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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What should Nintendo have done instead of Wii U?

JWeinCom on 01 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

No, it's really not safe to say that.  It's safe to say that as it was presented, marketed, and supported, it was unwanted, but beyond that it's speculation.  The fact that a single game was not sufficient to sell the concept doesn't mean the concept couldn't have been successful. Let's say for instance that instead of New Super Mario Bros U, the Wii U launched with Super Mario Maker, which was actually a concept that to a much larger extent showed off the Gamepad, albeit not in the same way as Nintendoland, instead of launching it when the Wii U was already dead.  In this scenario, do you think the Wii U would have sold better?

No, it wouldn't have sold better because Mario Maker is a weaker IP than Super Mario Bros.

And let's be real: You don't need two screens to create levels. Super Mario Maker 2 on Switch is the same thing with a single screen.

Looking up the numbers, I may have to concede that it's a weaker IP overall.  I was pretty surprised that apparently Maker 2 didn't sell as well as NSMBU Switch.  Although, I don't necessarily think that would have translated directly to Wii U sales.  There are some games with broad appeal that tend to sell well when they're on a console that sells well, but don't necessarily move hardware.  For instance, Smash sold significantly worse than NSMB on the Wii, but on the Switch sold about on par despite not being bundled nearly as much, which would indicate that despite being a weaker IP in terms of overall sales, it's more of a system seller.  I think the uniqueness of Mario Maker would have made Wii U more.  

As for screens, I never said you needed two screens.  You needed a touch screen which was one of the features the Gamepad added.  Switch does that and more, and is obviously a far stronger concept than the Wii U, but that doesn't mean the Wii U couldn't have had more appeal than it did.  I actually do think Mario Maker works marginally better on the Wii U though.

curl-6 said:
JWeinCom said:

There is a simple yes or no to that.  It's a yes or no question.  Either you believe it would sell better, or you believe it wouldn't.  Why is a different question, that I didn't ask.

Is Mario Maker with the Gamepad significantly better than what would be possible with a Wiimote or Pro Controller?  If you did play it on the Wii U, did you ever think "man I wish I could use the Wii-mote instead"?

Stop trying to manipulate me into saying things, please.

It's clear we simply don't agree on this, and you will not change my mind. We may as well just leave this here, no point continuing.

Errrr... what was I manipulating you into saying?  Yes or no to a yes or no questions?

That's how logical syllogisms work.  A series of true false questions that lead to a conclusion.  I'm not going to force you to continue. It's odd that I can't change your mind, cause I'd change mine if given good reason. But don't call me manipulative for using one of the best tools of logic available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism



Around the Network
curl-6 on 01 January 2020
JWeinCom said:
RolStoppable said:

No, it wouldn't have sold better because Mario Maker is a weaker IP than Super Mario Bros.

And let's be real: You don't need two screens to create levels. Super Mario Maker 2 on Switch is the same thing with a single screen.

Looking up the numbers, I may have to concede that it's a weaker IP overall.  I was pretty surprised that apparently Maker 2 didn't sell as well as NSMBU Switch.  Although, I don't necessarily think that would have translated directly to Wii U sales.  There are some games with broad appeal that tend to sell well when they're on a console that sells well, but don't necessarily move hardware.  For instance, Smash sold significantly worse than NSMB on the Wii, but on the Switch sold about on par despite not being bundled nearly as much, which would indicate that despite being a weaker IP in terms of overall sales, it's more of a system seller.  I think the uniqueness of Mario Maker would have made Wii U more.  

As for screens, I never said you needed two screens.  You needed a touch screen which was one of the features the Gamepad added.  Switch does that and more, and is obviously a far stronger concept than the Wii U, but that doesn't mean the Wii U couldn't have had more appeal than it did.  I actually do think Mario Maker works marginally better on the Wii U though.

curl-6 said:

Stop trying to manipulate me into saying things, please.

It's clear we simply don't agree on this, and you will not change my mind. We may as well just leave this here, no point continuing.

