Can we finally get off Nintendo's back?

im split on what I want nintendo to do. Its true that their games on other consoles would be for the best...in fact the PC would be my preference. They could really take some of my favorite franchises to a whole new level. Putting the games on ps4/xbox would be alright too.

On the other hand, no other gaming company innovates as much as nintendo does. They are fully into bringing gaming to new levels that people don't realize or appreciate. They were first to put vibration in a controller with the rumble pack...which sony ripped off very fast. The first VR console was their making, of course it was way too early. First console to support 4 players, ie serious multiplayer. They literally developed the controller by themselves from scratch including shoulder buttons, directional pad, joystick, almost everything we all now enjoy. The first true wireless controller with the wavebird for gamecube. Minidiscs for the gamecube. Motion control for the wii. They practically invented handheld gaming with the gameboy all the way back in 1985. Now they have their fingerprints on one of the best ideas for a videogame on the mobile platform.

So with that said, while I would love to see their games on all consoles and the pc, it would be a shame to see nintendo not being in the hardware market at all. They literally come up with the next big idea every single time. While sony and microsoft are fighting over petty graphics comparisons, nintendo is thinking about ways to innovate and make gaming fresh. Kudos to them!

@blaznwiipspman1: the Virtual Boy was not VR.

@doubutsuteki: You're looking too much at sales and forgetting that the audiences were quite different. Obviously video games have become more popular over the course of the decades - you have to take that into account.

But what does it mean to say that a platform "dominated" an industry if the sales aren't there to support it? I agree that sales aren't everything, but they aren't nothing. Sales indicate how many people physically bought that console, and that's important.

I am taking into account that video games have become more popular over time, but where do you think that increase in popularity comes from? It doesn't materialise out of thin air; people need to have a reason to buy games, and it's not reasonable to assume that there will always be more and more gamers out there and that this will expand exponentially over time. In fact, the opposite has often been true (look at the video game crash of 1983, and look at the decline of video game hardware sales in Japan over a decade).

@doubutsuteki: But the NES dominated in it's day, had a life-span of over a decade and has remained to have a large following ever since it went out of production. That isn't the case for the Wii, because most of the audience went on to tablets and mobile phones - it's evident when you look at the tablet controller on the Wii U that Nintendo was going after that same audience again.

The Wii has also had a life-span of at least a decade (2006 - 2016). In fact, one important reason why Wii U is compatible with Wii games is because Wii games are still selling, even though Nintendo isn't actively publishing new titles anymore for that platform.

In terms of where the audience went after the Wii, I think you are right that smart devices have played a more competitive role in recent times than ever before. But I also think you'll find that a lot of consumers didn't actually go anywhere - they stayed on the Wii and didn't see the value in upgrading to Wii U. This would be especially true for non-gamers and possibly even lapsed gamers.

I do think it's sensible to assume that a lot of consumers who still have a Wii decided that they have enough gaming content available on their phone or tablet and thus, there's no reason to buy a new console. But it's very difficult to demonstrate that this piece of armchair analysis is correct (even though I think it has some validity, at least conceptually).

@doubutsuteki: And they failed. The SNES didn't fail, although it didn't have the same amount of success as it's predecessor. But it was pretty close, which means that most of the audience from the NES carried over to the SNES.

Honestly, it really depends how you define "failure". Some would argue that the Nintendo 64 or GameCube consoles failed, although I wouldn't argue this.

In my view, the ultimate definition comes down to whether or not the console performed as per Nintendo's expectations. In the Wii U's case, it clearly didn't. In terms of overall sales of hardware, it looks like Wii U will settle somewhere slightly above Dreamcast in terms of lifetime hardware sales, which isn't a great result.

However, I will reiterate a very fundamental point that is being missed continually here, but I'll do it in response to another part of your post below.

@doubutsuteki: The hardware landscape is different now, because of tablets and smartphones. Nintendo could succeed with the Wii only because tablets and smartphones had not become commonplace yet. It's what allowed them to come out with a gimmicky console that was weaker than the competition and meet with success. It was all a bubble, however.

