Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What Went Wrong? Wii U Edition

Tagged games:

Why did the Wii U failed?

Poor Marketing 15 23.44%
 
Outdated Hardware 7 10.94%
 
Lack of First Party Killer Apps 6 9.38%
 
Lack of 3rd Party support 0 0.00%
 
The tablet controller 6 9.38%
 
The Price 0 0.00%
 
All of the above 27 42.19%
 
None of the above 0 0.00%
 
The Wii killed the Wii U! 1 1.56%
 
WTH! The Wii U was a success! 2 3.13%
 
Total:64
Cerebralbore101 said:
SammyGiireal said:

It might have sold a little better, you solved the price issue by removing the controller. But the power issue, lack of killer apps, and lack of third party support remain. Nintendo was successful with the Wii, but even the Wii had run its course by the start of the decade.  Without the controller and a 199 dollar price point we might have seen sales in the 20-25 mill range. 

That tells me that you think price to performance/features wasn't a large factor in sales. "We might have seen 20-25 million range.", isn't a very confident statement. That's about 5-10 million more units sold. 

I disagree. I think it would have done 35-40 million had the price been $250 instead of $350, for the 32 GB model of the Wii U. It still would have been a console with sad sales. Just XB1 levels of sadness. Switch probably wouldn't have released in 2017 with sales like that so it would have an extra year or two to get those kind of sales up. So something like 30-35 million by 2017, and another 2-3 million or so in 2018 and 2019 each. 

Why? Because the software for the Wii U just wasn't there. It had 2 years of good games bookended by two massive droughts. 

What if Nintendo had released the Wii U as a machine rivaling the power of the base model PS4, for $400? How much better do you think it would have sold then? 

Please answer before viewing my own opinion on it below...

Spoiler!
I think a PS4 level Wii U, with  a 32 GB HDD, and Wiimote/Nunchuck controllers (no Gamepad/Tablet included) would have sold 20-25 million. In other words, I think it would have been better for Nintendo to release an underpowered Wii U at $250 than bother trying to make a Gamecube 2.0!

I still think it would have failed but it would have sold more than the meager 13 million. Because many gamers would have seen it as a future proof machine. 

Third party support wouldn't have been as dreadful, but the issue remains as killer exclusives would still have been a problem. BotW didn't see the light of day until 2017. We would be seeing 30 million units here. An under powered Wii U at 250 would still sell less than 30 mill...no Xbox One numbers. Some said at 2010 release...I can actually see the cheaper, HD Wii U selling better then.



Around the Network

I will add a point that only recently realised. Forgive me, If anyone else mentioned it before. Just look at the logo. What you see. The name Wii with a U in a blue frame (excuse me for the word, I couldn't know how to express it more acccurately) shown as an... exponent. Why, please tell me why. How will the customer understand that we speak about a whole new console when even the logo is designed to indicate that we talk about something which is a little more than a regular Wii. If xbox360 had the same logo, it would give the customers the same impression. The same with any other name for any other console. Even GBA SP had the SP with capital letters. You will say that this maybe a detail, but is it really? What I want to say is that the logo of Wii U was very insufficient and disorienting to support a new console. What do you think?



Quodam_Diem said:
I will add a point that only recently realised. Forgive me, If anyone else mentioned it before. Just look at the logo. What you see. The name Wii with a U in a blue frame (excuse me for the word, I couldn't know how to express it more acccurately) shown as an... exponent. Why, please tell me why. How will the customer understand that we speak about a whole new console when even the logo is designed to indicate that we talk about something which is a little more than a regular Wii. If xbox360 had the same logo, it would give the customers the same impression. The same with any other name for any other console. Even GBA SP had the SP with capital letters. You will say that this maybe a detail, but is it really? What I want to say is that the logo of Wii U was very insufficient and disorienting to support a new console. What do you think?

I did talk about the name and bad marketing. But the point you make about the logo is a very valid one, that I don't think has been brought up yet . It did serve to aid in costumer confusion.