Errrr... what was I manipulating you into saying?  Yes or no to a yes or no questions?

That's how logical syllogisms work.  A series of true false questions that lead to a conclusion.  I'm not going to force you to continue. It's odd that I can't change your mind, cause I'd change mine if given good reason. But don't call me manipulative for using one of the best tools of logic available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

You were trying to box me into saying the Gamepad had appeal by trying to eliminate context. But yeah, we're done here. Won't be replying further.



d21lewis on 01 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
Shiken said:
All they really needed to do was name it something else and deliver more system sellers at the same caliber as BotW, Mario Odyssey, and Fire Emblem Three houses. Also a better ad campaign would have gone a long way as well. 3rd parties really did not abandon it till sales dropped off (didn't take long), so I like to think it still would have gotten decent support if Nintendo did not lean too much on the Wii namesake and gave more system sellers.

The WiiU had some great games, but lacked a decent number of huge system selling titles.

That's plain wrong. Before the Wii U launched, more than 75% of the upcoming multiplatform games for the PS3 and 360 were not announced for the Wii U.

d21lewis said:
I've only read the first 25 or so posts. I disagree with few things.
-I don't think the Wii U was a GameCube 2. The Gamecube was a "normal" console with powerful hardware and decent third party support. The Wii U was a bit of a mess. I just don't know any other way to say it.

-Some people say they should have just stuck to the Wii route. I also disagree. While awesome at the time and still improved upon to this day, the motion control trend was on the decline. Nintendo couldn't have known this while developing the Wii U. Hell, Microsoft banked everything on Kinect as well. People just preferred what already worked.

-As for re-purchasing VC games, you actually kinda did. You just got a super discount. I think games were like $1.50 if you already had them on the Wii. Wii Ware was free, though.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say but I just don't know what Nintendo could have done. I just know that (while I personally really enjoyed the Wii U) releasing a console that was less capable than 8 year old machines already on the market was a bad idea. Releasing at a higher price point was a bad idea. Naming it after a brand that was already fading or left a bad taste in people's mouths was a bad idea. Letting 3rd parties carry your launch lineup was a mistake.

Reads like a response to my post from early in the thread.

1. That's how you choose to remember the GameCube, but its decent third party support began to fall apart in 2003 already, hence why more and more multiplatform games were only on the PS2 and Xbox. If you look at the extended timeframe of the past 15+ years and how Nintendo consoles got shafted by third parties, it should become apparent that being a "normal" console or not doesn't really matter. The Gamepad was not an alien controller; after all, it had the same sticks and buttons as other consoles, so it can't count as an excuse to forego ports. Look at Switch and begin to wonder why certain third parties aren't making use of the myriad of options to put games on the system despite Switch selling so well. The three major options are exclusives, multiplats and ports of older games. The latter sidesteps any concerns about processing power because Switch is more powerful than older consoles and can bank on the historically proven fact that people buy old games again when they can be played on the go.

2. You don't like the Wii, that isn't lost on me either. The thing is that the Wii doesn't belong in the same category as Kinect because the Wii was far more than motion controls. For example, Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros. aren't big sellers because of motion controls, they always sell.

3. You could play all of your VC games from the Wii on the Wii U at no extra cost through backwards compatibility. You only paid a small fee if you didn't want to use BC.

4. Switch could be called less capable than the Wii U for its time (Switch is notably weaker than even the original XB1), but that isn't hurting Switch. Likewise, the price isn't a big factor either. Think of the GameCube which was sold for $100 three years after its launch; that still didn't help because the real problems were elsewhere. Naming something after a successful product isn't a problem as long as the new product honors what people liked about the original product; but that's where the Wii U went wrong and upended the table. You get full marks for your last sentence though.

In closing, by now you should know that you are usually out of sync with the market when it comes to what is good about Nintendo consoles. I can understand why it is offputting to you that somebody suggests that Nintendo should have done something that you wouldn't like, but if you think about it for a minute, that might just be what can make Nintendo successful.

