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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - "Nintendo Switch" should be Nintendo's official game platform brand

RolStoppable said:
Slownenberg said:

Exactly my thinking. I thought about "Super Switch" but that would definitely make some people think it was just another version of the original Switch. People were already confused with the Wii U even though there was only one Wii. There is already a Switch Lite, I'm gonna guess there will be another Switch version (Switch XL, Switch Pro, or whatever) so we might already have 2 Switches with monikers added to them, continuing that next gen by just adding new monikers would be very confusing and not create a clear marketing and branding difference between generations.

If they are gonna stick with the Switch name the next one should be the Switch 2. Otherwise they should change the name completely, but I think sticking with Switch name next gen makes a lot of sense given the popularity of the Switch and the fact that hybrid isn't something that will become less interesting or less desired after this initial hybrid system. Only way I see them changing it is if they come up with something totally different, which I can't image what that'd be and honestly they probably shouldn't. The only thing I can think of is figuring out how to add good VR capabilities next gen and selling it with a head case, they could name that Nintendo VR or whatever but still wouldn't make sense because VR is pretty niche compared to the market as a whole (it'd be like how the 3DS was based around the glasses-less 3D feature) and Switch VR would be confusing as to whether its a Switch upgrade or a new gen. So even a VR enabled Switch 2 should still be called Switch 2 or perhaps Switch 2 VR. So yeah, basically Switch 2 ftw.

Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance. That's something people should remember when they talk about confusion regarding the Wii U. The market had no problem in understanding what each Game Boy was, so the myth that the name "Wii U" was confusing needs to die.

The actual confusing part about the Wii U that stumped people is that Nintendo went backwards instead of forward. Nintendo ditched the motion controller after the successful Wii and instead pitched an evolution of the GameCube, because the Gamepad of the Wii U is the GC to GBA connectivity built into a single console. Nintendo tried to cover that up by naming the console Wii U, but the market didn't have problems to notice that the Wii U was nothing like the Wii. That's why the Wii U sold so bad.

People on gaming forums still like to tell the story of the Wii U selling badly because the market didn't understand what it is, but they have it upside down. The market did understand what the Wii U is and that is that it was not a proper successor to the Wii. Compare the situation to the Game Boy Advance where one can argue that it sounds like another revision of the Game Boy instead of a next generation system, but the GBA sold like mad. Why is that? Because the GBA was an evolution of the Game Boy, so a better console based on the things that people liked about the Game Boy. Conversely, the Wii U was absolutely not a better Wii, the most obvious giveaway being that the Wii U didn't have a motion controller.

In regards to "Super" specifically, the Super NES didn't suffer from confusion either. It's for the same reason why the GBA didn't suffer.

There was only one NES, back then if a system had a slightly different name it was an entirely different system. That's not the case now with multiple version of the same system being released with different names added on.

I wouldn't say Wii U was an update to Gamecube, don't think anyone thought that. It was clearly an update to the Wii, it was just poorly thought out. I do agree I don't really buy the idea that people were confused between the Wii and Wii U being different systems or not because there there was only one Wii, it's not like there were multiple branded Wii's. And the tablet controller clearly was a big difference between the Wii and the Wii U that anyone could notice immediately. I've never heard an actual person say they were confused if Wii U was a new system or a version of the Wii, I've only heard people say they think it confused people. The problem of the Wii U is it was an awkward console that moved from motion control to this weird giant tablet controller that you could only have one of and you needed old Wii remotes to play with more than one person. The whole idea was just kind of off-putting and was not offset by the novel idea of being able to play games while someone else is using the TV.

I think because Wii was really popular but then faded and motion controls had their ups and downs in both implementation and popularity, they were confused about whether to make motion controls the primary thing again or have a normal controller, so they did a weird asymmetric mix of the two, but also decided they needed a classic Nintendo-like ground breaking feature for the system so they made it a streaming tablet, and it was all just too awkward for the market. And of course the Switch was the correct way to do all of those things they tried and failed to accomplish with the Wii U. A system called the Wii U that was just a much more powerful system than the Wii with better motion controls would have sold far better than the awkward real Wii U that Nintendo made.

The Game Boy names are a good point, Game Boy had pocket and color, and people were fine with the next gen being called Advance. But I mean it was pretty easy back then to see the immediate difference between generations. GBA was wayyyy more advanced than GB, coming out 12 years later, moving from 8-bit to 32-bit. Nobody would ever be confused and think GBA was just another version of GB by looking at it. Nowadays all systems have incredible HD graphics. Like is the difference between an Xbox One, an Xbox One X, and an Xbox Series X going to be all that discernible to the casual shopper just by looking at the names and some gameplay briefly? Not likely. Hell I doubt it'll even be all that discernible to me!

