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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Do you think Nintendo killed off the Wii too early

 

Was the Wii killed off too early?

Yes 41 53.95%
 
No, Nintendo needed to move on 35 46.05%
 
Total:76
Soundwave said:

Quite frankly I like the game industry is this way. Your past success, even from 12 months ago doesn't mean shit when you come to a new console.

You have to perform and prove yourself all over again. Doesn't matter if you supported your previous console for 4 years or 8 years, it doesn't mean shit. If Sony doesn't have a solid launch strategy and execution for the PS5, all the work they did for the PS4 doesn't mean shit. They will find themselves in trouble. Same with Nintendo and Switch 2. Nobody cares how good you were with the previous cycle, it buys you no brownie points and there are multiple examples of that just in the last 15 years.

You don't get to curl up into a ball and bask in your success in this business. You have a successful console? Great, congrats. You get a short time to enjoy that before you get your ass to work on the future. Plain and simple. If you want to be patted on the back continually for things you did 2-3 years ago or you think you're entitled to something because your last system did pretty well, you got another thing coming.

Nobody ever said the opposite. The success of the successor is almost always up to the successor.

The question in OP is how the overall brand can be hurt if the current console is killed shortly, and more importantly, lost revenue.

We know that Nintendo stocks plummeted after the Wii at around 2010. It's really easy to see how Nintendo, had they taken a different approach, in hindsight of course, would have been the right way to go to support the Wii much more effectively.

Add to that the now known ability to support multiple consoles at once with a proper framework, and all this becomes super obvious as to what was the right thing to do.

The right thing to do was to make games for Wii that could also be played on 3DS and WiiU, and to smoothly transition to the new capabilities of the U as it got more popular. You even said so yourself that the transition is #1, now you're just changing your mind. 



Around the Network
padib said:
Soundwave said:

Quite frankly I like the game industry is this way. Your past success, even from 12 months ago doesn't mean shit when you come to a new console.

You have to perform and prove yourself all over again. Doesn't matter if you supported your previous console for 4 years or 8 years, it doesn't mean shit. If Sony doesn't have a solid launch strategy and execution for the PS5, all the work they did for the PS4 doesn't mean shit. They will find themselves in trouble. Same with Nintendo and Switch 2. Nobody cares how good you were with the previous cycle, it buys you no brownie points and there are multiple examples of that just in the last 15 years.

You don't get to curl up into a ball and bask in your success in this business. You have a successful console? Great, congrats. You get a short time to enjoy that before you get your ass to work on the future. Plain and simple. If you want to be patted on the back continually for things you did 2-3 years ago or you think you're entitled to something because your last system did pretty well, you got another thing coming.

Nobody ever said the opposite. The success of the successor is almost always up to the successor.

The question in OP is how the overall brand can be hurt if the current console is killed shortly, and more importantly, lost revenue.

We know that Nintendo stocks plummeted after the Wii at around 2010. It's really easy to see how Nintendo, had they taken a different approach, in hindsight of course, would have been the right way to go to support the Wii much more effectively.

Add to that the now known ability to support multiple consoles at once with a proper framework, and all this becomes super obvious as to what was the right thing to do.

The right thing to do was to make games for Wii that could also be played on 3DS and WiiU, and to smoothly transition to the new capabilities of the U as it got more popular. You even said so yourself that the transition is #1, now you're just changing your mind. 

How is the U going to get "popular" if you can play much of its library on the older system? There's not as much incentive to upgrade. 

It's better to cannibalize your previous system to benefit your next one. It's better for your company, because a botched console transition is something that is going to badly damage the company for years. Just like Nintendo went from top of the world to being embarrassed to announce several years of losses because within a blink of an eye.

High profile late gen N64 titles should have been moved to the GameCube. 

Late cycle DS projects like Pokemon Black 2 White 2 should have been moved to the 3DS launch window (the system was DRYING for help and lol the DS is getting a Pokemon game, that's terrible, terrible software management). 

Pulling Zelda TP and BOTW as GCN and Wii U exclusives was 100% the right move even if they did get a quiet, low print release on those systems. 

You absolutely do need to prioritize the new system way more than the old one once the old system reaches a matured age. 