I guess the things you said are the things that stood out. Didn't pay attention to who wrote it. I'll reply one by one, though:

1. I agree with you. Even when the GameCube got ports of PS2/XB games, they were often missing content. Often the GC port was waaay after the other versions. GC was still my go to for multiplats until it died. I said decent 3rd party support. No argument about Nintendo getting the shaft from 3rd parties, either. BUT this post isn't about the entire history of Nintendo. It's about the Wii U. The Wii U came out 8 years after the Xbox 360 and couldn't even run games as well. The Wii U didn't even have N64 level support after the first year. It launched with games like Mass Effect 3 for $60 when other consoles were getting ME1-3 for (if I remember correctly) the same price or less. I loved the Gamepad. It was still too expensive and underutilized, though. The Gamepad "gimmick" did more harm than good. 

2. I loved the Wii. Not my least favorite Nintendo console (that honor belongs to the N64) but many people just purchased it for the motion controls and when they got bored with that, they moved in. Not even sure how you got that impression. SM Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 were amongst my favorite games of the generation. It's a gaming machine. I like gaming. Nintendo is my favorite gaming company. Seriously. Wtf?

3. Yeah. I forgot about that. You could play them in "Wii Mode". To play them without switching to Wii Mode cost $1.50 each or something like that.

4. You keep talking about the Switch in a Wii U conversation. The Switch is a different beast. The Switch offers a feature that people love and thus, people buy it. The Wii offered a feature that people loved and thus, people bought it. The Wii U offered a feature that people didn't love. The Wii U offered ports of the exact same games that people could buy on other devices for cheaper. The Wii U cost more than those other consoles and ran those games even worse than the other consoles. That's a problem.

It did offer some really good exclusives, though. That just wasn't enough.

-In closing, there isn't a Nintendo console that I haven't purchased. They're my favorite console maker/game company. I stick by them through thick and thin. I've bought everything they've made since 1996 on day one except for the Wii because I couldn't find one no matter how hard I tried. I think you have me confused with someone else. I just said that I have no idea what they should have done. I just pointed out some things that I thought were mistakes. Nobody's suggestions offend me. It's not that serious.

*Edit* As for the part about Kinect: The Kinect was wildly successful for Microsoft and Xbox 360. The sales made the Xbox 360 actually sell better than the PS3 for the year--the only time that happened since the PS3 launched. With the Xbox One, Microsoft banked on lighting striking again but this time the audience wasn't there. Microsoft themselves didn't have compelling software for their own mandatory accessory.

The Wii U did a similar thing. Yes, they didn't have games like Wii Sports for the casual fan but they still banked on the Wii name. They still marketed it like a family console. They still emphasized a "gimmick" (for lack of a better word) over hardware power. This time, it didn't work. Yes, it worked for the Switch a few years later but again, this time it was a gimmick that people wanted.

--I went back and looked at your suggestions. I have no problem with any of them, actually. I just didn't remember any of them when I made my post. Not sure if any of them would have turned the tied, though.

Last edited by d21lewis - on 01 January 2020

JWeinCom on 01 January 2020
curl-6 said:
JWeinCom said:

Looking up the numbers, I may have to concede that it's a weaker IP overall.  I was pretty surprised that apparently Maker 2 didn't sell as well as NSMBU Switch.  Although, I don't necessarily think that would have translated directly to Wii U sales.  There are some games with broad appeal that tend to sell well when they're on a console that sells well, but don't necessarily move hardware.  For instance, Smash sold significantly worse than NSMB on the Wii, but on the Switch sold about on par despite not being bundled nearly as much, which would indicate that despite being a weaker IP in terms of overall sales, it's more of a system seller.  I think the uniqueness of Mario Maker would have made Wii U more.  