SammyGiireal said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

That tells me that you think price to performance/features wasn't a large factor in sales. "We might have seen 20-25 million range.", isn't a very confident statement. That's about 5-10 million more units sold. 

I disagree. I think it would have done 35-40 million had the price been $250 instead of $350, for the 32 GB model of the Wii U. It still would have been a console with sad sales. Just XB1 levels of sadness. Switch probably wouldn't have released in 2017 with sales like that so it would have an extra year or two to get those kind of sales up. So something like 30-35 million by 2017, and another 2-3 million or so in 2018 and 2019 each. 

Why? Because the software for the Wii U just wasn't there. It had 2 years of good games bookended by two massive droughts. 

What if Nintendo had released the Wii U as a machine rivaling the power of the base model PS4, for $400? How much better do you think it would have sold then? 

Please answer before viewing my own opinion on it below...

Spoiler!
I think a PS4 level Wii U, with  a 32 GB HDD, and Wiimote/Nunchuck controllers (no Gamepad/Tablet included) would have sold 20-25 million. In other words, I think it would have been better for Nintendo to release an underpowered Wii U at $250 than bother trying to make a Gamecube 2.0!

I still think it would have failed but it would have sold more than the meager 13 million. Because many gamers would have seen it as a future proof machine. 

Third party support wouldn't have been as dreadful, but the issue remains as killer exclusives would still have been a problem. BotW didn't see the light of day until 2017. We would be seeing 30 million units here. An under powered Wii U at 250 would still sell less than 30 mill...no Xbox One numbers. Some said at 2010 release...I can actually see the cheaper, HD Wii U selling better then.

How much more though? Would a PS4 comparable Wii U have sold just 16 million units lifetime? Or 20 million lifetime? Or even more? I'd just like a an official number from you. Even an estimated range like 60-77 million would do. 

Or to put the question another way. What do you think would have sold more? An underpowered $250 Wii U with no Gamepad, but with Nunchucks/Wiimotes instead? Or a $400 Wii U with no Gamepad, but a regular controller instead, and power rivaling the base model PS4?

You've said an underpowered Wii U at 250 would have sold less than 30 million. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
SammyGiireal said:

I still think it would have failed but it would have sold more than the meager 13 million. Because many gamers would have seen it as a future proof machine. 

Third party support wouldn't have been as dreadful, but the issue remains as killer exclusives would still have been a problem. BotW didn't see the light of day until 2017. We would be seeing 30 million units here. An under powered Wii U at 250 would still sell less than 30 mill...no Xbox One numbers. Some said at 2010 release...I can actually see the cheaper, HD Wii U selling better then.

How much more though? Would a PS4 comparable Wii U have sold just 16 million units lifetime? Or 20 million lifetime? Or even more? I'd just like a an official number from you. Even an estimated range like 60-77 million would do. 

Or to put the question another way. What do you think would have sold more? An underpowered $250 Wii U with no Gamepad, but with Nunchucks/Wiimotes instead? Or a $400 Wii U with no Gamepad, but a regular controller instead, and power rivaling the base model PS4?

You've said an underpowered Wii U at 250 would have sold less than 30 million.

An under powered Wii U, without a killer exclusive in 2012 sells about 20-25 million if cheap I am talking 199.99 cheap. A PS4 like machine in 2012 should sell more than that. some of the big third party games would have arrived in better shape than in the 360 and PS3. We are talking about a real 1080p machine (which was a big selling point then) capable of running MGSV, GTA etc. Ports which it might have had. 

I can't see it doing much worse than Xbox one which also lacked great exclusives. So for arguments sake with third party support based on the console being competent enough to compete with the PS4 I can see it reaching the 30-35 mill threshold.  No where near as successful as the hybrid Switch is/will be but not near the disaster it ( the WiiU) actually was.



Around the Network
SammyGiireal said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

How much more though? Would a PS4 comparable Wii U have sold just 16 million units lifetime? Or 20 million lifetime? Or even more? I'd just like a an official number from you. Even an estimated range like 60-77 million would do. 

