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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - If Software sells Hardware why Wii U flopped

 

What's the truth

Software sells Hardware 17 54.84%
 
Hardware sells Software 2 6.45%
 
Software sells Software 3 9.68%
 
Hardware sells Hardware (???) 2 6.45%
 
Amazon sells Hardware 5 16.13%
 
Gamestop sells Software 2 6.45%
 
Total:31

As a long time Nintendo fan I would say price. I get that the software will always be good but at a certain price it felt like Nintendo was riping us off. The Wii u was not worth the asking price even if the games themselves where.

And I was one of thouse who till the near end always thought nintndo was gona turn arpund and remove the tablet and drop $100. I guess people like me ended up looking like fools here.

Edit.  I think this quote fits perfectly here by who ever said it.   "There's no such thing as a bad product, just a bad price"

Last edited by eva01beserk - on 15 January 2021

It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network

Coming from my own experience....I legitimately thought " WiiU" was Nintendo's answer to the UDraw tablet from ubisoft. It wasn't until I did research and understood that it was a new console that I was excited (though limited funds kept me from purchasing).

Anyway...if a big gamer who has owned dozens of systems was confused, I couldn't imagine joe shmoe



The simple answer is that software does sell hardware.  The Wii U didn't have a lot of software.  This reddit thread suggests the Wii U only had 165 physical games in North America.  That is not a lot.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wiiu/comments/6x9i5b/complete_wii_u_usa_physical_release_list/

The more accurate answer is that people buy based on value.  The Wii U hardware was a poor value.  The most obvious way to increase value is to drop the price, but Nintendo didn't do this too much.  The cheapest price for a Wii U was always $300 in NA.  The other really common way to increase value is to increase the library of games.  This is why people say "software sells hardware".  A bigger and better library actually increases the value of the system. 

Think about it this way.  System A has 5 games you want to play and costs $300.  System B has those same 5 games plus 5 more you want to play and costs $300.  Which system would you rather buy?  Everyone is going to choose system B.  It's because system B is the better value.  You pay the same amount for hardware to get access to more games that you want.

So, in the end, software does sell hardware.  Because the real guiding principle is that people want to buy the better value.  The more games a system has that you want to play, the more perceived value it will have for you.



The Nintendo Switch got most of the Wii U library. But the number of ports barely reaches 15.

So, if there were only 15 games to port from the Wii U over 5 years, that does say a lot about the library of the console.



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Software only sells hardware if the hardware is compelling to play the software on.

The Wii increased the value of software by adding motion controls as an interface.

The Wii U took away value from software because the whole idea of having to look at two different screens and having only one controller wasn’t an attractive option.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Dulfite said:

I don't care what anyone says, there is one reason and one reason only that the Wii U bombed. The name was EXTREMELY confusing and people didn't know it was a new console. My hardcore gaming friend from my childhood was CONVINCED it was just a new controller for the Wii. And he's a gamer!

Now take all those parents, kids, and grandparents that were Wii owners. If a hardcore gamer found it confusing, they don't stand a chance. Humans are silly and don't do research on things (one of the reasons I am against voting for those that don't pay attention). I'm convinced if you asked literally everyone that's ever gamed before, 80-90% of them would say they have either never heard of the Wii U or that they thought it was a controller for the Wii.

If they named it something you else, ANYTHING else, I think it would have sold at least 50-60 million units.

/Thread

That's clearly not true. First, where are these 80-90% of gamers that don't know the Wii U was a console? Also, if it confused 80-90% of gamers, then where are the reports of tens to hundreds of millions of Wii U games accidentally bought for the Wii? This didn't happen.

Why are you lying about this?

/Your bullshit



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Dulfite said:

I don't care what anyone says, there is one reason and one reason only that the Wii U bombed. The name was EXTREMELY confusing and people didn't know it was a new console. My hardcore gaming friend from my childhood was CONVINCED it was just a new controller for the Wii. And he's a gamer!

Now take all those parents, kids, and grandparents that were Wii owners. If a hardcore gamer found it confusing, they don't stand a chance. Humans are silly and don't do research on things (one of the reasons I am against voting for those that don't pay attention). I'm convinced if you asked literally everyone that's ever gamed before, 80-90% of them would say they have either never heard of the Wii U or that they thought it was a controller for the Wii.

If they named it something you else, ANYTHING else, I think it would have sold at least 50-60 million units.

/Thread

While I realize their target demographic is quite different, I think the Xbox Series S/X will be an interesting example on to what degree this is true or not, given that the name is at least as confusing, if not even more so, than the Wii U. 

This is also (one of the reasons) why I think the Series X will sell very poorly, not even matching the Xbox One (which was a dumb name but at least it was clear what it was). 



Because it looked like a fisher price toy, not gonna lie. 



我是广州人

The naming and branding were god awful.
The gamepad was god awful. While it had a couple of very interesting usages for most part it was just jammed in there and forced to be used. I couldn't stand having to use that thing for Xenoblade, or Super Mario 3D world.

Also - it wasn't portable. It isn't a coincidence that it was Nintendo's last "docked/console/home" mode only console.

Also didn't the game pad jack up the console by like at least $100? What was the price of the Wii U on average?



  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)

thank you for this thead! two keywords, marketing and gamepad

when marketing didn't work, word of mouth did not either, the gamepad was just a big unappealing, unnecessary thing, and that's exactly why the games work great on switch without it

had they stick with WiiU remotes and a Pro controller, things would be very different, instead the chose an expensive, unconfortable thing as the main selling point

the gamepad killed the Wii brand, should have only been a peripheral, like the Wii balance board for example



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^