As for screens, I never said you needed two screens.  You needed a touch screen which was one of the features the Gamepad added.  Switch does that and more, and is obviously a far stronger concept than the Wii U, but that doesn't mean the Wii U couldn't have had more appeal than it did.  I actually do think Mario Maker works marginally better on the Wii U though.

Errrr... what was I manipulating you into saying?  Yes or no to a yes or no questions?

That's how logical syllogisms work.  A series of true false questions that lead to a conclusion.  I'm not going to force you to continue. It's odd that I can't change your mind, cause I'd change mine if given good reason. But don't call me manipulative for using one of the best tools of logic available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

You were trying to box me into saying the Gamepad had appeal by trying to eliminate context. But yeah, we're done here. Won't be replying further.

Uhhhh... again, that's the way logic works.  To establish a conclusion through a series of premises. If constructing a logical argument is "boxing someone in" then guilty.  Although, that's completely not the conclusion I was getting to.



nuckles87 on 01 January 2020

As I see it, they should have done 1 of 2 things:

Launch a “Wii 2” in 2011 that was essentially the Wii U without a game pad for $300. Keep the Wii-mote, include a classic controller pack-in, keep GameCube b/c. Release Skyward Sword as a cross-gen game on both Wii and Wii U.

This would have given them a couple years of being the most powerful platform and direct competition with Sony and Microsoft, and a few more years where they could have continued to get most of the big third-party games thanks to widespread cross-gen development. Follow that up with the Switch in holiday 2016.

Alternatively, they could have released a truly next-gen console in 2012 that would have been underpowered but still capable compared to PS4 and Xbox One, continue to lean on the Wii for casual fans, and use the Switch hardware to power a Switch successor. This seems pretty un-Nintendo though.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 01 January 2020

They should've just gone ahead and made a legit next-gen console comparable to the XB1 in specs and released a *separate* HD model of the Wii with the Wiimote for $129.99 with all casual stuff on it for that corner of the market (that was getting eaten by smartphones anyway, but whatever).

A year headstart would've given them time to build up a user base.

New NES (November 2012 launch) - $399.99 msrp, specs 1 TFLOP processor, new architecture, comparable to XB1. Standard controller. 

Wii HD (fall 2011 launch) - $129.99 msrp, same basic tech as Wii 1 but with capability to go up to 720p. Gets a few new casual titles mini-game-athons/year + Just Dance + the back catalog of existing Wii titles. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 January 2020

d21lewis on 01 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
d21lewis said:

*Stuff*

- I guess I came across harsher than I intended. But I do remember that you once posted something along the lines of "When I like what Nintendo does, they have bad sales. When I am not so fond of what they do, they have great sales. So what do I know."

That sounds like something I'd say. Probably joking, though. I generally like everything they do and I just hate on Sony. But that is a story for another time.



JWeinCom on 02 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
JWeinCom said:

Looking up the numbers, I may have to concede that it's a weaker IP overall.  I was pretty surprised that apparently Maker 2 didn't sell as well as NSMBU Switch.  Although, I don't necessarily think that would have translated directly to Wii U sales.  There are some games with broad appeal that tend to sell well when they're on a console that sells well, but don't necessarily move hardware.  For instance, Smash sold significantly worse than NSMB on the Wii, but on the Switch sold about on par despite not being bundled nearly as much, which would indicate that despite being a weaker IP in terms of overall sales, it's more of a system seller.  I think the uniqueness of Mario Maker would have made Wii U more.  

As for screens, I never said you needed two screens.  You needed a touch screen which was one of the features the Gamepad added.  Switch does that and more, and is obviously a far stronger concept than the Wii U, but that doesn't mean the Wii U couldn't have had more appeal than it did.  I actually do think Mario Maker works marginally better on the Wii U though.

I don't follow your logic that SSB is more of a system seller than SMB. Especially because in the Wii U's case no IP could sell the console despite proven track records of being able to sell hardware. A fair conclusion would be that people who like SSB are proportionally more likely to buy bad Nintendo consoles than fans of other Nintendo IPs. I mean, SSB did well on the GC too.

