Jumpin said: curl-6 said: Stuff like PS Move Sports did not significantly hurt Wii sales. It was a matter of software; 2006-2010 had strong software, 2011-2012 didn't. Nintendo of America is definitely to blame for how horrendously they handled those last two years in the system's biggest market, yes. But even in PAL, while there were some choice picks for a gamer like myself, there still wasn't the kind of software strong enough to drive hardware momentum. To support Curl's point: https://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/40909/Global/ - this is for the week ending December 31st, 2011 Pos Game Weekly Total Week # 1 Just Dance 3 (Wii) Ubisoft, Misc 562,447 7,164,411 13 24 Just Dance 3 (X360) Ubisoft, Misc 121,888 1,344,384 13 While conceivably it did have some impact, the Wii version of Just Dance 3 had very strong sales that year, selling around 150% better than the sales of Just Dance 2 in 2010, which released 12 weeks before the end of the year. Just Dance 3 on Wii would go on to become the highest selling release in franchise history at over 10 million units on Wii alone; it sold 2 million on Xbox 360 and 630K on PS3, which, while decent, don't seem to be impacting the Wii even though 2011 marked a massive decline over 2010. As a note, Just Dance 4 also did really well on the Wii, selling close to 7 million units - this also indicates that Nintendo, had they kept supporting the console, could have seen more games sell in the tens of millions because if Ubisoft can get up there, surely Nintendo could do better.

Just Dance was a pretty massive franchise at that time, you can't just say "well Nintendo could do better" ... Just Dance outsold Zelda: Skyward Sword, on par with Super Mario Galaxy 2, above Wii Music, above Animal Crossing (lol). It's probably part of the reason NOA got so arrogant ... why bother with Xenoblade and Fatal Frame when you can just sit back and let Just Dance sell to casuals. 

Jumpin said: curl-6 said: Stuff like PS Move Sports did not significantly hurt Wii sales. It was a matter of software; 2006-2010 had strong software, 2011-2012 didn't. Nintendo of America is definitely to blame for how horrendously they handled those last two years in the system's biggest market, yes. But even in PAL, while there were some choice picks for a gamer like myself, there still wasn't the kind of software strong enough to drive hardware momentum. To support Curl's point: https://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/40909/Global/ - this is for the week ending December 31st, 2011 Pos Game Weekly Total Week # 1 Just Dance 3 (Wii) Ubisoft, Misc 562,447 7,164,411 13 24 Just Dance 3 (X360) Ubisoft, Misc 121,888 1,344,384 13 While conceivably it did have some impact, the Wii version of Just Dance 3 had very strong sales that year, selling around 150% better than the sales of Just Dance 2 in 2010, which released 12 weeks before the end of the year. Just Dance 3 on Wii would go on to become the highest selling release in franchise history at over 10 million units on Wii alone; it sold 2 million on Xbox 360 and 630K on PS3, which, while decent, don't seem to be impacting the Wii even though 2011 marked a massive decline over 2010. As a note, Just Dance 4 also did really well on the Wii, selling close to 7 million units - this also indicates that Nintendo, had they kept supporting the console, could have seen more games sell in the tens of millions because if Ubisoft can get up there, surely Nintendo could do better.

Thank you.

The idea that the Wii userbase had moved on from the system simply isn't true, JD3 in 2011 was in fact not only the highest selling in the series but the highest selling third party game on any Nintendo system, ever. Nintendo abandoned the audience, not vice versa. They pulled the plug too early.

curl-6 said: Jumpin said: To support Curl's point: https://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/40909/Global/ - this is for the week ending December 31st, 2011 Pos Game Weekly Total Week # 1 Just Dance 3 (Wii) Ubisoft, Misc 562,447 7,164,411 13 24 Just Dance 3 (X360) Ubisoft, Misc 121,888 1,344,384 13 While conceivably it did have some impact, the Wii version of Just Dance 3 had very strong sales that year, selling around 150% better than the sales of Just Dance 2 in 2010, which released 12 weeks before the end of the year. Just Dance 3 on Wii would go on to become the highest selling release in franchise history at over 10 million units on Wii alone; it sold 2 million on Xbox 360 and 630K on PS3, which, while decent, don't seem to be impacting the Wii even though 2011 marked a massive decline over 2010. As a note, Just Dance 4 also did really well on the Wii, selling close to 7 million units - this also indicates that Nintendo, had they kept supporting the console, could have seen more games sell in the tens of millions because if Ubisoft can get up there, surely Nintendo could do better. Thank you. The idea that the Wii userbase had moved on from the system simply isn't true, JD3 in 2011 was in fact not only the highest selling in the series but the highest selling third party game on any Nintendo system, ever. Nintendo abandoned the audience, not vice versa. They pulled the plug too early.

The problem with this logic is so what? OK so they could've maybe squeezed an extra year of selling Wii Party 4 for the Wii (things like Zelda: Skyward Sword and Sin & Punishment 2 even weren't putting up impressive sales towards the end). 

But then what? 

After 4-5 years of support, a system is what it is, you're not changing anything, but by extending support beyond that, especially with big titles it can harm the next system.

