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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Since Wii U failed, what should Nintendo have done to follow up the Wii's success?

 

Could Nintendo have realistically produced another Wii-like success?

Yes. Nintendo magic. Just not the Wii U. 131 28.85%
 
No. Wii was a one time th... 262 57.71%
 
Yo Mama 61 13.44%
 
Total:454
Materia-Blade on 13 February 2015
Captain_Yuri said:
Materia-Blade said:

Wii U was $299 at launch. one bundle being $349 doesn't change the lower entry price.

I thought you meant low power hardware wise. yes, wii u has low power consumption but I see it as beneficial.

Wii U doesn't use blu ray discs per se, and it's a known fact it's read speed is quite faster than ps3's bluray.

Won't repeat myself on the rest.

No one in their right mind would buy the basic edition cause 8gb of space is legit nothing to work with, specially when its competitors were offering 250-500GBs of space... Hence why it was shortly phased out. Almost no one even considered the basic model to even be worth the purchase hence it being phased out

And most people don't see it as a benefit hence the terrible sales

And yes, it does read faster than the ps3's Bluray but that still doesn't matter cause its no where near the speeds of what a hard drive is capable of doing

But at the end of the day, whether you believe it or not, most of what I said on my original comment was true and not only did I give proof which you failed to do, but its also proven by the market... Nintendo has great games, there is no denying that but as a console launch, the wiiU was a failure due to all the mistakes I have said

Proven by the market? If anything, the market proved that those "issues" you listed had very little impact on wii u's sales. the main problem is different.

But wii u is not a failure since it's profitable and pleases it's buyers.



Around the Network
dongo8 on 13 February 2015
Soundwave said:


The 3DS was "turned around" within 5-6 months. 

No system gets turned around this late in the game. Even the PS3 was selling much better than the Wii U by this point in its lifecycle. 

Nintendo actually isn't that great at turning around consoles either, all of the N64, GCN, and even Wii lost momentum as they went along in their lifecycle, all three pretty much were wheezing like a fat kid trying to get up a set of stairs by the generation end. 

Fair enough, I still place much more faith in Nintendo than I do either of the other console manufacturers. Mostly because I look at the other two, and what original top-tier titles have they produced this gen? I don't see anything screaming have to have it, and I'm confused as to how all of this raw power and graphics, and bluray capability, and entertainment hub is driving sales when there are no dedicated games of note on the consoles. It's strange how Nintendo puts out great title after great title (maybe with a small lull in between titles now that they are rolling) and attracts the attention of the indie scene, yet they are the odd-man out. I guess we'll see how it turns out, I'm jsut holding out hope that people will start realizing just how great they are.



NNID: Dongo8                              XBL Gamertag: Dongos Revenge

baloofarsan on 13 February 2015
Salnax said:

Compared to the Wii, the Wii U is a bit more expensive costing about $100 more than the Wii did at launch. Even accounting for inflation, that is a notable jump.

Excuse me for being anal.

Basic Wii U $300 in 2012 is $310 now.

Premium Wii U $350 in 2012 is $361 now.

Wii $250 in 2006 is $296 now.

Difference Wii - Wii U = between $14 - $65

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=250&year=2006



Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 13 February 2015
Materia-Blade said:
Captain_Yuri said:
Materia-Blade said:

Wii U was $299 at launch. one bundle being $349 doesn't change the lower entry price.

I thought you meant low power hardware wise. yes, wii u has low power consumption but I see it as beneficial.

Wii U doesn't use blu ray discs per se, and it's a known fact it's read speed is quite faster than ps3's bluray.

Won't repeat myself on the rest.

No one in their right mind would buy the basic edition cause 8gb of space is legit nothing to work with, specially when its competitors were offering 250-500GBs of space... Hence why it was shortly phased out. Almost no one even considered the basic model to even be worth the purchase hence it being phased out

And most people don't see it as a benefit hence the terrible sales

And yes, it does read faster than the ps3's Bluray but that still doesn't matter cause its no where near the speeds of what a hard drive is capable of doing

But at the end of the day, whether you believe it or not, most of what I said on my original comment was true and not only did I give proof which you failed to do, but its also proven by the market... Nintendo has great games, there is no denying that but as a console launch, the wiiU was a failure due to all the mistakes I have said

Proven by the market? If anything, the market proved that those "issues" you listed had very little impact on wii u's sales. the main problem is different.

But wii u is not a failure since it's profitable and pleases it's buyers.

How does it prove that those issues I listed have very little impact...? The wiiU isn't even going to sell a quarter of the wii and its due to all those issues which lead to bad press which lead to bad sales

And I am pretty sure most the profits are coming from everything else but the wiiU console itself such as amiibos, software and Nintendo's handheld



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Mr Khan on 13 February 2015
Soundwave said:

They did actually have most of the big market IP. Assassin's Creed, Batman, Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, NBA 2K, Need For Speed were there from day one. If they had pushed they likely could have gotten GTA as well. 

The problem is what's the incentive for anyone to buy a Wii U for these games? There's no generational leap, if Nintendo had a full year where they had the best versions of these games without question (noticably better too), they would have seen considerable benefit. 

They should have worked more closely with Ubi Soft as well to ensure Zombi U was a very high quality game. 