Or to put the question another way. What do you think would have sold more? An underpowered $250 Wii U with no Gamepad, but with Nunchucks/Wiimotes instead? Or a $400 Wii U with no Gamepad, but a regular controller instead, and power rivaling the base model PS4?

You've said an underpowered Wii U at 250 would have sold less than 30 million.

An under powered Wii U, without a killer exclusive in 2012 sells about 20-25 million if cheap I am talking 199.99 cheap. A PS4 like machine in 2012 should sell more than that. some of the big third party games would have arrived in better shape than in the 360 and PS3. We are talking about a real 1080p machine (which was a big selling point then) capable of running MGSV, GTA etc. Ports which it might have had. 

I can't see it doing much worse than Xbox one which also lacked great exclusives. So for arguments sake with third party support based on the console being competent enough to compete with the PS4 I can see it reaching the 30-35 mill threshold.  No where near as successful as the hybrid Switch is/will be but not near the disaster it ( the WiiU) actually was.

Let me take you through what I see happening had Nintendo released a $400 PS4 rivaling Wii U. 

The console launches in 2012, but doesn't have a launch title at all. NSMBU is still being worked on because they now have to get it up to PS4 quality graphics. NSMBU finally launches in May 2013. Pikmin 3 and 3D World are also delayed by 6-8 months for the same reason. Ditto for any 2014 Wii U exclusives. 

Dragon Age Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor, GTAV, Diablo 3, DMC, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. all skip the powered up Wii U leaving it to languish with almost no games for all of 2012, 2013, and 2014. "But how do you know these games would have skipped a powered up Wii U?" Because they were  all on PS3, and skipped the regular Wii U. 

To top it off a powered up Wii U likely would have still been 3rd place in the horsepower rankings because it launched a year earlier. 

So here we are summer of 2014 and this PS4 rivaling Wii U has NSMBU, 3D World, Pikmin 3, and that's it. DKC, Mario Kart, and Bayonetta have all been delayed to the holidays. Most of the 3rd party games just outright ignored it. Why? Because making these games for a Nintendo console was never planned. Just like how 3rd parties got caught with their pants down from the Switch's success and took a couple years to fully support the system, this version of Wii U would have caught devs off guard as well. Except it wouldn't have had good sales like the Switch. It would have had bad sales. Worse than the regular Wii U. Because it would have had even less games than the regular Wii U! It would have been even more of a dumpsterfire than the regular Wii U!



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
SammyGiireal said:

An under powered Wii U, without a killer exclusive in 2012 sells about 20-25 million if cheap I am talking 199.99 cheap. A PS4 like machine in 2012 should sell more than that. some of the big third party games would have arrived in better shape than in the 360 and PS3. We are talking about a real 1080p machine (which was a big selling point then) capable of running MGSV, GTA etc. Ports which it might have had. 

I can't see it doing much worse than Xbox one which also lacked great exclusives. So for arguments sake with third party support based on the console being competent enough to compete with the PS4 I can see it reaching the 30-35 mill threshold.  No where near as successful as the hybrid Switch is/will be but not near the disaster it ( the WiiU) actually was.

Let me take you through what I see happening had Nintendo released a $400 PS4 rivaling Wii U. 

The console launches in 2012, but doesn't have a launch title at all. NSMBU is still being worked on because they now have to get it up to PS4 quality graphics. NSMBU finally launches in May 2013. Pikmin 3 and 3D World are also delayed by 6-8 months for the same reason. Ditto for any 2014 Wii U exclusives. 

Dragon Age Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor, GTAV, Diablo 3, DMC, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. all skip the powered up Wii U leaving it to languish with almost no games for all of 2012, 2013, and 2014. "But how do you know these games would have skipped a powered up Wii U?" Because they were  all on PS3, and skipped the regular Wii U. 

To top it off a powered up Wii U likely would have still been 3rd place in the horsepower rankings because it launched a year earlier. 