Like I said, if a 16-year-old kid can't understand that their mom/dad needs to give most of their attention to a newborn baby, the problem isn't the baby, it's the kid who is being an idiot. New consoles are like new borns, they need constant attention and constant focus until they are grown enough to stand on their own two feet. If you don't give them the care they need at that stage of life it can lead to serious issues later on in their life. 

No one in this business ever said "geez you have too many good games for the your launch window, would you stop with all this software". You should always err on the side of having more than what you need for a new product cycle, it's the most vital thing in the business in my opinion. That's really what separates good management from mediocre management, how they deal with console transition. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 11 August 2020

Soundwave said:

How is the U going to get "popular" if you can play much of its library on the older system? There's not as much incentive to upgrade. 

It's better to cannibalize your previous system to benefit your next one. It's better for your company, because a botched console transition is something that is going to badly damage the company for years. Just like Nintendo went from top of the world to being embarrassed to announce several years of losses because within a blink of an eye.

High profile late gen N64 titles should have been moved to the GameCube. 

Late cycle DS projects like Pokemon Black 2 White 2 should have been moved to the 3DS launch window (the system was DRYING for help and lol the DS is getting a Pokemon game, that's terrible, terrible software management). 

Pulling Zelda TP and BOTW as GCN and Wii U exclusives was 100% the right move even if they did get a quiet, low print release on those systems. 

You absolutely do need to prioritize the new system way more than the old one once the old system reaches a matured age. 

Like I said, if a 16-year-old kid can't understand that their mom/dad needs to give most of their attention to a newborn baby, the problem isn't the baby, it's the kid who is being an idiot. New consoles are like new borns, they need constant attention and constant focus until they are grown enough to stand on their own two feet. If you don't give them the care they need at that stage of life it can lead to serious issues later on in their life. 

No one in this business ever said "geez you have too many good games for the your launch window, would you stop with all this software". You should always err on the side of having more than what you need for a new product cycle, it's the most vital thing in the business in my opinion. That's really what separates good management from mediocre management, how they deal with console transition. 

The whole idea of supporting both consoles at the same time is that it allows people to transition in due time. I'm not saying _all_ games must be on all consoles, but most should, and some exclusives make the new platform needed for people to get it, and the capabilities of the new console make those features attractive.

Anyhow the fact that you don't see any of these subtleties is weird.



padib said:
Soundwave said:

How is the U going to get "popular" if you can play much of its library on the older system? There's not as much incentive to upgrade. 

It's better to cannibalize your previous system to benefit your next one. It's better for your company, because a botched console transition is something that is going to badly damage the company for years. Just like Nintendo went from top of the world to being embarrassed to announce several years of losses because within a blink of an eye.

High profile late gen N64 titles should have been moved to the GameCube. 

Late cycle DS projects like Pokemon Black 2 White 2 should have been moved to the 3DS launch window (the system was DRYING for help and lol the DS is getting a Pokemon game, that's terrible, terrible software management). 

Pulling Zelda TP and BOTW as GCN and Wii U exclusives was 100% the right move even if they did get a quiet, low print release on those systems. 

You absolutely do need to prioritize the new system way more than the old one once the old system reaches a matured age. 

Like I said, if a 16-year-old kid can't understand that their mom/dad needs to give most of their attention to a newborn baby, the problem isn't the baby, it's the kid who is being an idiot. New consoles are like new borns, they need constant attention and constant focus until they are grown enough to stand on their own two feet. If you don't give them the care they need at that stage of life it can lead to serious issues later on in their life. 

No one in this business ever said "geez you have too many good games for the your launch window, would you stop with all this software". You should always err on the side of having more than what you need for a new product cycle, it's the most vital thing in the business in my opinion. That's really what separates good management from mediocre management, how they deal with console transition. 

The whole idea of supporting both consoles at the same time is that it allows people to transition in due time. I'm not saying _all_ games must be on all consoles, but most should, and some exclusives make the new platform needed for people to get it, and the capabilities of the new console make those features attractive.

Anyhow the fact that you don't see any of these subtleties is weird.

It could work, but only if the new console is not starved for content.

Like the 3DS could play Pokemon Black 2 White 2, but did any one give Nintendo any inch of benefit of the doubt over that? Nope. All they were talking about was how shit the 3DS lineup was because all it was was Nintendogs with kittens and Pilotwings and not much else. They didn't care that hey there's some pretty good DS games that can tide you over a few months. 