These days, if there's a Switch Lite, a Switch XL, and a Super Switch (or whatever), it wouldn't be terribly clear if you don't pay attention to video games what the difference is there other than the XL and Super are in some way better than original and Lite. Especially if it looks fairly similar to the Switch since it will once again be a hybrid system (there's only so much you can do with a design that is a tablet with two detachable controllers on the ends). Obviously anyone who pays attention to video games will know its a new system no matter what they name it. But it just makes sense from a marketing perspective to do something really clear like Switch 2, not something you have to research first just to figure out what the product is and how it differs from several similarly named and similar looking products.

Last edited by Slownenberg - on 22 December 2019

Around the Network
Slownenberg said:

There was only one NES, back then if a system had a slightly different name it was an entirely different system. That's not the case now with multiple version of the same system being released with different names added on.

I wouldn't say Wii U was an update to Gamecube, don't think anyone thought that. It was clearly an update to the Wii, it was just poorly thought out. I do agree I don't really buy the idea that people were confused between the Wii and Wii U being different systems or not because there there was only one Wii, it's not like there were multiple branded Wii's. And the tablet controller clearly was a big difference between the Wii and the Wii U that anyone could notice immediately. I've never heard an actual person say they were confused if Wii U was a new system or a version of the Wii, I've only heard people say they think it confused people. The problem of the Wii U is it was an awkward console that moved from motion control to this weird giant tablet controller that you could only have one of and you needed old Wii remotes to play with more than one person. The whole idea was just kind of off-putting and was not offset by the novel idea of being able to play games while someone else is using the TV.

I think because Wii was really popular but then faded and motion controls had their ups and downs in both implementation and popularity, they were confused about whether to make motion controls the primary thing again or have a normal controller, so they did a weird asymmetric mix of the two, but also decided they needed a classic Nintendo-like ground breaking feature for the system so they made it a streaming tablet, and it was all just too awkward for the market. And of course the Switch was the correct way to do all of those things they tried and failed to accomplish with the Wii U. A system called the Wii U that was just a much more powerful system than the Wii with better motion controls would have sold far better than the awkward real Wii U that Nintendo made.

The Game Boy names are a good point, Game Boy had pocket and color, and people were fine with the next gen being called Advance. But I mean it was pretty easy back then to see the immediate difference between generations. GBA was wayyyy more advanced than GB, coming out 12 years later, moving from 8-bit to 32-bit. Nobody would ever be confused and think GBA was just another version of GB by looking at it. Nowadays all systems have incredible HD graphics. Like is the difference between an Xbox One, an Xbox One X, and an Xbox Series X going to be all that discernible to the casual shopper just by looking at the names and some gameplay briefly? Not likely. Hell I doubt it'll even be all that discernible to me!

These days, if there's a Switch Lite, a Switch XL, and a Super Switch (or whatever), it wouldn't be terribly clear if you don't pay attention to video games what the difference is there other than the XL and Super are in some way better than original and Lite. Especially if it looks fairly similar to the Switch since it will once again be a hybrid system (there's only so much you can do with a design that is a tablet with two detachable controllers on the ends). Obviously anyone who pays attention to video games will know its a new system no matter what they name it. But it just makes sense from a marketing perspective to do something really clear like Switch 2, not something you have to research first just to figure out what the product is and how it differs from several similarly named and similar looking products.

I am not against the straight-forward name "Switch 2", just saying that the reasoning that anything else would be prone to confusion is flawed because it uses the Wii U as justification when that console failed for other reasons.

Nothing at the time suggested any confusion on Nintendo's part in regards to what to do after the Wii. It was an era of great hubris where they had already pushed out the 3DS and tried to sell it based on its hardware features rather than its games. Stereoscopic 3D had already flopped for Nintendo before (Virtual Boy), but the decision makers at Nintendo were convinced that it was only due to technology, not nausea and other side effects of 3D that put people off. Both the 3DS's and Wii U's core concepts - stereoscopic 3D and multi-screen gameplay on a home console, respectively - are features that Shigeru Miyamoto was very much interested in, and he happened to get to make the important calls regardless of historic sales data to the contrary.

Miyamoto got removed from hardware decisions and consequently the Wii U concept was gone as well. Just like many people on gaming forums mistake the Wii U as continuation of the Wii (it wasn't), there are many people who mistake Switch as an altered Wii U (it isn't). For one, Switch's gameplay is only on a single screen, and two, the main purpose of Switch's portability isn't to play games while someone else uses the TV, but to act like a portable console would. That includes playing the console on the couch while the TV is occupied, but that's a benefit that portable consoles have always had and not something that the Wii U brought to the table.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Nintendo is the brand. They're a video game focused company, so they don't need a separate brand for their gaming stuff. Sony and Microsoft do a lot more than video games. So, their gaming businesses need their own names.



Didn't really work with the Wii. And Nintendo's not really like its competitors, they tend to like to start fresh and pivot with their marketing with most of their consoles. I think with the Switch they could perhaps get away with one more new platform under the Switch name, as it is part handheld and they've pulled that off far more successfully with their handheld line. But really I don't see that working indefinitely going forward. 



