WIRED: Wii U isn't bombing because of the name...

#1 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

...it's because NOBODY likes what it offers.

Link (thanks GN)

I think both Adelman and Kohler may be on to something, unfortunately.

#2 Posted by MrYaotubo (2709 posts) -

It offers nintendo franchises,isn´t that what people always wanted from nintendo consoles?
Or perhaps people are just tired/over most of those franchises in general,in a mainstream way at least.

#3 Posted by charizard1605 (59616 posts) -

NOBODY likes what it offers

... uh huh.

#4 Edited by jg4xchamp (49287 posts) -

It's a gaming console that's primarily just about games minus the fucking games. It has the shortest selection of games and the smallest support from developers.

So yeah what it attempts to do, it does poorly.

#5 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

Still the best next-gen console on the market.

#6 Posted by Ballroompirate (23450 posts) -

If it weren't for the LoZ game, Bayonetta 2, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Smash and MK8 I see really no reason to get a Wii-U. Luckily LoZ and Xenoblade Chronicles X will be the selling point for me once Nintendo realizes they need a price drop.

#7 Posted by MirkoS77 (7987 posts) -
@farrell2k said:

Still the best next-gen console on the market.

......may it enjoy it while it lasts...

#8 Edited by PapaTrop (1643 posts) -

Well yeah. It's only selling points are the exclusives it offers up about once every 6-12 months.

Outside of that, it's not really good for anything. It's really only good as a secondary gaming system (unless you barely game at all).

#9 Posted by lamprey263 (24671 posts) -

I felt this way all along, I never bought that "people don't know there's a new Nintendo console out. They're marketing it terribly". I think a lot of gaming consumers knew and just didn't care... well, some cared, but not enough for it to do better. I think Nintendo aimed to add to its list of games third party multiplats that the Xbox 360 and PS3 had... except when it released the market was saturated with a userbase who already had Xbox 360s and PS3s, there was no drive to get this new console with multiplats they already had access to. And to boot, Nintendo didn't have any big attention grabbing exclusives of its own, and they didn't have much first party support of it either.

I think the knowledgeable consumer saw a lack of value in it when it released. I think it releasing just a year before everyone knew the PS4 and X1 were releasing was a bad move too. Nintendo saw the Wii sales dipping and they were too eager to rush something onto the market. And, as something I read a while back stated, Nintendo didn't consult with third party developers to ask what they'd need out of the system.

Anyhow, I picked one up regardless. After a while it accumulated enough games for me to see its value, plus the price cuts, when it was $300 for a Deluxe with a game then that was good enough for me. I didn't imagine it was going to rival Sony or Microsoft this gen with an extensive third party library, but it had enough games I did want and enough games on the horizon to warrant getting one. Still, I see it as a supplemental console, as I imagine once I get a PS4/X1 I'll probably play those a lot more, but still have my Wii U on hand to play those Nintendo games I couldn't play without a Wii U. If I get maybe 20-30 games for it in its life then it's pretty much in the same place as my Wii was to my PS3 and Xbox 360, so far I got 9, looking forward to Super Smash Bros, Bayonetta 1 + 2, SMT x FE, Project X, Zelda Wii U and Hyrule Warriors, the upcoming Star Fox title, so that's looking pretty good right now. Hopefully they'll get a Metroid game or few in there before the end of it's life.

#10 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (4773 posts) -

What's popular isn't always best and isn't always explainable. Right now the PS4 is the Justin Bieber of gaming. It's popular but there's nothing of any fuckin use coming out of it that explains the popularity or the need to own it now.

Didn't include the X1 because it isn't selling as well. It's selling at a pace that is fitting of a console with nothing on it.

-

From the article:

"Nintendo doesn’t like to talk about what’s inside its hardware. It doesn’t like to talk about the processor, the RAM, the functionality. This, it seems to me, is for two reasons: One, Nintendo’s tech specs tend to be behind its competitors’ and would thus not look good in a head-to-head comparison. Two, Nintendo wants to put the focus on its software and controllers."

No this is for one reason. Nintendo have never talked about specs more than they have to. They want you to enjoy the game not fizz your pants about the specs of the GPU and RAM type etc. It's probably how it should be. The only people who realistically need to know about specs are PC gamers because it's up to them to get the best out of their games. The only time it's nice to know what is going on in consoles is when certain companies promise teh powah and deliver teh APUs.

#11 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14072 posts) -

It's not selling for a lot of reasons.

Shit marketing

Recycled first party games/lacks unique first party games/no revisits of old franchises like F Zero. Only hardcore gamers care about smash and zelda.

No 3rd party support.

Outdated hardware that doesn't compete with the 8th gen consoles.

Casual market went mobile.

#12 Posted by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

People claiming it's just the name are frankly desperate and deluded. It's got a limited number of games coming out which will exacerbate as the gen goes on. It's got the least power by far. It's over priced. The same Nintendo franchises as before are obviously not doing enough any more. People can shout "wonderful 101" as much as they like but games like that are ten a penny in a good library and don't sell systems. It's online is still a joke. No third party is the killer.

