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

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Outdated Hardware 7 10.94%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%
 
The tablet controller 6 9.38%
 
The Price 0 0%
 
All of the above 27 42.19%
 
None of the above 0 0%
 
The Wii killed the Wii U! 1 1.56%
 
WTH! The Wii U was a success! 2 3.13%
 
Total:64
Scary4Eva said:
Marketing and the name. Most people I've talked to even to this day, still have no idea the Wii U was a brand new console and are always surprised when I tell them.

The name certainly was a  big hurdle to overcome. Especially for the majority of Wii's audience.



Around the Network

Short list it things they did right:

- External HDD support on day one.

- Miiverse was an amazing social experience. They policed it too hard, though.

- Gamepad really did add to a lot of games. Just not enough. Playing Batman Arkham City with a constant map and inventory was fantastic. It felt good in my hands, too. Can't imagine playing Pikmin 3 without my Wii Remote/Game Pad combo.

- Great web browser. Still use it to this day. TO THIS DAY.

-Eventually built a good enough library if exclusives. SM3D World and Pikmin 3 will forever be on my playlist.

-Full backwards compatibility with the Wii and its peripherals.

-Free (though it sucked) online.

That's about it.



Twitter: @d21lewis

You said in your article that poor hardware specs killed the Wii U but that also made the Wii a hit. If anything we have learned that games and price its what really gets a console going. But more importantly, the biggest mistake (IMO) that Nintendo did with Wii U was the name. It was just too confusing and potentially made it sound like it was just an updated overpriced Wii. The system needed a new name like previous Nintendo consoles to install it as a different new console.



Soonerman said:
You said in your article that poor hardware specs killed the Wii U but that also made the Wii a hit. If anything we have learned that games and price its what really gets a console going. But more importantly, the biggest mistake (IMO) that Nintendo did with Wii U was the name. It was just too confusing and potentially made it sound like it was just an updated overpriced Wii. The system needed a new name like previous Nintendo consoles to install it as a different new console.

Yes, The Wii was a hit with the casual, non habitual gamer masses. Many Hardcore's including myself did buy one (I did in 2011) in order to play the Mario Galaxy games and Skyward Sword. The Wii U came into a completely different environment with a different premise that didn't appeal to the casual masses, and being underpowered made it unappealing to the Hardcore's especially at the high price point (as you stated). In 2012 no one except the Nintendo faithful was going to jump into the Wii U when it didn't offer anything that couldn't be found on the 360/PS3 for much less and in many occasions in better form. 

Power made the 300-350 dollar investment a precarious one when the PS4 was $399.00. Power wasn't the only Wii U killer, but it had a part to play.



SammyGiireal said:
Soonerman said:
You said in your article that poor hardware specs killed the Wii U but that also made the Wii a hit. If anything we have learned that games and price its what really gets a console going. But more importantly, the biggest mistake (IMO) that Nintendo did with Wii U was the name. It was just too confusing and potentially made it sound like it was just an updated overpriced Wii. The system needed a new name like previous Nintendo consoles to install it as a different new console.

Yes, The Wii was a hit with the casual, non habitual gamer masses. Many Hardcore's including myself did buy one (I did in 2011) in order to play the Mario Galaxy games and Skyward Sword. The Wii U came into a completely different environment with a different premise that didn't appeal to the casual masses, and being underpowered made it unappealing to the Hardcore's especially at the high price point (as you stated). In 2012 no one except the Nintendo faithful was going to jump into the Wii U when it didn't offer anything that couldn't be found on the 360/PS3 for much less and in many occasions in better form. 

Power made the 300-350 dollar investment a precarious one when the PS4 was $399.00. Power wasn't the only Wii U killer, but it had a part to play.

Even with no 8th gen competition the Wii U was selling pretty badly. I remember seeing Reggie on CNN around Christmas and the reporter saying that the console wasn't selling like the Wii. Reggie replied with something like "It's selling out everywhere. If you see one, you better snatch it up." You could tell he wasn't confident, though. The PS4 and Xbox One were just nails in the coffin.

The saddest part was after their launch when Reggie was trying to say the Wii U was the number selling console of the generation...leaving out the fact that the other consoles had just launched a few weeks before.



Twitter: @d21lewis

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I agree that processing power is not a good metric for a consoles success but...

Switch's processing power isn't as much of an issue for several reasons. It's a hybrid console, so many people view it as a handheld with very strong processing power alal PSP, or Vita. It gets a lot of 3rd party ports of games that initially launched on the more powerful two consoles. I can't even name a single Wii U game that was a port from the XB1 or PS4. At $299 with 32 GB of memory and portability Switch has a good price to performance/features ratio. At $350 for a 32 GB version or $300 for an 8 GB version and no portability Wii U had a bad price to performance/features ratio. 