Especially Nintendo. They are so reliant on having a good start because they don't have the benefit of the developer support Sony gets, they have to have a great 1st 6-12 months for a system, it's absolutely critical.

Wasting big gun games in the twilight years of a console is a bad idea for Nintendo because it often leads to the next system having nothing great ready early on. The 3DS probably could've badly used one of those late release Pokemon games the DS got instead, the DS still would've ended up selling the same 150 million, but life probably would've been way easier for Nintendo. 

It's possible to strike a balance where you support a system until it's replacement and also give it's successor a good start; Nintendo just tend not to be very good at striking that balance, the Wii being perhaps the most obvious case in point.

Besides, let's be honest, the Wii u was fucked from the start and supporting the Wii better in 2011-2012 wouldn't have changed that.

The GBA, GCN, Wii U had far worse late life cycle support than the Wii did. 

And all the successor systems to those machines sold great. 

So really probably what that tells you is late cycle support doesn't mean much really and cutting off support for an older system to ensure better early generation support for the next system has if anything worked well for Nintendo. 

To be honest maybe Microsoft would've been better off doing this too. I think they maybe should have considered ditching the XBox One in 2019 and getting a year headstart over the PS5. 

Sega really, is actually the outlier here and they did extreme things. 

I mean Sony too could've supported the PS2 into 2007 really if they wanted to and pushed PS3 into 2007 ... I don't think it would have helped the PS3 any bit though. 360 would've simply cemented itself a larger lead.

Better support in Wii's late life would've meant more revenue off both hardware and software in 2011-2012 though. Plus it's better for us as consumers to get more support for the hardware we spend good money on.

Yeah but marginally so unless you're saying Nintendo should have released like a new Mario Kart game for the Wii in 2011/2012.

You did get that game, it's called Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ... it just was on Wii U instead of Wii. And it's better for the gamer that it was on Wii U instead of Wii regardless of whether you liked the design choices of the Wii U hardware. The better Wii U hardware meant that game you got was better.

People need to stop looking at things like they're "robbed" of games ... no you do get the games, maybe they spill over onto the next console instead, but that's not a "loss" for you as a player, odds are that means you end up with the better game in the end. 

Like Nintendo easily could have delayed the Super Nintendo into 1992 say and put Super Mario Bros. 4 (Mario World) and Zelda III on the NES instead too. And yes they would have sold a lot of copies. But those games sold a lot of copies on the SNES too. But if they had done that it would've led to a host of market problems, like the Genesis would've been a lot harder to hold off, in fact I would say probably the Genesis flat out beats the Super NES with that generous of an open window. And as a gamer, those games wouldn't have been as good flat out, because of the lesser hardware, the experience would have been worse. 

So really that's lose/lose in that scenario, Nintendo ultimately loses and so does the gamer, the only winner there would've been Sega because would've given them a key large window to grab market share and also a weaker SNES because likely the SNES versions of Mario and Zelda likely would've be ready until 1993 maybe at best? Is that really a great situation?

For Nintendo especially, I think devoting heavy resources to a platform late in the product cycle is dangerous because it can mean the next system does not have adequate software help. Even the Switch, where would they have been without being able to lean heavy on Wii U projects like BOTW and Splatoon and Mario Kart 8. Wii U bombing helped the Switch tremendously because it got access to basically 3 "free" killer apps that not many people had played in the first 6 months. That can completely change a platform's fortunes. 

You're framing in too binary a fashion. Late gen support and strong early support for the next system are not mutually exclusive; a well managed company can do both.

Most companies can't actually. Especially Nintendo, people forget that they're not actually a very large company, for a video game company actually they're fairly small in staff and that is on purpose because it fosters the type of culture/control that Nintendo likes. 

But balancing late gen support with having great early gen support is always going to be hard for Nintendo. 

Even with Switch ... take away BOTW, Mario Kart 8, and Splatoon 2 in the first 8 months which is the result of cannibalizing basically a failed console (a situation you can't really rely on repeating nor would you really want to) ... the system probably would not even be able to launch until November 2017 in that case and the launch likely wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful. 

People think this stuff is easy but it's really not. In Nintendo's case they should always err on the side of caution FOR the console to come (not the aging console that is) after having been burned multiple times by early product cycle nightmares.

I could understand if consumers had some kind of brand loyalty in the sense of sticking with a company like a friend during rough times, but really consumers don't give a shit. They're more like kids in junior high that will freeze out/alienate a kid that's no longer cool enough at the drop of a hat. 

I mean Nintendo gave fans everything they had with the DS, years of support, and what they had a few soft months with the 3DS and all of the sudden inside of a year their entire handheld gaming division is in big trouble and needing a giant ass bailout. You cannot count of loyalty for what you've done in the past, even if the "past" is as recent as 12 months ago. Even Sony's ass was not immune, during late 2006/early 2007 they were suddenly the black sheep of the industry after completely dominating it for like 11 straight years and had to basically prove themselves again from scratch, lol. No one cares what you did last generation the second the next product cycle starts, that's all you're judged on. You get no bounce, no favors, no coddling for past work.

And you can't stay in the comfort zone of the previous generation forever either, there's no loyalty there either, people lose interest and go to the competition. Harsh business but that's how it goes.