I think this is the biggest part of your analysis that I take issue with, because it misunderstands why the Wii was successful. Of course timing played a role, but timing plays a role with every product as a matter of course.

Nintendo's success with the Wii fundamentally came from the fact that you only had to look at it to intuitively understand it. Simply watching someone use a Wii Remote for a matter of seconds instantly communicates the machine's purpose and value. This is incredibly powerful, especially in terms of enticing people who have not traditionally been gamers.

Of course, nobody can predict whether or not a certain idea will become wildly successful. Timing and luck are crucial to any product's success. But Nintendo didn't simply fluke it with Wii - they understood what they were doing, and they executed on the idea almost perfectly. Nintendo didn't compete directly with Sony and Microsoft; they simply bypassed them. Don't drive through the roadblock, drive around it, as it were. :P

In my view, one of the problems with the Wii U is that Nintendo didn't continue focusing on what made the Wii so successful. I can understand where they were coming from and what they were trying to do - they were trying to take gamers who they had introduced to console gaming with the Wii, and begin offering them more sophisticated experiences. But you're right that people didn't follow them.

It's too late now, but my view has always been that Nintendo would have been better to release a "Wii 2" or a "Super Wii" that is basically an HD Wii with a bigger hard drive, improved Wii Remote, and improved interface and online features. But that's easy for me to say in retrospect. :-)

Also, it's not that Wii existed in a bubble, it's that innovation is hard! It's almost impossible to anticipate what consumers will want from year to year. As soon as a company innovates, they increase the risk that consumers won't buy into their ideas.

Rather than viewing Wii as a bubble, it's more accurate to view Wii and Wii U as examples of the ebb-and-flow of product ideas and successes. In other words, not all new products will be a huge hit...even the most successful company won't always get it right all the time.

But that's the price of innovation. Nintendo themselves have said this, and I think it's a risk they have been prepared to take.

@doubutsuteki: I don't want Nintendo to make any new consoles. I want them to go third-party. Because they suck at making consoles.

That's fair enough; you're welcome to that opinion.

I'd just say that I don't think Nintendo suck at making consoles. Regardless of my personal view (and I have different views for different platforms, honestly), I'd say that Nintendo can clearly make a valuable contribution to console hardware.

If I could play Nintendo games on my PS4? Sure, that'd be awesome. But to be honest, I just don't think that is worth what I'd be giving up on the other side - Nintendo's innovation in hardware has been genuinely interesting to me, and has been compelling for the industry at large. I personally don't really want to give that up.

But either way, it's a bit of a moot point. Nintendo aren't going third-party in the foreseeable future, so the real question is about what the NX is and what strategy Nintendo will employ with it.

@GameboyTroy: DRM isn't Nintendo's style lol and DRM is frowned upon.

What do you mean? Nintendo has had DRM since the Wii.

One thing they've talked about being open to changing (on a slightly unrelated note) is region-locking.

By the way, sorry for the long post reply guys and gals. I wanted to be respectful and reply to those who had kindly replied to me, it just took me a little while. :-)

Alright, so let's try to break your post down into the essentials, here:

The sales were there to support the NES. It had 90% of the console market. That's really all that needs to be said in addition to what I've already explained. The Nintendo 64 and the Game Cube were indeed failures. The marketplace determines whether something is a failure or not, and the sales weren't there for the N64 and the GC. The Dreamcast was quite the success right off the bat. The same cannot be said for the Wii U. So comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast you have to take the fact into account that the Wii U was a failure all the way from the beginning, while the failure of the Dreamcast had to do with Sega's financial situation, first and foremost - they had been in the red for several years prior to the launch of the Dreamcast.

Nintendo barely supported the Wii at all after 2011 and most of the games didn't really take advantage of the Wiimote + nunchuck; they would've been just fine to play with the classic controller. Does that speak in favour of Nintendo knowing what they were doing with the Wii? I don't think so at all. The controls for the Wii were all-around awful - that's likely the reason we haven't seen the Wii U bundled with the same controllers.