...but you can't ditch that line of reasoning anyway.

Switch's processing power isn't an issue because prospective buyers don't consider a price to performance ratio to begin with. If price to performance ratio played a role, the GameCube would have sold a whole lot better. Nevermind that Switch's price to performance ratio was deemed awful by lots of people, hence why the vast majority got Switch lifetime sales predictions very wrong.

Applying a price to performance ratio to the history of Nintendo consoles doesn't yield consistent results, hence why it's an entirely useless metric.

-_- Really? Just because I pointed out the errors in your rebuttal to an argument that I know to be faulty, you think I'm for that sort of argument? Really? Maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts for the past six years. I don't know how many thousand times I've posted that graphics don't matter. But okay. 

Gamecube lacked a DVD player, which made its price to features/performance ratio bad compared to the other two consoles. During the Switch's reveal a lot of posters here had given up on Nintendo entirely. Wii U was a travesty. All of 2016 was one massive dry spell for the console with the only great game being Fire Emblem x SMT. Being downtrodden, they took the least optimistic line of reasoning. 

I agree that applying a price to performance ratio doesn't predict squat for Nintendo consoles. That's why I said price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy, GBA, DS, Wii, and Switch have all sold based on their price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy wouldn't have sold if it didn't have a stupidly long battery life. The GBA SP's folding design was a godsend. DS had the touchscreen. Take motion controls away from the Wii and it's just another Gamecube. Take the portability away from the Switch and it's a regular console. 

But you ignored the phrase "price to performance/features", and instead attacked the strawman of "price to performance". 

I know a lot of people have come on these boards over the years asking for another Gamecube, and arguing that if Nintendo just made a console as powerful as the other two they would be back int the game. But please don't lump me in with them. 



Chrkeller said:

And that was $70 that could have gone to performance. My point stands, the Gampad was expensive and brought nothing to the table. It was a poor decison. I bought a Pro controller and rarely tocuhed the Gamepad, so I paid $70 for what exactly?  And $70 is being super generous considering Nintendo charged $112 for a replacement.

It is especially worth noting the Wii U launched in 2012.  Your article is dated 2015....  3 years after launch Nintendo charged $112....  meaning it was more expensive 3 years prior, given we both know tech drops in price over time.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point. I was backing it up and clarifying. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Chrkeller said:

And that was $70 that could have gone to performance. My point stands, the Gampad was expensive and brought nothing to the table. It was a poor decison. I bought a Pro controller and rarely tocuhed the Gamepad, so I paid $70 for what exactly?  And $70 is being super generous considering Nintendo charged $112 for a replacement.

It is especially worth noting the Wii U launched in 2012.  Your article is dated 2015....  3 years after launch Nintendo charged $112....  meaning it was more expensive 3 years prior, given we both know tech drops in price over time.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point. I was backing it up and clarifying. 

Fair enough and I also agree with your other point, that performance is more than just graphics.  For me it is about consumer belief in 'bang for buck.'  A $300 ps2 that also plays DVDs.  Or a $300 Switch that is both a home and portable console.  The Wii U never had that bang for the buck perception, and I personally agree with that perception.  It was overpriced for what it brought to the table.  



Cerebralbore101 said:
RolStoppable said:

...but you can't ditch that line of reasoning anyway.

Switch's processing power isn't an issue because prospective buyers don't consider a price to performance ratio to begin with. If price to performance ratio played a role, the GameCube would have sold a whole lot better. Nevermind that Switch's price to performance ratio was deemed awful by lots of people, hence why the vast majority got Switch lifetime sales predictions very wrong.

Applying a price to performance ratio to the history of Nintendo consoles doesn't yield consistent results, hence why it's an entirely useless metric.

-_- Really? Just because I pointed out the errors in your rebuttal to an argument that I know to be faulty, you think I'm for that sort of argument? Really? Maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts for the past six years. I don't know how many thousand times I've posted that graphics don't matter. But okay. 

Gamecube lacked a DVD player, which made its price to features/performance ratio bad compared to the other two consoles. During the Switch's reveal a lot of posters here had given up on Nintendo entirely. Wii U was a travesty. All of 2016 was one massive dry spell for the console with the only great game being Fire Emblem x SMT. Being downtrodden, they took the least optimistic line of reasoning. 