Consumers are harsh, you have to be ready for that. 

You can see this issue actually playing right this second in real time ... Microsoft just annouced that Halo Infinite will be delayed so now they are in some real trouble I think. You know Sony is going to look to attack when ever they see blood in the water. So now we'll see how good their management team really is because that is definitely a tight spot to be in. 

If I was advising them I'd say they have to spend some money now and buy some period of exclusivity for a 3rd party game that can be positioned as a marquee launch title. That's gonna hurt the wallet, but you have to do what you have to do. 



padib said:
theRepublic said:

That's not true of the PS2 at all.  The PS3 had a disastrous launch.  The PS2 being successful did absolutely nothing for the follow up console.

I'm, like, not at ALL talking about the PS3's performance. I'm talking about the performance of the PS2.

If I did want to talk about the PS3, it's easy to imagine that the PS brand would have done even worse had all support for PS2 plumetted and everything focused on the PS3, which had, as you said, a disastrous launch. 

@Soundwave, stop agreeing with people just because they're disagreeing with me. The reply to me had nothing to do with what I said.

Then I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say.  "The success of these consoles solidified the respective company's presence in the market." is just clearly not true regarding the following generation for Sony.  Which as I understand it, is the whole point of this thread.  Generational transition.

Moving this back toward Nintendo as in the OP, the way I see it, Nintendo had 3 realistic options.

1. Do exactly what they did.
2. Delay Wii U games or even the Wii U launch to develop additional Wii games.
3. Cutoff the development of Wii games even sooner to focus more on Wii U game development.  Possibly moving some Wii games over to the Wii U, or maybe cross launch games like they did with Twilight Princess or Breath of the Wild.

And the unrealistic option I seem to be seeing support for which no one has actually verbalized.
4. Just develop more games.  My question, is how?  There has to be a give and take somewhere.  Unless people are trying to advocate for Nintendo to build more development teams, which I won't argue against.  It is just that that process would have had to start long before, probably around the launch of the Wii, or maybe within a year or two after.  Nintendo has probably been too conservative in this regard, but I view this as tangentially related, not really directly related to the transition.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2011 - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 - Borderlands 2
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

Around the Network
theRepublic said:

Then I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say.  "The success of these consoles solidified the respective company's presence in the market." is just clearly not true regarding the following generation for Sony.  Which as I understand it, is the whole point of this thread.  Generational transition.

Moving this back toward Nintendo as in the OP, the way I see it, Nintendo had 3 realistic options.

1. Do exactly what they did.
2. Delay Wii U games or even the Wii U launch to develop additional Wii games.
3. Cutoff the development of Wii games even sooner to focus more on Wii U game development.  Possibly moving some Wii games over to the Wii U, or maybe cross launch games like they did with Twilight Princess or Breath of the Wild.

And the unrealistic option I seem to be seeing support for which no one has actually verbalized.
4. Just develop more games.  My question, is how?  There has to be a give and take somewhere.  Unless people are trying to advocate for Nintendo to build more development teams, which I won't argue against.  It is just that that process would have had to start long before, probably around the launch of the Wii, or maybe within a year or two after.  Nintendo has probably been too conservative in this regard, but I view this as tangentially related, not really directly related to the transition.

To 4, I've already talked about it. The solution, in my point of view and in hindsight, was to created a unified framework to allow games to cross the systems, allowing them to dedicate resources to more games for the united platform. Nintendo knew about this, the proof is in Smash 3DS/U and now the Switch.

Option 4 is what I've been saying since my 2nd post in this thread

However, in the end, the truth is that Nintendo had a money-maker with the Wii that they killed off too soon. In hindsight, it is so obvious that that was their mistake because we know what happened to the Wii sales, and we know that the U was not able to generate new sales. So it's easy. What was hard was being there in 2009 to make the decision, nobody knew what would happen. But now we know, and if it were to happen again, anyone with half a brain would know what to do:

1) You support the existing console properly

2) You (try to) make your games playable on both consoles during the transition

3) You maintain a good, effective marketing DURING the transition

4) You make a few new exciting game experiences for the new console during the transition.

5) Well, this one is obvious: you don't make a shitty console. I think this one is a lesson learned for Nintendo.