I simply disagree completely with everything positive you're saying about motion controls. Here's an article I'd like to recommend which doesn't gloss over the problems with them but also doesn't bash them: http://kotaku.com/motion-controls-the-most-popular-and-most-broken-idea-1445766816 (I have nothing but bad things to say about them, personally.)

Timing was the most important factor in making the Wii a success. You can be sure of it. There are no ebbs or flows to talk about in the case of Nintendo. Every home console that they've made since after the SNES has been a failure with the exception of the Wii, and the success of the Wii really only lasted for the first three years or so.

@doubutsuteki: The Nintendo 64 and the Game Cube were indeed failures. The marketplace determines whether something is a failure or not, and the sales weren't there for the N64 and the GC. The Dreamcast was quite the success right off the bat. The same cannot be said for the Wii U. So comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast you have to take the fact into account that the Wii U was a failure all the way from the beginning, while the failure of the Dreamcast had to do with Sega's financial situation, first and foremost - they had been in the red for several years prior to the launch of the Dreamcast.

So now you are differentiating between different "kinds of failures" - it seems to me that this reaches a bit far. You're trying to make excuses for the Dreamcast, while outright dismissing the Nintendo 64 and GameCube.

I think it's worth stepping back and considering what we mean by the term "failure". I would argue that you have a fairly loose definition, based on what you've said here. Do you define "failure" by market share? Sales? Profit? Attach ratio?

@doubutsuteki: Nintendo barely supported the Wii at all after 2011 and most of the games didn't really take advantage of the Wiimote + nunchuck; they would've been just fine to play with the classic controller. Does that speak in favour of Nintendo knowing what they were doing with the Wii? I don't think so at all. The controls for the Wii were all-around awful - that's likely the reason we haven't seen the Wii U bundled with the same controllers.

Nintendo definitely knew what they were doing with the Wii. You are right that many games didn't take great advantage of the Wii Remote, but those that did take advantage of it were (largely) made by Nintendo. It was primarily third-party games that failed to take advantage of the technology, although there are some stand-out examples.

In terms of saying that many of the games would have been "just fine to play with the classic controller" - yes, that's probably true, but it misses the point very fundamentally.

It's not about whether or not you "could" have played some games with other controller types; it's that Nintendo wanted to create a unique experience that would - in their words - "create a new starting line for all players". That's effectively what they did. When you look at a game like WiiSports, that kind of player experience simply wouldn't be possible on a regular controller. And it's fair to say that WiiSports was a major factor in the adoption of the Wii by consumers.

The controls for the Wii were not awful at all, at least, not in and of themselves. I definitely agree that some games implemented them poorly, and it's worth acknowledging that you may not have liked them - but that doesn't mean they were awful. Nintendo achieved something quite significant with the Wii Remote, and there were some truly brilliant and fresh experiences that took advantage of it.

@doubutsuteki: I simply disagree completely with everything positive you're saying about motion controls. Here's an article I'd like to recommend which doesn't gloss over the problems with them but also doesn't bash them: http://kotaku.com/motion-controls-the-most-popular-and-most-broken-idea-1445766816 (I have nothing but bad things to say about them, personally.)

Right - but let me just repeat this point because it might be getting lost: I am not saying that motion controls are perfect. They had their problems, of course. For example, I remember being frustrated by the need to re-center my controls in Skyward Sword.

So, you won't ever find me glossing over the problems with the Wii Remote. But by the same token, the idea that motion controls are inherently a gimmick or that they didn't work is also wrong - and pretty clearly wrong, considering both the sales and the longer-term impact they had on the industry.

@doubutsuteki: Timing was the most important factor in making the Wii a success. You can be sure of it. There are no ebbs or flows to talk about in the case of Nintendo. Every home console that they've made since after the SNES has been a failure with the exception of the Wii, and the success of the Wii really only lasted for the first three years or so.

As I said, timing is always relevant - but I don't agree that it was the most important factor, because that just ignores far too much evidence (including much of the market research around the product that already exists).

"Every home console they've made since the (N64) has been a failure" - really? Well, again, I think you need to define what you mean by "failure".