I agree that applying a price to performance ratio doesn't predict squat for Nintendo consoles. That's why I said price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy, GBA, DS, Wii, and Switch have all sold based on their price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy wouldn't have sold if it didn't have a stupidly long battery life. The GBA SP's folding design was a godsend. DS had the touchscreen. Take motion controls away from the Wii and it's just another Gamecube. Take the portability away from the Switch and it's a regular console. 

But you ignored the phrase "price to performance/features", and instead attacked the strawman of "price to performance". 

I know a lot of people have come on these boards over the years asking for another Gamecube, and arguing that if Nintendo just made a console as powerful as the other two they would be back int the game. But please don't lump me in with them. 

This. Power matters if your system doesn't have any redeeming feature which was the case with Wii U. The Wii had a low price point and a motion control gimmick that became a success with the casual masses. The Switch has a hybrid nature, a portable that can play on your TV and can offer big AAA home console experience on the go. Those two have been the only examples in which Nintendo sold extremely well in the home console market with underpowered hardware. 

I don't that like to bring the gameboy, Advance, SP, DS, 3DS argument into this particular fray because Nintendo has dominated that market from the start. As you correctly point out the original GB had a ridiculously long battery life which made it the perfect portable in comparison to Sega's Game Gear, which was expensive and would have ruined your pocket in battery expenses. Nintendo got a real Challenge in the form of the PSP, but again the pricing and the market in those days for portable game systems favored Nintendo greatly. Most parents would rather buy their kid the foldable (thus durable) DS rather than the more expensive PSP.  Nintendo also had a bigger library of titles. That  also stood true for the 3DS-Vita matchup. I think it is clear that people don't buy portables for sheer horse power, they want portability.



Cerebralbore101 said:
RolStoppable said:

...but you can't ditch that line of reasoning anyway.

Switch's processing power isn't an issue because prospective buyers don't consider a price to performance ratio to begin with. If price to performance ratio played a role, the GameCube would have sold a whole lot better. Nevermind that Switch's price to performance ratio was deemed awful by lots of people, hence why the vast majority got Switch lifetime sales predictions very wrong.

Applying a price to performance ratio to the history of Nintendo consoles doesn't yield consistent results, hence why it's an entirely useless metric.

-_- Really? Just because I pointed out the errors in your rebuttal to an argument that I know to be faulty, you think I'm for that sort of argument? Really? Maybe you haven't paid attention to my posts for the past six years. I don't know how many thousand times I've posted that graphics don't matter. But okay. 

Gamecube lacked a DVD player, which made its price to features/performance ratio bad compared to the other two consoles. During the Switch's reveal a lot of posters here had given up on Nintendo entirely. Wii U was a travesty. All of 2016 was one massive dry spell for the console with the only great game being Fire Emblem x SMT. Being downtrodden, they took the least optimistic line of reasoning. 

I agree that applying a price to performance ratio doesn't predict squat for Nintendo consoles. That's why I said price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy, GBA, DS, Wii, and Switch have all sold based on their price to performance/features ratio. Gameboy wouldn't have sold if it didn't have a stupidly long battery life. The GBA SP's folding design was a godsend. DS had the touchscreen. Take motion controls away from the Wii and it's just another Gamecube. Take the portability away from the Switch and it's a regular console. 

But you ignored the phrase "price to performance/features", and instead attacked the strawman of "price to performance". 

I know a lot of people have come on these boards over the years asking for another Gamecube, and arguing that if Nintendo just made a console as powerful as the other two they would be back int the game. But please don't lump me in with them. 

This. Power matters if your system doesn't have any redeeming feature which was the case with Wii U. The Wii had a low price point and a motion control gimmick that became a success with the casual masses. The Switch has a hybrid nature, a portable that can play on your TV and can offer big AAA home console experience on the go. Those two have been the only examples in which Nintendo sold extremely well in the home console market with underpowered hardware. 

I don't that like to bring the gameboy, Advance, SP, DS, 3DS argument into this particular fray because Nintendo has dominated that market from the start. As you correctly point out the original GB had a ridiculously long battery life which made it the perfect portable in comparison to Sega's Game Gear, which was expensive and would have ruined your pocket in battery expenses. Nintendo got a real Challenge in the form of the PSP, but again the pricing and the market in those days for portable game systems favored Nintendo greatly. Most parents would rather buy their kid the foldable (thus durable) DS rather than the more expensive PSP.  Nintendo also had a bigger library of titles. That  also stood true for the 3DS-Vita matchup. I think it is clear that people don't buy portables for sheer horse power, they want portability.