So here we are summer of 2014 and this PS4 rivaling Wii U has NSMBU, 3D World, Pikmin 3, and that's it. DKC, Mario Kart, and Bayonetta have all been delayed to the holidays. Most of the 3rd party games just outright ignored it. Why? Because making these games for a Nintendo console was never planned. Just like how 3rd parties got caught with their pants down from the Switch's success and took a couple years to fully support the system, this version of Wii U would have caught devs off guard as well. Except it wouldn't have had good sales like the Switch. It would have had bad sales. Worse than the regular Wii U. Because it would have had even less games than the regular Wii U! It would have been even more of a dumpsterfire than the regular Wii U!

How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U? Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems.

The Wii U was a mistake in its entirety, but the lack of power hurt it as did other factors that is one of my points. Nintendo hoped to pull off a similar trick with it, but the casuals that the Wii attracted weren't going to fall for a 350 dollar machine that most didn't know much about.

The proof? Look at the numbers, 13 million units, a sharp drop from the 101 million units the Wii sold.  The core and habitual  gamers had made a shift to Sony and Microsoft.  

The Switch has made a nice push in getting that market back because of portability and some awesome first party titles. But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4. The Switch is really a successor to the 3DS as most people I knew that had a 3DS also owned a 360 or a PS3 in those days. The Wii U failed to grab those gamers back.



The problems the Wii had were deeper rooted than game enthusiasts realized I think.

The general public didn't view the Wii as a normal game console, so the idea of a "Wii 2" (like a "Playstation 2" successor) didn't even make sense to a lot of people.

For example, a lot of people thought the Wii was a total potato hardware wise. I remember knowing my friend was a fan of the Fatal Frame series and an owner of the Wii (mainly for Wii Sports + Wii Fit) I told him there was a Fatal Frame coming to Wii and he paused and said "can the Wii even run Fatal Frame?".

Like I had to explain to him that actually the Wii was more powerful than the original XBox that he had for Fatal Frame.

People don't understand how damaging in some ways the view of the Wii as a casualware machine (even for people who liked casualware games) was ... it become so entrenched with the Wii brand that people didn't take it seriously as a normal game platform and concepts like a "Wii 2" (Wii successor) was confusing to people in the sense that "why do you need a Wii 2? Wii's graphics are supposed to suck, you don't need graphics for Wii Sports and Just Dance" was the thought process of more people than I think Nintendo would want to admit.

The Wii brand in effect eventually became a massive liability. If the Switch was the same exact concept + hardware, but Nintendo called it "Wii Go" or "Wii 3" or whatever ... it would not be selling anywhere near as well, the "Wii" part of it was a massive turn off. 



SammyGiireal said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Let me take you through what I see happening had Nintendo released a $400 PS4 rivaling Wii U. 

The console launches in 2012, but doesn't have a launch title at all. NSMBU is still being worked on because they now have to get it up to PS4 quality graphics. NSMBU finally launches in May 2013. Pikmin 3 and 3D World are also delayed by 6-8 months for the same reason. Ditto for any 2014 Wii U exclusives. 

Dragon Age Inquisition, Shadow of Mordor, GTAV, Diablo 3, DMC, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, etc. all skip the powered up Wii U leaving it to languish with almost no games for all of 2012, 2013, and 2014. "But how do you know these games would have skipped a powered up Wii U?" Because they were  all on PS3, and skipped the regular Wii U. 

To top it off a powered up Wii U likely would have still been 3rd place in the horsepower rankings because it launched a year earlier. 

So here we are summer of 2014 and this PS4 rivaling Wii U has NSMBU, 3D World, Pikmin 3, and that's it. DKC, Mario Kart, and Bayonetta have all been delayed to the holidays. Most of the 3rd party games just outright ignored it. Why? Because making these games for a Nintendo console was never planned. Just like how 3rd parties got caught with their pants down from the Switch's success and took a couple years to fully support the system, this version of Wii U would have caught devs off guard as well. Except it wouldn't have had good sales like the Switch. It would have had bad sales. Worse than the regular Wii U. Because it would have had even less games than the regular Wii U! It would have been even more of a dumpsterfire than the regular Wii U!