I would argue that if this were truly the case, Nintendo would have gone out of business some time ago.

The real question here is how you determine what a "failure" is. I suspect that a lot of what sits behind that is your own personal feelings about what Nintendo have delivered. But I'm happy to stand corrected if you want to clarify how you define "failure".

Well, you're good at using a lot of words to say very little, at least.

The Wii had a poor lifecycle, awful controls - that were underutilized by the games on the system - in addition to being filled mostly with shovelware. The N64 and the GC were failures because they were nowhere near the top sold systems of their generations. I'm not making up excuses for the Dreamcast, although it might have sounded that way, the way I phrased it, so I'll be more precise: It might've become a failure even if Sega hadn't stopped producing it, but it did get off to a very good start - something that cannot be said for the Wii U, which was doomed all the way from the beginning. In other words, the Dreamcast was also a failure. Yes, I'm still talking about market share.

If you haven't noticed, the Wii U is performing very poorly.

What does "creating a new starting line for all players" mean? You simply mean to say they implemented shitty controls that everybody had to learn to use anew for it's own sake? How have motion controls had a long-term impact on the video game industry exactly? Would you point me towards this evidence you're referring to that would prove that timing wasn't the most important factor driving the success of the Wii's gimmicks?

Wii U is the best system this gen. Not their fault people are stupid.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/341844

@doubutsuteki: Well, you're good at using a lot of words to say very little, at least.

C'mon, is that really necessary? We've been having a good discussion. It's OK to disagree.

But in the spirit of constructive criticism, I'll try to keep this post as brief as possible. ;-)

@doubutsuteki: The Wii had a poor lifecycle, awful controls - that were underutilized by the games on the system - in addition to being filled mostly with shovelware.

I agree that there were many games on the console that didn't fully utilise the Wii Remote; I've never disputed that.

My argument is that the existence of these games doesn't invalidate the actual controller itself. The controller itself was clever, and where it was properly utilised, it provided a great experience.

I also don't disagree about shovelware; Wii did have a lot of that. But it also had a pretty strong library of great games too. Bad games don't invalidate good ones, surely.

@doubutsuteki: The N64 and the GC were failures because they were nowhere near the top sold systems of their generations.

Right, so when you talk about "failure" you are exclusively talking about market share?

In that case, how do you view PS3 and Xbox 360? Both of those consoles sold nowhere near the Wii. By your definition, they are apparently failures. I don't agree that they are, and I don't agree with your limited definition of "failure".

@doubutsuteki: In other words, the Dreamcast was also a failure. Yes, I'm still talking about market share.

In that case, I see no point quibbling over what type of failure is involved (a "good failure" versus a "bad failure"? How does that logically make sense? It then just boils down to a value judgement). Essentially, any console that isn't the market leader in its respective generation is a failure - there are a lot of failed consoles out there, then. :-)

@doubutsuteki: If you haven't noticed, the Wii U is performing very poorly.

Yes, I have noticed that. Thanks for reminding me though; but I'm not sure what point you're making here. I never said that Wii U isn't performing poorly. It clearly is, and it's clearly performed well under Nintendo's own expectations.

I see that as a non-debatable point.

@doubutsuteki: What does "creating a new starting line for all players" mean? You simply mean to say they implemented shitty controls that everybody had to learn to use anew for it's own sake? How have motion controls had a long-term impact on the video game industry exactly? Would you point me towards this evidence you're referring to that would prove that timing wasn't the most important factor driving the success of the Wii's gimmicks?

I gave this some thought and I am happy to respond, but you know, I think the best explanation comes from Satoru Iwata himself.

I highly recommend checking out Iwata's TGS 2005 keynote, where he unveiled the Wii Remote. In this presentation, he actually talks through the motivations and goals behind Nintendo's strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUDJgnIaz9w

It's a good video, because it also makes sense in retrospect as well. Also, this video will help to explain some of the other important factors behind the design decisions related to the Wii (related to your assertion that timing was the most important factor behind the success of the Wii).