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Not Nintendo has always more interested in mixing new/interesting features in their hardware since the beginning. There's no need for them to stick with one concept for too long like Sony has done with the PlayStation .
Also, Nintendo is recognized as the brand itself. The console name is marketing tool more so to identify the concept.
Like calling the next console "Super Switch" wouldn't deter it from selling successfully.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance. That's something people should remember when they talk about confusion regarding the Wii U. The market had no problem in understanding what each Game Boy was, so the myth that the name "Wii U" was confusing needs to die.

The actual confusing part about the Wii U that stumped people is that Nintendo went backwards instead of forward. Nintendo ditched the motion controller after the successful Wii and instead pitched an evolution of the GameCube, because the Gamepad of the Wii U is the GC to GBA connectivity built into a single console. Nintendo tried to cover that up by naming the console Wii U, but the market didn't have problems to notice that the Wii U was nothing like the Wii. That's why the Wii U sold so bad.

People on gaming forums still like to tell the story of the Wii U selling badly because the market didn't understand what it is, but they have it upside down. The market did understand what the Wii U is and that is that it was not a proper successor to the Wii. Compare the situation to the Game Boy Advance where one can argue that it sounds like another revision of the Game Boy instead of a next generation system, but the GBA sold like mad. Why is that? Because the GBA was an evolution of the Game Boy, so a better console based on the things that people liked about the Game Boy. Conversely, the Wii U was absolutely not a better Wii, the most obvious giveaway being that the Wii U didn't have a motion controller.

In regards to "Super" specifically, the Super NES didn't suffer from confusion either. It's for the same reason why the GBA didn't suffer.

To be fair things like Pocket, Color, Advance, Super describe what is different unlike U.

Pocket=smaller

Color=not black and white

Advance/Super=more power

U=?????



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

No. I think it is a bad idea. They tried that with the Wii brand and it backfired spectacularly. Nintendo is the brand. Gaming is their core business. It's not as if the company name is used predominantly on a different type of product.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Bahh...

In the next cycle just give me a Nintendo Super Switch.

Much better name than the retarded Playstation Pro, what’s so professional about it? it’s a videogame console.



zorg1000 said:
RolStoppable said:

Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance. That's something people should remember when they talk about confusion regarding the Wii U. The market had no problem in understanding what each Game Boy was, so the myth that the name "Wii U" was confusing needs to die.

The actual confusing part about the Wii U that stumped people is that Nintendo went backwards instead of forward. Nintendo ditched the motion controller after the successful Wii and instead pitched an evolution of the GameCube, because the Gamepad of the Wii U is the GC to GBA connectivity built into a single console. Nintendo tried to cover that up by naming the console Wii U, but the market didn't have problems to notice that the Wii U was nothing like the Wii. That's why the Wii U sold so bad.

People on gaming forums still like to tell the story of the Wii U selling badly because the market didn't understand what it is, but they have it upside down. The market did understand what the Wii U is and that is that it was not a proper successor to the Wii. Compare the situation to the Game Boy Advance where one can argue that it sounds like another revision of the Game Boy instead of a next generation system, but the GBA sold like mad. Why is that? Because the GBA was an evolution of the Game Boy, so a better console based on the things that people liked about the Game Boy. Conversely, the Wii U was absolutely not a better Wii, the most obvious giveaway being that the Wii U didn't have a motion controller.

In regards to "Super" specifically, the Super NES didn't suffer from confusion either. It's for the same reason why the GBA didn't suffer.

To be fair things like Pocket, Color, Advance, Super describe what is different unlike U.

Pocket=smaller

Color=not black and white

Advance/Super=more power

U=?????

The "i" in DSi didn't describe anything, but that wasn't a problem for sales. "SP" for the GBA was similarly obscure.

It's much less about the name as it is about people caring. The name can be pretty random and it doesn't matter because consoles aren't overly complicated devices that require research beyond a few minutes.

People could inform themselves about the Wii U and it didn't take long for them to conclude that the console sucks. That's what did the Wii U in, not its name. A parallel can be drawn to the PlayStation Vita, but it's a lot less prevalent that somebody mentions its name as a reason why it failed.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
zorg1000 said:

To be fair things like Pocket, Color, Advance, Super describe what is different unlike U.

Pocket=smaller

Color=not black and white

Advance/Super=more power

U=?????

The "i" in DSi didn't describe anything, but that wasn't a problem for sales. "SP" for the GBA was similarly obscure.

It's much less about the name as it is about people caring. The name can be pretty random and it doesn't matter because consoles aren't overly complicated devices that require research beyond a few minutes.

People could inform themselves about the Wii U and it didn't take long for them to conclude that the console sucks. That's what did the Wii U in, not its name. A parallel can be drawn to the PlayStation Vita, but it's a lot less prevalent that somebody mentions its name as a reason why it failed.

I think the "i" is an "eye": the camera. At least that's how I always took the name.

But I agree with your point,  the name isn't overly important and wasn't really a factor in the WiiU's demise.