To clarify my point about the PS2. If Sony had not had a successful PS2 end-of-life, the PS3 fail situation would've been compounded with a lost opportunity on the PS2 end of life, meaning that it would have been probably even worse and could have an even worse impact on the confidence people were putting in the brand. 

Last edited by padib - on 11 August 2020

I don't think the PS2's end of life affected the PS3 in any way one way or the other.

Nobody cares what you did 12 months ago when it comes to making a purchase in the here and now for your gaming needs for the next several years. People don't really look at the past all that much.

They went from a dominant no.1 to a laughing stock no.3 in a blink of an eye, now kudos to them for being in that situation and putting their head down, taking the jeers, and working their ass off for the rest of the generation. 

Can't feel sorry for yourself when that happens. 



Soundwave said:

I don't think the PS2's end of life affected the PS3 in any way one way or the other.

Nobody cares what you did 12 months ago when it comes to making a purchase in the here and now for your gaming needs for the next several years. People don't really look at the past all that much.

They went from a dominant no.1 to a laughing stock no.3 in a blink of an eye, now kudos to them for being in that situation and putting their head down, taking the jeers, and working their ass off for the rest of the generation. 

Can't feel sorry for yourself when that happens. 

Everybody did that. What Sony didn't do is save the Vita.

Anyway, at this point it's your word against the word of another. How many people cared about the legacy of the PS2 is only opinion, we have no stats about appreciation. What we do know though, is that the PS2 HW sales continued for a long time after the launch of the PS3, leading to it having the all-time most sold units for a home console. Something I'm sure many will not fail to bring up.

So you might not care, but in most of our debates, what Sony did in supporting the PS2 actually matters. Now your word against mine, perhaps let's leave it at that.



Wii ended right when it should have.

WiiU marketing was the problem. People were over the Wii. They shouldn't have marketed it as the Wii's direct successor, because it made people think it was an add-on for the console they had already stopped using years prior.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

padib said:
Soundwave said:

I don't think the PS2's end of life affected the PS3 in any way one way or the other.

Nobody cares what you did 12 months ago when it comes to making a purchase in the here and now for your gaming needs for the next several years. People don't really look at the past all that much.

They went from a dominant no.1 to a laughing stock no.3 in a blink of an eye, now kudos to them for being in that situation and putting their head down, taking the jeers, and working their ass off for the rest of the generation. 

Can't feel sorry for yourself when that happens. 

Everybody did that. What Sony didn't do is save the Vita.

Anyway, at this point it's your word against the word of another. How many people cared about the legacy of the PS2 is only opinion, we have no stats about appreciation. What we do know though, is that the PS2 HW sales continued for a long time after the launch of the PS3, leading to it having the all-time most sold units for a home console. Something I'm sure many will not fail to bring up.

So you might not care, but in most of our debates, what Sony did in supporting the PS2 actually matters. Now your word against mine, perhaps let's leave it at that.

The PS3 early sales are what they are though too. That's not really an opinion.

Where is all this love/appreciation/benefit of the doubt there, if it supposed to exist it sure as heck didn't benefit the PS3, 3DS all that much. 

4/6 of the systems people consider "most successful" come from a history of having a predecessor that wasn't well supported for even 5 full years (let alone 6/7/8).

1. PS2 - predecessor had long support

2. DS - predecessor had less than 5 years of good support

3. PS4 - predecessor had long support 

4. Wii - predecessor had less than 5 years of good support

5. XBox 360 - predecessor had less than 5 years of good support

6. Switch - predecessor had less than 5 years of good support, will obviously rise up this list. 

The only 2/6 examples that had long good support from their predecessors are Sony systems. Biggest failures Vita, Wii U had predecessors with fairly long cycle support, biggest mid-tier disappointments, 3DS and XBox One also had predecessors with long support cycles. 

You can't really debate any of that stuff.

The last Nintendo hardware system that was a large success succeeding a prior system with a long product cycle is the Game Boy Advance which is now almost 20 years ago, so they've had serious issues following up on systems with long product cycles for several decades now. 

Even Sony's long tail support is really because they have so much 3rd party support, it's not really Sony themselves doing much for these systems once the successor releases. There are a lot of people that just want to play like FIFA every year and don't necessarily want to buy a new console, Sony is the main benefactor of that. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 11 August 2020