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

Forums - Nintendo - WiiU: Where replicating the portable success went wrong

QuintonMcLeod on 24 July 2014
padib said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU? Why does the Wii U have a higher attachment rate than the PS4 even though the PS4 has outsold the WIi U? 

Price has little to do with it. If consumers see the value of a product then they will pay the price of that product. It's as simple as that. You're speaking from a historical point of view while I'm speaking from the present and historical point of view. 

1) The U is heavily front-loaded, there's a reason for that and it's not price. 2) The Deluxe SKU offered more value than the basic set, yet the Wii offered that value at the price of the basic set while the U did it at the price of the deluxe (e.g. a higher price).

3) Hence why, in my view, the sales plummeted after an initial hype wave by excited early adopters. I believe the same thing happened for the 3DS so it's not a valid counter-point.


1) Front-loaded? What the heck does that mean?

2) If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the Wii U Basic SKU's value was equivlent to the original Wii's value at release?

The original Wii was $250 at release. The Wii U Basic SKU was $300. It was, in fact, more expensive. The original Wii only had one SKU, while the Wii U had two SKUs. People opted for the more expensive SKU. You've already said it yourself - because the more expensive Wii U had more value. Notice how you didn't mention the price. Price has little to do with economics. It's all about value. It's the reason why real diamonds don't cost $30 bucks and why the PS4 doesn't cost $5,000 dollars.

3) Yeah, I'm not too sure how you came across this conclusion. I mean, if you factor in economics, then the answer is pretty simple. You're basing your conclusions on a hazy idea of what you believe the Wii U's consumer base would buy. However, you don't factor in consumers who did not buy the Wii U based on loyalty to Nintendo, or consumers who are buying the system as a gift, or consumers who just want the latest tech and etc. and etc. There's far too many factors for you to conclude the success or failure of a product based on its consumer base. The real sure-fire way is to look at the product's value, and what it has that would appeal to more consumers based on previous buying trends. In a market dictated by gaming and entertainment, then it's pretty reasonable to believe that games factor into the value of a system. The Wii U lacked that one essential thing. Therefore, its' sales suffered as a result. 



Around the Network
NickK on 24 July 2014

DS>PS2, get your facts.

AND NO! No more WiiU doom threads! How is it possible for WiiU not to have WiiUpad? It is like Wii without WiiMote!

Get your facts!



oniyide on 24 July 2014
padib said:

oniyide said:
the thing isnt portable...at all. You cant even leave the house with the gamepad

There was a study made around the time the 3DS launched that most Nintendo gamers played at home. I think it was based on a survey by Nintendo.

I'm not sure portability really matters when it comes to replicating the success of portables since the principles are transferrable.

That said I agree with jonathanalis that the dual screen from pad to TV is more confusing than attached dual screen (as on DS/3DS). However, replicating the portable success story doesn't require dual screens. That wasn't my original point.

im very skeptical. Where was the survey done? what was the pool? Who did they survey? becasue if it was done by Ninty audiences of course they are going ot say at home. I wouldnt be surprised if the survey was done mostly if not strictly in Japan. Where they mostly game on portables anyway. It makes sense considering how WIi U turned out it really seems more like a machine that catered to Japan first and IMHO that was a stupid move.



umegames on 24 July 2014

the funny thing though, if right now Nintendo started being really aggressive with advertising and marketing, it could pick up sales quickly!



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbchUmHiEvZ1m3b9HgW5syg

VIDEO GAME MUSIC MASHUPS

QuintonMcLeod on 25 July 2014
padib said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
padib said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU? Why does the Wii U have a higher attachment rate than the PS4 even though the PS4 has outsold the WIi U? 

Price has little to do with it. If consumers see the value of a product then they will pay the price of that product. It's as simple as that. You're speaking from a historical point of view while I'm speaking from the present and historical point of view. 

1) The U is heavily front-loaded, there's a reason for that and it's not price. 2) The Deluxe SKU offered more value than the basic set, yet the Wii offered that value at the price of the basic set while the U did it at the price of the deluxe (e.g. a higher price).

3) Hence why, in my view, the sales plummeted after an initial hype wave by excited early adopters. I believe the same thing happened for the 3DS so it's not a valid counter-point.

1) Front-loaded? What the heck does that mean?

2) If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the Wii U Basic SKU's value was equivlent to the original Wii's value at release?

The original Wii was $250 at release. The Wii U Basic SKU was $300. It was, in fact, more expensive. The original Wii only had one SKU, while the Wii U had two SKUs. People opted for the more expensive SKU. You've already said it yourself - because the more expensive Wii U had more value. Notice how you didn't mention the price. Price has little to do with economics. It's all about value. It's the reason why real diamonds don't cost $30 bucks and why the PS4 doesn't cost $5,000 dollars.

