victor83fernandes said:
mjk45 said:
I personally believe that outside factors like the impact of Mobile on the handheld sector lead to the Switch rather than the Switch being a result of continuing the innovation concerning the Wii U unless you mean innovation that lead to poor sales. those changes to the mobile market meant that Nintendo were now faced with a declining handheld market along with weak Wii U sales and while they had the resources to ride out another console with Wii U sales numbers, the down turn in both meant that change had to happen, so a unified approach with the added synergies of having one product in terms of both hardware and software development was the way forward hence the hybrid switch. |
Mobile has nothing to do with console sales, mobile is a totally different market. The switch succeeded because its a 3ds and wiiU successor combined. 3ds + wiiU account for around 94 million sales, which makes sense. WiiU was also impacted by its name as many people though it was a new controller for the wii, had it been named differently sales would have been much higher. If the switch was not portable it would not sell even half. |
We’re talking about human beings here, not chimpanzees :D
The whole “maybe people thought the console was a controller” thing isn’t based reality, but rather poorly thought out speculation propagated by people who want to avoid actual discussion of what happened during the generation as much as they want to ignore that most people thought the Wii U kind of sucked.
Just take a minute to think about it. In order for that to make any sense, you’d have to ignore your memories of the generation, convince yourself that it’s perfectly reasonable that few people actually saw Wii U consoles and games at retail locations, advertisements across the Internet, television, malls, in magazines, or any discussion of it across social media and websites like this. And that gamers would have just thought “I guess Nintendo is just taking this generation off to catch their breath after all the hype around the Wii.” It’s the equivalent of flat earthism.
If you choose to pay attention to reality, you’ll easily reasons why the Wii U failed. First, no killer app. Second, third party games were generally lacklustre - for example, EA released a full priced port Mass Effect 3 on its own for the Wii U while releasing a trilogy collection on other consoles. The Wii U’s marketing campaign basically pointed out how much it sucked. The one Gamepad per console “because Wii U’s about asymmetrical gameplay” sounded like the equivalent of “that’s not damage from bullets, they’re speed holes.” The demo Kiosks across retail locations put unremarkable launch window games and a sluggish interface into the hands of gamers across the globe - they only demonstrated how crappy the console was.
After a year, interest in the console dropped further because all those “AAA” ports flopped and new ones stopped coming. Nintendo fell into a cycle of promoting games that weren’t anywhere near launch… either because of bad marketing execs, or because there was simply too little of interest for them to market, so they started focusing on games 1, 2, even 3 years out.
The one feature that people were left to be excited about was the offscreen gameplay. Early adopters were quick to point out it didn’t really work because of the short range… Criticism of “Maybe this works for small Tokyo apartments, but the range isn’t even enough for me to play games while taking a shit.” Nintendo’s Switch’s marketing made a point to show a guy playing the Switch while on the can.
Yes, there were people questioning whether Wii U was Nintendo’s next gen console, but people weren’t debating whether it was a console or “just a controller” it was whether or not it was a stop-gap console.