How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U? Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems.

The Wii U was a mistake in its entirety, but the lack of power hurt it as did other factors that is one of my points. Nintendo hoped to pull off a similar trick with it, but the casuals that the Wii attracted weren't going to fall for a 350 dollar machine that most didn't know much about.

The proof? Look at the numbers, 13 million units, a sharp drop from the 101 million units the Wii sold.  The core and habitual  gamers had made a shift to Sony and Microsoft.  

The Switch has made a nice push in getting that market back because of portability and some awesome first party titles. But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4. The Switch is really a successor to the 3DS as most people I knew that had a 3DS also owned a 360 or a PS3 in those days. The Wii U failed to grab those gamers back.

How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U?

The same way the Vita sold worse than the 3DS despite being $250, when the 3DS was $250, and $200, when the 3DS XL was $200. That's what happens when a system has no games.

Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems.

The problem there is assuming that our hypothetical powerful Wii U would have gone with a similar architecture to the PS4. It wouldn't have, because it would have launched a year earlier, and Nintendo never does what everybody else does. 

Also, Wii U was capable of 3 instructions per clock, and had 2 GB of ram. 360 was 2 instructions per clock and 512 MB of ram. Wii U didn't need such a fast CPU because it wasn't constantly grabbing info from the HDD like the 360 was. 

I agree with the rest of your post, except for the following part...

But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4.

Everyone I knew that owned a Wii also owned a 360 or a PS3. So Switch should be considered the successor to the Wii then right? 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
SammyGiireal said:

How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U? Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems.

The Wii U was a mistake in its entirety, but the lack of power hurt it as did other factors that is one of my points. Nintendo hoped to pull off a similar trick with it, but the casuals that the Wii attracted weren't going to fall for a 350 dollar machine that most didn't know much about.

The proof? Look at the numbers, 13 million units, a sharp drop from the 101 million units the Wii sold.  The core and habitual  gamers had made a shift to Sony and Microsoft.  

The Switch has made a nice push in getting that market back because of portability and some awesome first party titles. But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4. The Switch is really a successor to the 3DS as most people I knew that had a 3DS also owned a 360 or a PS3 in those days. The Wii U failed to grab those gamers back.

How does a better console that is only 50 dollars more sell worst than the Wii U?

The same way the Vita sold worse than the 3DS despite being $250, when the 3DS was $250, and $200, when the 3DS XL was $200. That's what happens when a system has no games.

Third parties were caught with their pants down with the Wii U. A Machine with with a worse CPU than the 7 year old 360. A system with similar architecture to the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't have presented those problems.

The problem there is assuming that our hypothetical powerful Wii U would have gone with a similar architecture to the PS4. It wouldn't have, because it would have launched a year earlier, and Nintendo never does what everybody else does. 

Also, Wii U was capable of 3 instructions per clock, and had 2 GB of ram. 360 was 2 instructions per clock and 512 MB of ram. Wii U didn't need such a fast CPU because it wasn't constantly grabbing info from the HDD like the 360 was. 

I agree with the rest of your post, except for the following part...

But everyone that I know that owns a switch also owns a PS4.

Everyone I knew that owned a Wii also owned a 360 or a PS3. So Switch should be considered the successor to the Wii then right? 

Only one gig was available for gaming and it was very slow ram. I never argued that the Wii U lacked gsmes, it is one of my points. But the power differential still remained a factor in it crashing. The Switch would have crashed too had it not been a portable system. And yeah everybody who owns a switch, owns a PS4 because there is a 100 million PS4s out there, people are getting their cutting edge games in it. The difference here is that most of the 100 million Wii owners were non habitual gamers, the Switch has a lot of core real gamers people in its installed base. It is really a successor to the 3DS more than anything.