Just a note - the video is in parts, and this is part 1. Quality isn't great, but it makes for fascinating watching. Enjoy. :-)

The Xbox 360 and the PS3 turned out to be successes retrospectively because they were both doing about equally as good as each other and because the Wii turned out to be a successful fad, rather than just another successful video game console. The Wii case was special, I admit, because it managed to carve out a new market for itself - a market that turned their back on Nintendo once they had better options to pick: Tablets and smartphones.

I haven't referred to any failures in value judgmental terms. I have referred to the Wii controls as bad controls, because it is my opinion that they are bad. I never understood what's so intimidating about a damn gamepad. It isn't harder than driving a car, and all kinds of people drive cars. And never minding whether the controls are good or bad Iwata was just rambling on about their far-flung ideas, most of which did not materialize.

Most video game consoles throughout history have actually turned out to be failures; the vast majority of them have.

@doubutsuteki: The Xbox 360 and the PS3 turned out to be successes retrospectively because they were both doing about equally as good as each other and because the Wii turned out to be a successful fad, rather than just another successful video game console. The Wii case was special, I admit, because it managed to carve out a new market for itself - a market that turned their back on Nintendo once they had better options to pick: Tablets and smartphones.

Well, the goal posts are now shifting again. At first you said the success is defined by market leadership; you were very explicit about that.

You're now importing all sorts of other qualitative criteria to define success and failure. Now you're kind of saying "success is defined by market leadership except for fads and except for the Xbox 360 and PS3 because they were performing equally well" - how many exceptions are there? Now the original definition has lost all meaning.

@doubutsuteki: I haven't referred to any failures in value judgmental terms.

Yes, you have - in this very sentence. And in the paragraph above, too.

Just to be clear, I'm not going after you here...I don't mind whether or not you like the Wii. But I think you should just say "I didn't really care for it" rather than trying to confuse that with some objective notion that it was a failure. That's all I'm saying.

@doubutsuteki: And never minding whether the controls are good or bad Iwata was just rambling on about their far-flung ideas, most of which did not materialize.

Did you actually watch the video? Remember, we were talking about the strategy behind the Wii: why Nintendo chose that path, and how it was a very deliberate consideration, in response to evidence. Iwata's keynote walks through this in some detail. :-)

@doubutsuteki: Most video game consoles throughout history have actually turned out to be failures; the vast majority of them have.

Yes, I agree. I'd call something like the Atari Jaguar a failure - but this doesn't remotely compare with, say, the N64 or GameCube examples.

If you want an example of a Nintendo failure, then you're better to talk about the Virtual Boy as a really clear example.

In any case, I think there's a major conflation of issues going on here, which I've attempted to express above. As I say, I have zero problem with someone liking the Wii or Nintendo or whatever else; we each have our tastes, and you can like whatever you like! Truth be told, I love a lot of non-Nintendo stuff - sometimes quite a bit more than what Nintendo puts out there.

But I think the line between personal opinion and objective reality is non-existent in parts of this conversation, and I'm just drawing attention to that. If we are having a conversation with two very different sets of assumptions, then the conversation won't work. :-)

I have moved no goal posts. I said that the Wii carved out a new market for itself. It was a success, briefly, in that new market. That's the reason why the PS3 and Xbox 360 can also be considered successes in their market - traditional video game consoles. Nintendo themselves said that they weren't competing with Sony or Microsoft, after all, didn't they?

I said that! I said that the Wii's controls were bad in my opinion. I haven't said that they weren't successful market-wise; they obviously propelled the success of the Wii. I gave you a link that goes into some detail about what was bad about them, though, despite their success - because I think that they were bad!

I did watch the video, yes. What did you take with you from watching it, that you haven't spelled out here in your reply to me?

I consider the Atari Jaguar to be a failure. Also the N64 was a failure. The GameCube was a failure, as well. Who's bringing other criteria than market share into the equation here, if not you? But sure, we can talk about factors relevant to determining whether a console is a major or minor failure, if you want. I think that it can be done. But you are the one insisting on introducing qualitative criteria now to differentiate between failures. Admit that.

ya, its everyone else whose stupid...