The third party stuff is going to be the final nail. I used to over estimate how much that was down to power but we're currently knee deep in cross gen releases at the moment (to my chagrin) and Wii U still isn't getting any of them. Even the companies who supported it from day one and showed faith are dropping off, because games don't sell on it.

So yes, branding, whilst poor, was only one of many problems.

#13 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

Recycled first party games/lacks unique first party games/no revisits of old franchises like F Zero. Only hardcore gamers care about smash and zelda.

Because Pikmin 3, part of a franchise that had NOT been seen in nearly ten years prior to release, wasn't that at all right? Also, you are aware that Star Fox is coming back?

#14 Posted by silversix_ (15273 posts) -

It offers insanely outdated graphics, one mature title per 3 years and other than 10 Mario per year you're getting nothing so of course no1 likes what this thing offers. It offers fackall.

#15 Posted by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet: But power is more than just graphics, and enjoyment of games is easier with cutting edge technology pushing the boundaries of what you could do before. I enjoy open world games and they get better with better tech, so if they want you to enjoy your games they could do better to invest in better tech to give developers more options. (I.e., you can make simple games on great tech or complicated.)

The reason they are underpowered in reality is to save money. It's nothing to do with wanting gamers to enjoy their games. That's marketing horseshit.

#16 Edited by Gue1 (10689 posts) -

Wii U is not selling because people doesn't care about its games. Is just that simple. If people did care they would buy it because I'm pretty sure everyone and their mothers know that Zelda and Mario games are on the Wii U but they choose the 3DS instead most likely due to its bigger and more varied library of games (+cheaper price).

#17 Edited by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

@Gue1: Don't forget though, according to the fans on here, it isn't bombing, it's just picked up and will finally outsell the Rubiks Cube.

#18 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26224 posts) -

In reality it's just a big clusterfuck that Nintendo is slowly trying to pull themselves out of. Bad name, awful marketing, outdated online system and under par hardware that makes publishers not want to port their games, a new gimmick that they had no idea what to do with, and a sparse game lineup that leaves much to be desired.

Out of the big three, they're still making and publishing the best games by far but their brand doesn't have the same appeal as last gen. If Smash Bros doesn't kickstart the sales train, nothing will. When Ubisoft doesn't want to support it, you know it's in a bad situation.

#19 Posted by MirkoS77 (7987 posts) -

@silversix_: You always have the best avys and sigs. Always makes me smile/laugh.

#20 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (8907 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 Isn't this something Sean Malstrom has been pointing out a long time ago?

#21 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

So, to those who are in the pro "Nintendo needs to go third party" camp: If hardly that many people care enough about even Nintendo IP's to even bother buying their systems (GameCube, Wii U, 3DS), what makes you think they'll be anymore of a success on other people's consoles if hardly anybody is caring about them AT ALL to begin with?

#22 Posted by SolidGame_basic (18662 posts) -
@HalcyonScarlet said:

What's popular isn't always best and isn't always explainable. Right now the PS4 is the Justin Bieber of gaming. It's popular but there's nothing of any fuckin use coming out of it that explains the popularity or the need to own it now.

Didn't include the X1 because it isn't selling as well. It's selling at a pace that is fitting of a console with nothing on it.

PS4 is selling because it's been 8 years since the last gen consoles launched and people were waiting to finally go next gen. The $400 pricetag along with the shortages added to the hype. For a lot of people, they don't really game on PC, so the opportunity to play games on better hardware was also attractive. X1 fell short because it had a $500 SKU with an unnecessary add-on and MS messed up with its DRM message earlier on.

#23 Posted by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: Not buying a system for a limited amount of games doesn't mean you wont buy the games. It means you wont justify a £250 purchase for a handful of games. I'm not buying any Nintendo games. Not because there aren't ANY I would, but because I wont buy a system for them.

I'm not one of the main go third party cheerleaders by any means but your logic is flawed.

#24 Posted by KungfuKitten (21285 posts) -

Haha who paid for that article? Or are they just stupid.

#25 Posted by KungfuKitten (21285 posts) -

PRMan • a day ago

The problem WAS that there weren't enough good games for it. The programming is too different for the cookie-cutter studios that just want one codebase to dump on PC, PS4 and XB1 with no changes. This means that Nintendo needs to make their own titles.
But at first, there were no titles. Yeah, Super Mario was great, but then what? Nobody wants to buy a console for a single title. No Zelda. No Mega Man. No Contra. No Smash Bros. No Mario Kart. No Mario Galaxy. There was nothing that fans of Nintendo associated with Nintendo.
Now that the excellent 3D 4-player Mario came out as well as a 4-player Mario Kart, Wii U is starting to sell really well, even to outsell Xbox One. Games! It's all about the games! Always was, always will be.

#26 Posted by Wiiboxstation (338 posts) -

@papatrop: ps4 has been out for 8 months and not one good exclusive in that time and just ported up 7th gen games. My ps4 is a dust collector. My WiiU gets switched on.

#27 Edited by ChubbyGuy40 (26224 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

So, to those who are in the pro "Nintendo needs to go third party" camp: If hardly that many people care enough about even Nintendo IP's to even bother buying their systems (GameCube, Wii U, 3DS), what makes you think they'll be anymore of a success on other people's consoles if hardly anybody is caring about them AT ALL to begin with?