3) Yeah, I'm not too sure how you came across this conclusion. I mean, if you factor in economics, then the answer is pretty simple. You're basing your conclusions on a hazy idea of what you believe the Wii U's consumer base would buy. However, you don't factor in consumers who did not buy the Wii U based on loyalty to Nintendo, or consumers who are buying the system as a gift, or consumers who just want the latest tech and etc. and etc. There's far too many factors for you to conclude the success or failure of a product based on its consumer base. The real sure-fire way is to look at the product's value, and what it has that would appeal to more consumers based on previous buying trends. In a market dictated by gaming and entertainment, then it's pretty reasonable to believe that games factor into the value of a system. The Wii U lacked that one essential thing. Therefore, its' sales suffered as a result. 

1) Front-loaded means that it sells a lot at first but does not have what we call legs (long-lasting sales).

2) I'm saying what I said... smfh that the U's deluxe value is the Wii's value, at the price of the U's basic set. Hence the same value was provided for the U at a higher price relative to the Wii.

3) I came to these conclusions through repeted study of the numbers for various case studies.

My basis for all the arguments provided above are trends of past systems, which took off at a certain price. The 3DS is the best example of a Nintendo trend being radically altered once the price went below a threshold Of course price in itself is not the be all end all, the be all end all is value. However Nintendo provides constant Nintendo value and as such the sales trends seem to stumble past a certain constant price.


I would like a link to these case studies you are quoting. You are already setting the value of the Wii U Deluxe SKU at the same height as the original Wii when the sales do not agree with your assertion. You are also ignoring other key factors in what turned the 3DS around. You seem to understand that "value" is what determines how something sells and how it doesn't, but you keep arguing that the price is the main factor. I mean, all other evidence points to the contrary. 



Around the Network
Giggs_11 on 25 July 2014

Didn't read much into it besides the title and the 1st post because i just needed to read that to know this discussion doens't make sense. The WiiU isn't trying to replicate anything, above all it isn't trying to replicate portable consoles. How do I know that? Because it isn't portable at all, or trying to be for that matter.

How come people call portable to something you can't even properly use in the adjacent room to where the console is? Can you play on the street? On the train? On the go? On the coffe house? No, you can't do any of those things.

WiiU is at best a dual screen console.



Conina on 25 July 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:
padib said:

I'm glad we agree on games.

Sadly for price we will have to disagree. To ensure success, the price Sony can charge on its system is very different from the price Nintendo can charge. The reason is that the two systems cater to very different audiences (historically speaking): Nintendo's clients are not ready to buy at high price while Sony clients are. Support my hypothesis were the 3DS, DS, Wii and Wii U case studies.


Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU?

Because the people who buy a console (or any other technical product) directly at launch are innovators or early adopters:

These groups are way less price-sensitive than the early or late majority.



QuintonMcLeod on 25 July 2014
Conina said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
padib said:

I'm glad we agree on games.

Sadly for price we will have to disagree. To ensure success, the price Sony can charge on its system is very different from the price Nintendo can charge. The reason is that the two systems cater to very different audiences (historically speaking): Nintendo's clients are not ready to buy at high price while Sony clients are. Support my hypothesis were the 3DS, DS, Wii and Wii U case studies.


Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU?

Because the people who buy a console (or any other technical product) directly at launch are innovators or early adopters:

These groups are way less price-sensitive than the early or late majority.


Right.. Except this graph makes your graph irrelvant.



Conina on 25 July 2014
QuintonMcLeod said:
Conina said:
QuintonMcLeod said:
padib said:

I'm glad we agree on games.

Sadly for price we will have to disagree. To ensure success, the price Sony can charge on its system is very different from the price Nintendo can charge. The reason is that the two systems cater to very different audiences (historically speaking): Nintendo's clients are not ready to buy at high price while Sony clients are. Support my hypothesis were the 3DS, DS, Wii and Wii U case studies.


Oh? Then why did the Wii U sell 3 million consoles in 2012 when it was priced at $350? Why did people prefer to buy the more expensive Deluxe SKU than the less expensive Basic SKU?

Because the people who buy a console (or any other technical product) directly at launch are innovators or early adopters:

These groups are way less price-sensitive than the early or late majority.


Right.. Except this graph makes your graph irrelvant.

What is the relevance of your graph in the price discussion? How does it disprove that innovators and early adopters are willing to pay higher prices than the majority?



zorg1000 on 25 July 2014
oniyide said:
the thing isnt portable...at all. You cant even leave the house with the gamepad


Hell I cant even go to the next room, I hope they can somehow improve that thru an update or revision



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.