You are free to believe that Super Mario Maker as a launch title would have made the Wii U sell more, but the important question is if it had been by a significant amount that lifted the Wii U out of failure status. I expect that you would answer that question with a clear "no" and that should also answer the question of whether the concept of the Wii U was salvageable or not. In early 2014 Shigeru Miyamoto got a direct order from Satoru Iwata to create Wii U games that prove the value of the Gamepad. Super Mario Maker, Star Fox Zero and a couple of tech demos that weren't turned into finished games was the best he could come up with.

I remind you that Miyamoto was the person who insisted on the Gamepad when the console was conceived. The sad reality is that there was no coherent and cohesive plan behind that hardware decision. Ideas from the GC to GBA connectivity were built into Nintendo Land and that was largely seen as sufficient to sell people on the multi-screen concept. That's why the pipeline for proof of concept software was virtually empty after the launch of the Wii U.

Obviously Super Mario Maker alone wouldn't have singlehandedly saved the Wii U. Wasn't trying to argue that, cause that'd be stupid.  The basic point I was trying to make is this.  If we could think of ways that the Wii U could have sold better (for instance Mario Maker at launch), then we can't claim that the actual sales reflected the full potential of the Wii U concept.  

Of course, the fact that a remake of NSMBU is selling better than Mario Maker 2 does throw a wrench in my logic.  Even as someone who liked NSMBU a lot that surprises me.  

As for Miyamoto, I feel that actually supports my point.  Firstly, I don't he did half bad all things considered.  Mario Maker was a decent hit.  Based on the sales bump from its launch, it contributed towards at least 100,000 Wii U sales. Which isn't bad for a single title.  And, I think it would have been more impactful if the Wii U wasn't already covered in the stench of failure.  Star Fox Zero doesn't seem to have had an impact.  But for two years one hit doesn't seem bad.  Especially since Star Fox was on a short dev cycle and was partially farmed out to another developer.

The bigger issue is this.  Miyamoto got that order in 2014?  Doesn't that kind of scream wtf to you?  Wasn't that the kind of conversation that really should have happened around 2010 at the latest?  Why didn't he have something ready (like Mario Maker) to show off the Gamepad at launch?  Shouldn't some other developers have had similar marching orders (if they did their output doesn't show it)?  

 Maybe all of Nintendo's devs could have been working their hardest to make the Gamepad an attractive concept and it still would have tanked just as bad or even worse.  But since the effort was so obviously bungled, we can't really say how much appeal the concept had.

As for the system seller and smash stuff, it makes sense in my head, but I can't quite make it make sense in writing, so I'm going to have to just concede that for now.



Shiken on 02 January 2020
RolStoppable said:
Shiken said:
All they really needed to do was name it something else and deliver more system sellers at the same caliber as BotW, Mario Odyssey, and Fire Emblem Three houses. Also a better ad campaign would have gone a long way as well. 3rd parties really did not abandon it till sales dropped off (didn't take long), so I like to think it still would have gotten decent support if Nintendo did not lean too much on the Wii namesake and gave more system sellers.

The WiiU had some great games, but lacked a decent number of huge system selling titles.

That's plain wrong. Before the Wii U launched, more than 75% of the upcoming multiplatform games for the PS3 and 360 were not announced for the Wii U.

Seems you either forgot that the WiiU had games like...

Mass Effect 3

Ninja Gaiden 3

Call of Duty Ghosts

Assassin's Creed 4

Batman Arkham City: Armored Edition

Batman Arkham Origins

Darksiders 2

Madden

FIFA

NBA2K

Injustice

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist

Deus Ex: Director's Cut

007 Legends

etc

...Or you have a completely jaded view of what the word "abandoned" means, as those games would not have been there without some kind of active support.  In fact, some would say the WiiU had better 3rd party support in its first year than the Switch did.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nintendo/comments/85fcod/the_wii_u_had_46_aaa_third_party_titles_in_its/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Jumpin on 02 January 2020
RolStoppable said: 
d21lewis said:
I've only read the first 25 or so posts. I disagree with few things.
-I don't think the Wii U was a GameCube 2. The Gamecube was a "normal" console with powerful hardware and decent third party support. The Wii U was a bit of a mess. I just don't know any other way to say it.