@doubutsuteki: I have moved no goal posts. I said that the Wii carved out a new market for itself. It was a success, briefly, in that new market. That's the reason why the PS3 and Xbox 360 can also be considered successes in their market - traditional video game consoles. Nintendo themselves said that they weren't competing with Sony or Microsoft, after all, didn't they?

You say you haven't moved goal posts, and then you proceed to move them again. Let's be mega-clear: you originally said that you define success or failure by market share. That's it. You didn't add any qualifiers.

Now you keep adding many different qualifiers. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't anticipate what the next qualification will be; the shifting sand makes it impossible to actually have a conversation based on the same assumptions.

@doubutsuteki: I said that! I said that the Wii's controls were bad in my opinion. I haven't said that they weren't successful market-wise; they obviously propelled the success of the Wii. I gave you a link that goes into some detail about what was bad about them, though, despite their success - because I think that they were bad!

Hang on a minute, this is a conflation of a couple of different issues.

All I was saying is this: you may not like the Wii's controls, but this doesn't mean they were objectively bad. You had previously indicated that the Wii's controls "are bad" as if this is an objective fact, when it isn't. That's all I was pointing out.

I say this because again, you're regularly conflating different topics - are we talking about the objective reasons why a platform is or is not successful in the market, or are we talking about whether or not we personally enjoyed the platform? Conflating the two doesn't make sense.

@doubutsuteki: Who's bringing other criteria than market share into the equation here, if not you? But sure, we can talk about factors relevant to determining whether a console is a major or minor failure, if you want. I think that it can be done. But you are the one insisting on introducing qualitative criteria now to differentiate between failures. Admit that.

I don't know how to be more clear about the massive flaw in what you're saying here. I'll try again, one more time.

You originally said that your criteria for defining the success of a platform is market share - this is the only criteria you mentioned. Yes, I disagree with you - I think there are more criteria than that. But we aren't talking about my criteria, we're talking about yours.

After I challenged your original criteria, you then began throwing in many different qualitative and quantitative criteria all over the place.

All I've done it to say that you're repeatedly contradicting your original assertion, which makes it impossible to have the discussion, because I don't know what I'm actually debating - it keeps changing in each post. :-)

So, if you want to know what criteria I would use to define success...that's totally cool, I'm happy to tell you. But so far, I haven't told you; I've just questioned and challenged your criteria, which you keep revising in each of your posts.

I hope that makes it clearer now.

I'm conscious that we're grinding our wheels in the mud a little bit here, and talking past each other to some extent. So, if you'd like to continue the conversation then can I suggest we choose a specific aspect to discuss?

For example: what about either definitions of success for a console or Nintendo's strategy with the Wii?

I'm happy to discuss either of those, but it might be best to limit our conversation to one or the other, so that we can simplify it and keep on track. :-)

I'm sorry, but I have to jump in here.

I take exception to the underlined. I don't believe that quality can be measured objectively, but it can be measured objectively within a subjective construct. In this case, games. Pikmin 3 was amazing using the Wiimote, but it ultimately suffered, and was objectively bad, in games such as Skyward Sword. Needing to recalibrate? A video that sums up my thoughts rather concisely:

Would this problem have occurred with a normal controller? No. There's no room in contemporary controls left up to ambiguity as the Wiimote often afforded due to insufficient tech, which is the antithesis of good controls, and of which games such as Skyward Sword presented and consequently suffered from. These controls are objectively bad, perhaps not across the board, but held in contrast to regular controls that grant 100% accuracy in every game they are implemented in, anything less is unacceptable and in comparison, and are objectively flawed as a means of a system and gameplay interface.

@MirkoS77: I'm sorry, but I have to jump in here.

I take exception to the underlined. I don't believe that quality can be measured objectively, but it can be measured objectively within a subjective construct. In this case, games. Pikmin 3 was amazing using the Wiimote, but it ultimately suffered, and was objectively bad, in games such as Skyward Sword. Needing to recalibrate? A video that sums up my thoughts rather concisely:

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. :-)

Unfortunately you've jumped in at the tail end of a rather long conversation (not your fault). I had earlier talked about "objective" issues like recalibration being flawed user experiences. I was very clear about that.