They could have done it. But every time you miss your window of oppurtunity, it's very costly. Now Nintendo is pretty much cemented as being irrelevant to the mainstream console market as far as the development community and non-Nintendo fans go. It's a costly mistake. 

The key is that most of those were half-assed, and when they sold proportionately poorly, third parties soon bailed out.

The games don't just need to be there, they need to SELL so that the third parties stick around. Nintendo will have a job and a half convincing folks to put third party games on the next console at launch at all, but either way it doesn't matter, the version you have has to be a version that matters, and that means paying up to make sure the third parties don't half-ass it.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Soundwave on 13 February 2015
Mr Khan said:
Soundwave said:
 

They did actually have most of the big market IP. Assassin's Creed, Batman, Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, NBA 2K, Need For Speed were there from day one. If they had pushed they likely could have gotten GTA as well. 

The problem is what's the incentive for anyone to buy a Wii U for these games? There's no generational leap, if Nintendo had a full year where they had the best versions of these games without question (noticably better too), they would have seen considerable benefit. 

They should have worked more closely with Ubi Soft as well to ensure Zombi U was a very high quality game. 

They could have done it. But every time you miss your window of oppurtunity, it's very costly. Now Nintendo is pretty much cemented as being irrelevant to the mainstream console market as far as the development community and non-Nintendo fans go. It's a costly mistake. 

The key is that most of those were half-assed, and when they sold proportionately poorly, third parties soon bailed out.

The games don't just need to be there, they need to SELL so that the third parties stick around. Nintendo will have a job and a half convincing folks to put third party games on the next console at launch at all, but either way it doesn't matter, the version you have has to be a version that matters, and that means paying up to make sure the third parties don't half-ass it.


Well you can't just offer the exact same games, lol. I mean it's not rocket science. 

Would anyone be interested in a 16-bit "me too" system, even one with Street Fighter II ... launching in 1995?

No. Why would the average gamer want to invest in that system when they already have a SNES and Genesis and are looking forward to the N64 and Playstation.

Even the Dreamcast was an immediately noticable upgrade on the PSX and N64, Wii U was basically just Nintendo's "oh hey, here's our version of PS3 six years late mixed in with a bunch Wii casual games, now give us $350 please". Like who in the world did they think was going to get excited by that proposition. 

If the system was a good deal more powerful then third parties would've made better looking/performing versions of those games and it would've given Nintendo a decent edge. 

How many people would chose a PS4 ... if PS4 was just a PS3, very slightly upgraded under the hood with a screen on the Dual Shock and basically nothing else? XBox One would dominate, it would have all the superior multiplats. All the "third parties heart Sony" stuff wouldn't change anything, Sony would get routed. You can't make stupid decisions with your hardware like that. 



QUAKECore89 on 13 February 2015

Nintendo was lucky for selling Wii like a hot cake due to expensive PS3 & hardware failure Xbox 360, a lot of people loved Nintendo. Then Nintendo announced Wii U oddly, it was shown a gamepad while people wanted to see console look like & spec. Next year, Nintendo announced console & spec with price, people were shocked that budget model came only 8gb & usb 2.0 external hard drive with ac-adapter, should've been 16gb & usb 3.0. Maaaaan, how did they missed the features?

What else, i don't remember, what happened after released.



Fededx on 13 February 2015

They shouldn't have named it Wii U, instead create another name totally different, so that the casual market would realise it's a brand new console. The gamepad isn't good either, it should have been a peripheral. I don't like having two screens showing the same stuff and the sound coming faster from the pad than the TV... They should have sold a faster machine, with a little more power, the Wiimote and pro controllers, a different name for it and the remake of Wind Waker at launch, a NSMB game wasn't enough. Anyway, I like the Wii U as it is (except for what I said about the gamepad), it's got amazing games and makes really beautiful graphics, but casuals didn't see it as a new console at first, and nonow it's too late. Oh and the name is horrendous.



Nymeria on 13 February 2015

The name is a big one. My grandma loves to play Wii, but she thought the Wii U was a tablet and opted for an iPad instead being content with her Wii (Wii Sports and Wii Fit mainly) as graphics never matter to her.

The Wii U feels like it wanted to appease both parties while satisfying neither. It wasn't powerful enough to get ports and it was too expensive and confusing to get grandmas.



97alexk on 13 February 2015
UltimateUnknown said:

At this point I think most people would agree the Wii U has failed up to live up to the Wii's success. But then the question is, what exactly could Nintendo have done to follow up the success they had with the Wii? How could they reach the Wii's level a second time?

Personally I don't think they could. The Wii seemed very much a one time thing. Nintendo bet on the right technology at the right time and it paid off. They tried it with the Wii U but the technology they bet on was wrong and so it didn't catch on. Nintendo doesn't have a large number of core gamers (who are consistently there to buy consoles/games) to fall back on either like Sony/MS. So ultimately I feel as though it would have been nearly impossible for them to repeat a Wii-like phenomenon because it is like catching lightning in a bottle with the casuals. 

But that's just my opinion. What do you guys think?

Wii U is not a failure in my opinion. I love it and i think atleast 9 million other Wii U owners agree, idk about xbox one and ps4 owner, but the library for Wii U is gonna look incredible in the end of this year and probably the upcoming year, im satisfied already with m purchase and i think Wii U is gonna last until 2017 or 2018.