-Some people say they should have just stuck to the Wii route. I also disagree. While awesome at the time and still improved upon to this day, the motion control trend was on the decline. Nintendo couldn't have known this while developing the Wii U. Hell, Microsoft banked everything on Kinect as well. People just preferred what already worked.

-As for re-purchasing VC games, you actually kinda did. You just got a super discount. I think games were like $1.50 if you already had them on the Wii. Wii Ware was free, though.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say but I just don't know what Nintendo could have done. I just know that (while I personally really enjoyed the Wii U) releasing a console that was less capable than 8 year old machines already on the market was a bad idea. Releasing at a higher price point was a bad idea. Naming it after a brand that was already fading or left a bad taste in people's mouths was a bad idea. Letting 3rd parties carry your launch lineup was a mistake.

Reads like a response to my post from early in the thread.

1. That's how you choose to remember the GameCube, but its decent third party support began to fall apart in 2003 already, hence why more and more multiplatform games were only on the PS2 and Xbox. If you look at the extended timeframe of the past 15+ years and how Nintendo consoles got shafted by third parties, it should become apparent that being a "normal" console or not doesn't really matter. The Gamepad was not an alien controller; after all, it had the same sticks and buttons as other consoles, so it can't count as an excuse to forego ports. Look at Switch and begin to wonder why certain third parties aren't making use of the myriad of options to put games on the system despite Switch selling so well. The three major options are exclusives, multiplats and ports of older games. The latter sidesteps any concerns about processing power because Switch is more powerful than older consoles and can bank on the historically proven fact that people buy old games again when they can be played on the go.

2. You don't like the Wii, that isn't lost on me either. The thing is that the Wii doesn't belong in the same category as Kinect because the Wii was far more than motion controls. For example, Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros. aren't big sellers because of motion controls, they always sell.

3. You could play all of your VC games from the Wii on the Wii U at no extra cost through backwards compatibility. You only paid a small fee if you didn't want to use BC.

4. Switch could be called less capable than the Wii U for its time (Switch is notably weaker than even the original XB1), but that isn't hurting Switch. Likewise, the price isn't a big factor either. Think of the GameCube which was sold for $100 three years after its launch; that still didn't help because the real problems were elsewhere. Naming something after a successful product isn't a problem as long as the new product honors what people liked about the original product; but that's where the Wii U went wrong and upended the table. You get full marks for your last sentence though.

In closing, by now you should know that you are usually out of sync with the market when it comes to what is good about Nintendo consoles. I can understand why it is offputting to you that somebody suggests that Nintendo should have done something that you wouldn't like, but if you think about it for a minute, that might just be what can make Nintendo successful.

Another great post.

I’ll add that being the most powerful console in the universe is only one potential method of sales. It is not the “normal” one from a video game marketing standpoint as that is historically not usually the top feature that attracts people.

With PSX it was pre-rendered backgrounds and the cheaper price point afforded by the CD medium.

With PS2 it was DVD playback and killer apps with the GTA franchise.

With Gameboy and GBA it was portability that gave it the high sales.

DS, the touchscreen and casual gaming.

Wii was its killer apps, and motion controls were a part of some of those. They also enhanced several popular ports. People also enjoyed the slick and easy interface (all things the Wii U lacked).

But anyway, going for a predictable “most powerful console this gen” isn’t usually the most exciting thing available. It worked for Mega Drive for a few years, and the PS4. I can’t really think of any other instance where that was the winning strategy. In many cases that was a losing strategy for the company: PS3, Xbox, and Xbox 360 were all financial failures.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.