In my previous post, I was objecting to the idea that because someone doesn't "like" motion control in general doesn't mean that the idea or the experience itself is objectively bad in all cases, because this is obviously a false equivalence.

I understand that motion control isn't for everyone, and that's fine. I also agree that it doesn't make sense in some scenarios.

I mean, my own example of disliking motion control is what we see in Star Fox Zero; I think motion control didn't add value to that experience, and in fact, it ended up being a distraction for the player.

But does this mean that motion control in general is a bad idea, or is always a bad experience? No, certainly not. :-)

@djura:

I've repeatedly stated that market share is the criteria for judging whether something is a success or not. I'm not saying anything else when talking about successes and failures. The Wii didn't just compete in the exact same market, however. The reason for it was Nintendo's insistence on finding a new market that they felt that Sony and Microsoft wasn't catering to - they wanted to distance themselves from what they were doing and to attract new people. You're contesting this even when that was Nintendo's plan, laid down by Iwata himself in that video you linked to me? Seriously?

I've repeatedly also said that I think that the Wii controls were bad - which is my personal opinion. I sent you a link to an article reviewing them retrospectively to show that I'm far from the only one who thinks so. The reason I brought it up was that because to me and many gamers who belong to that market that Nintendo weren't quite targeting with the Wii, the "core crowd", if you will - many of us thought that the controllers were crap, and felt alienated by them. The reason? To explain part of what might play into the reason that the Wii U is doing badly now; because it's a gimmick controller that they're trying to push again. Tablets and smartphones cater to the new market now. I also said that timing was an important factor playing into the success of the original Wii because tablets and smartphones weren't commonplace yet. If you disagree with this, then it's quite possible you don't see yourself as belonging to the former or the latter market, which is what I gathered from your first post to me. Fine! But leave it at that then. Or, you know, at the very least show something that would indicate that timing didn't factor into the success of the Wii, since it was what you said took an issue with; show me the market research you were referring to.

What's so hard to understand about all of this that you have to jot down confusing walls of text again and again? I have also gone through the evolution of game controllers from the early days up until now earlier in this thread, by the way. It's there if you want to take a look at it.

Go ahead and tell me your criteria for determining whether a console is a success or not if you're not going to counter what I've said with actual arguments.

Recalibration being flawed user experiences? I would go back to peruse your argument to ascertain specifics pertinent to it if I agreed with the premise, unfortunately I don't. There is nothing about recalibration that is subjective, if there was, a software stopgap wouldn't have had to be put in to keep objectively inadequate technology constantly in check in certain contexts. Is this applicable to only some games more than others? Sure, but Nintendo is the one who has decided to implement these controls as a blanket solution to be adhered to with all their software, so when it works for one title and doesn't for another, I'm sorry.....it's insufficient.

I won't argue that the motion controls of the Wii were bad across the board in all games, but that doesn't mean they weren't poorly executed within the criteria of what determines competent motion controls in the first place. What Nintendo did with the Wii was walk in to Radio Shack, buy a IR sensor, an accelerometer, package it in a box, mix in some brilliant marketing, and sell its promise to the gullible masses. It worked wonders, yet that is no testament to the technology behind it.

Motion controls can be for everyone, and they can be for no one. I embrace them, and own a Vive that makes Nintendo's effort look pedestrian in comparison. But whether someone likes them or not, that's a whole different argument from whether they are well done. The Wii's weren't. It was garbage then, and it remains garbage now. I'll never agree that the Wii executed motion controls well, I'll only grant Nintendo were marketing geniuses that used false marketing to sell a product far past its capabilities.

@MirkoS77: Recalibration being flawed user experiences? I would go back to peruse your argument to ascertain specifics pertinent to it if I agreed with the premise, unfortunately I don't. There is nothing about recalibration that is subjective, if there was, a software stopgap wouldn't have had to be put in to keep objectively inadequate technology constantly in check in certain contexts. Is this applicable to only some games more than others? Sure, but Nintendo is the one who has decided to implement these controls as a blanket solution to be adhered to with all their software, so when it works for one title and doesn't for another, I'm sorry.....it's insufficient.

