Nintendo as well. If you read Iwata Asks, then you would know that Nintendo did not think of the GC as a failure, but rather believed that it fell short due to unfortunate circumstances. Nintendo has been unable to admit that the GC was wrong, so their conclusion was that a GC would sell like a Wii, if only they slapped as much Wii as possible on it.

I've explained it plenty of times why Wii Sports and the Wiimote aren't going to work for the Wii U (including in threads where you were present). I never said anything along the lines of "Once Wii Fit, Wii Sports and the like release for the Wii U, watch sales shooting up.", because I knew that putting those things on the Wii U would be like releasing Wii Sports for the GC. Wii Sports and the Wiimote demanded their own console, one that wasn't poisoned by the terrible GC image.

You talk about denial, but you are the guy who suggests that a $400+ console is what's going to be best for Nintendo. You are the guy who believes that third parties would put the best versions of their games on the Nintendo console as soon as Nintendo put out the most powerful hardware. You are the guy who believes that hardcore gamers would then switch to play their games on that Nintendo console.

You're strawmanning soundwave somewhat. The latter paragraph is not really what he believes (he's one of the "handheld/home console convergance" believers, like myself.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Soundwave on 07 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:

At the end of the day, any business is about the bottom line. So if two products, like the Wii and Wii U, differ so significantly in the effect they have on the bottom line, it has to be asked what the cause of that is. Calling it the same strategy is dead wrong in such a clear case. You go on to scramble for similarities between the Wii and Wii U (just like Soundwave did) in an attempt to uphold your belief that the Wii and Wii U used the same strategy, but that's a futile effort when the most fundamental part differs so greatly.

In order to come to any sensible conclusion, you first have to admit that you were wrong. Only then will you be able to provide a reasonable analysis.

And you're still in denial and scrambling to explain why the Wii audience has left. In Japan for example there is a Wii Sports bundle and all Wii Us come bundled with a Wiimote ... still very mediocre sales. I thought your whole arguement was that the Wiimote would carry Nintendo forever (or at least another hardware gen)? Surely we should see at least a slight bump in sales in any case if there was any truth to that.

Looks like that theory is simply bunk. 

Wii U is Nintendo's effort to remake the Wii phenonemon with the understanding that they needed to do something new because that's part and parcel of what the fickle casual audience wants. They don't want to play Wii Sports over and over and over and over again like core gamers gravitate to the same franchises for like 10+ years at a time sometimes. 

They stuck to the formula pretty closely actually a lot more closely than you want to admit, the audience just doesn't want that type of experience any more. Smartphones and tablets have taken the casual audience away from Nintendo. I think even most Nintendo fans are waking up to this reality now but there's still a group of them that are deeply in denial about what's happening, though the huge drop-off from 3DS to DS is becoming harder for them to explain away as well. 

The bolded applies to Nintendo as well. If you read Iwata Asks, then you would know that Nintendo did not think of the GC as a failure, but rather believed that it fell short due to unfortunate circumstances. Nintendo has been unable to admit that the GC was wrong, so their conclusion was that a GC would sell like a Wii, if only they slapped as much Wii as possible on it.

I've explained it plenty of times why Wii Sports and the Wiimote aren't going to work for the Wii U (including in threads where you were present). I never said anything along the lines of "Once Wii Fit, Wii Sports and the like release for the Wii U, watch sales shooting up.", because I knew that putting those things on the Wii U would be like releasing Wii Sports for the GC. Wii Sports and the Wiimote demanded their own console, one that wasn't poisoned by the terrible GC image.

You talk about denial, but you are the guy who suggests that a $400+ console is what's going to be best for Nintendo. You are the guy who believes that third parties would put the best versions of their games on the Nintendo console as soon as Nintendo put out the most powerful hardware. You are the guy who believes that hardcore gamers would then switch to play their games on that Nintendo console.

Look at my above post and tell me with a straight face that that lineup was aimed at hardcore players. 

Secondly to an extent Nintendo is right about the GameCube, it could have been more successful than it was and there was nothing inherintely wrong with the idea, it was just mired with bad execution -- why bother getting Resident Evil exclusive (great move) and then shoe horn it onto a console that looks like Fisher Price product (terrible idea). 

The GameCube was death by a hundred paper cuts, Nintendo made a good system, but then made stupid mistakes with it at every corner that made it very easy for Sony/MS to compete against. 



Soundwave on 07 June 2014
Mr Khan said:

You're strawmanning soundwave somewhat. The latter paragraph is not really what he believes (he's one of the "handheld/home console convergance" believers, like myself.

I believe in a handheld/console hybrid too, do I get a cookie? It doesn't change the fact that casuals have moved on to more attractive platforms that serve their lifestyle far better than Nintendo ever did. 



Soundwave on 07 June 2014
RolStoppable said:
Captain_Tom said:

Who's scrambling?  The similarities are obvious as night and day.  If it is your opinion that they didn't...That's fine, even if you are in the minority.  But don't say we don't know what we are talking about when we bring up several valid points of comparison.

The similarities you mentioned are there, but that doesn't make it the same strategy.

When Nintendo was about to launch the Wii, they talked about the business book Blue Ocean Strategy. The book clearly defines what that is and the Wii matched that definition. Since the Wii U does not match it, it can't be the same strategy. You have no valid counter-argument.


Wii isn't blue ocean by the modern context either. There are now many different ways for consumers to get easy-to-play, casual-centric software. So by definition Wii is not blue ocean period. You have no valid counter-argument. 



Mr Khan on 07 June 2014
Soundwave said:
RolStoppable said:
Captain_Tom said:

Who's scrambling?  The similarities are obvious as night and day.  If it is your opinion that they didn't...That's fine, even if you are in the minority.  But don't say we don't know what we are talking about when we bring up several valid points of comparison.

The similarities you mentioned are there, but that doesn't make it the same strategy.

When Nintendo was about to launch the Wii, they talked about the business book Blue Ocean Strategy. The book clearly defines what that is and the Wii matched that definition. Since the Wii U does not match it, it can't be the same strategy. You have no valid counter-argument.


Wii isn't blue ocean by the modern context either. There are now many different ways for consumers to get easy-to-play, casual-centric software. So by definition Wii is not blue ocean period. You have no valid counter-argument. 

"The spirit of the Wii" = "blue ocean." Blue Ocean doesn't mean to do exactly what Wii did the way the Wii did it, but to make something that does what Wii set out to do. That was really what screwed Sony and Microsoft with their "motion" solutions. Microsoft at least was a bit closer with Kinect, though.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.