As I said earlier, you've jumped into the conversation at a certain point and for this reason, I think you are actually not aware of my premise. As a result, you think we're disagreeing, but we aren't. :-)

I agree entirely with the comments quoted here. Recalibration is a flawed user experience and I think that's an objective fact. We agree that it's not fundamentally a subjective question. The underlying technology has required a manual solution for calibration, which is undesirable.

So, you're spot on with this. But again, I never argued otherwise. I suspect what's happening is that we now have three or four different lines of argument converging, and it doesn't make any sense now. Again, not your fault; just a consequence of the timing more than anything else.

@doubutsuteki: Okay, so, we're still flailing around all over the place. I think we've reached a point where we aren't even having a coherent discussion. I'll do one last (hopefully brief) summary from my point of view; feel free to discuss any of my following responses.

@doubutsuteki: I've repeatedly stated that market share is the criteria for judging whether something is a success or not. I'm not saying anything else when talking about successes and failures. The Wii didn't just compete in the exact same market, however. The reason for it was Nintendo's insistence on finding a new market that they felt that Sony and Microsoft wasn't catering to - they wanted to distance themselves from what they were doing and to attract new people. You're contesting this even when that was Nintendo's plan, laid down by Iwata himself in that video you linked to me? Seriously?

Honestly, there's not much more for me to add outside my previous post. You started with one criteria, then you began adding various (sometimes contradictory) caveats to it. The slippery slope became a logic-waterslide. :-)

All I've been trying to do is make sense of your position by repeating it back to you. Your paragraph above is the clearest description you have yet given about what you actually think - so, thank you.

And on the point about Nintendo's strategy (broadly), I agree with you. I'm not contesting that point at all. You were contesting it yourself because you pointed out the importance of timing and luck and dismissed the idea of a deliberate strategy (and now you're indicating that there was a deliberate strategy involved) - can you see what I'm saying here? It's been very difficult to follow the winding and variable path you've been drawing out.

So in summary I'll just say I largely agree with what you've said here. Great! This means you've answered your own earlier arguments without me having to repeatedly do it. :-)

@doubutsuteki: Or, you know, at the very least show something that would indicate that timing didn't factor into the success of the Wii, since it was what you said took an issue with; show me the market research you were referring to.

This comment underscores my frustration here; I never argued that timing didn't factor into the success of the Wii! Goodness me.

I simply said that timing was not the only factor, and certainly not to the exclusion of strategy. You were the one who said that timing was all-important here, and you directly implied that Nintendo were essentially lucky due to timing.

I've just been trying to nail down an actual point from you, because I don't think you even know what you're arguing against here. Based on your latest post, it looks like we actually agree on a whole lot!

@doubutsuteki: What's so hard to understand about all of this that you have to jot down confusing walls of text again and again?

I'm sorry if my text has been confusing. I am trying to be as clear as possible, apparently to no avail.

@doubutsuteki: Go ahead and tell me your criteria for determining whether a console is a success or not if you're not going to counter what I've said with actual arguments.

It's been hard to counter you with actual arguments, because you have been continually adjusting your position and adding caveat after caveat, and then debating points that I haven't been making.

As I say, I'm sorry if I haven't been clear enough, but I've been trying to tease out a coherent point from you and that's been difficult.

Before I add any further fuel to the fire, I urge you to read through this post carefully - I think you'll find that (at least in this moment of time) - we actually probably broadly agree on a lot.

I will say, I'm glad/grateful that you have sought to clarify your position here. Thank you for that.

@djura: Good stuff mate. A lot of these haters havnt actually experienced the games theyre talking about, thats why its so confusing to read what their trying to say.

"I like turtles"

@djura: ah OK. I took, "I had earlier talked about "objective" issues like recalibration being flawed user experiences" to mean that the only reason recalibration was necessary was because people didn't understand how to set it up and use it properly, not because the hardware was at fault.