I'm not in that camp but it does make sense what they are thinking. If you had to choose between the media center device that can play the Nintendo games, the CoD games, the sports games, etc. that has a great online system for socializing, or the gaming system which only has the Nintendo games with the archaic online system and very limited media support, which are you most likely to choose? You gotta think about that from the perspective of different buyers too. Sure the gaming system offers those magical games you know and love, but that other device does so much more and has so much more.

Unless you got the current Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, or whatever the latest game to be insanely popular on smartphones is, you can't survive without the support of third parties. It's not that people don't care about the IPs. They don't care about the Wii-U because (as much as I hate to admit it) it doesn't offer enough. People care about the IPs a lot, and that's clear from the attachment ratio. If the Wii-U had all the attractions that PS4 and XB1 have, reception would be a lot higher and sales would be better than what they are now.

#28 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

@nintendoboy16: Not buying a system for a limited amount of games doesn't mean you wont buy the games. It means you wont justify a £250 purchase for a handful of games. I'm not buying any Nintendo games. Not because there aren't ANY I would, but because I wont buy a system for them.

I'm not one of the main go third party cheerleaders by any means but your logic is flawed.

Adding my previous points of audiences for the other consoles have other interests (based on what hit the top selling charts for lifetime sales of PS3 and 360), I find that hard to believe.

@KungfuKitten said:

Haha who paid for that article? Or are they just stupid.

Dude, it's not like Kohler hates Nintendo. Heck, he even assures in this article that he likes the Wii U and in the past, has detested the idea of them going iOS.

#29 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

@ChubbyGuy40 said:

I'm not in that camp but it does make sense what they are thinking. If you had to choose between the media center device that can play the Nintendo games, the CoD games, the sports games, etc. that has a great online system for socializing, or the gaming system which only has the Nintendo games with the archaic online system and very limited media support, which are you most likely to choose? You gotta think about that from the perspective of different buyers too. Sure the gaming system offers those magical games you know and love, but that other device does so much more and has so much more.

Unless you got the current Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, or whatever the latest game to be insanely popular on smartphones is, you can't survive without the support of third parties. It's not that people don't care about the IPs. They don't care about the Wii-U because (as much as I hate to admit it) it doesn't offer enough. People care about the IPs a lot, and that's clear from the attachment ratio. If the Wii-U had all the attractions that PS4 and XB1 have, reception would be a lot higher and sales would be better than what they are now.

Like I told Sanchez bringing up my "different interests" point and after reading this (which, now that FE_Man mentions it, DOES go into what Malstrom has been saying the whole time), that is hard to believe.

#30 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (7757 posts) -

Wii U isn't doing well for a multitude of reasons. To say that people just don't like what it offers is an oversimplification.

#31 Posted by ChubbyGuy40 (26224 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

that is hard to believe.

The fans are very vocal. Being vocal is what got us a new Star Fox and all those new projects they're working on for Wii-U. Right now it's all we can do since it's impossible to show our support for Star Fox, Metroid, etc. financially when there's no NEW games to buy.

#32 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4773 posts) -
@DocSanchez said:

@HalcyonScarlet: But power is more than just graphics, and enjoyment of games is easier with cutting edge technology pushing the boundaries of what you could do before. I enjoy open world games and they get better with better tech, so if they want you to enjoy your games they could do better to invest in better tech to give developers more options. (I.e., you can make simple games on great tech or complicated.)

The reason they are underpowered in reality is to save money. It's nothing to do with wanting gamers to enjoy their games. That's marketing horseshit.

Nintendo have never really spent time talking about hardware. And that's just something that they have continued.

@SolidGame_basic said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:

What's popular isn't always best and isn't always explainable. Right now the PS4 is the Justin Bieber of gaming. It's popular but there's nothing of any fuckin use coming out of it that explains the popularity or the need to own it now.

Didn't include the X1 because it isn't selling as well. It's selling at a pace that is fitting of a console with nothing on it.

PS4 is selling because it's been 8 years since the last gen consoles launched and people were waiting to finally go next gen. The $400 pricetag along with the shortages added to the hype. For a lot of people, they don't really game on PC, so the opportunity to play games on better hardware was also attractive. X1 fell short because it had a $500 SKU with an unnecessary add-on and MS messed up with its DRM message earlier on.

That's a shitty reason to buy a console with no games on it. Most games barely look better or play better.

The ONLY games to impress me so far is Drive Club for its graphics, and some of the background tech (gameplay ideas, non graphics) behind Forza 5 and Forza Horizon 2 which show promise. Current gen consoles seem like nothing more than marketing hype BS right now.

#33 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

@ChubbyGuy40 said:

The fans are very vocal. Being vocal is what got us a new Star Fox and all those new projects they're working on for Wii-U. Right now it's all we can do since it's impossible to show our support for Star Fox, Metroid, etc. financially when there's no NEW games to buy.

But actions speak louder than words, especially in ANY form of industry. Knowing the fact that many gamers come off as hypocrites (going into the fact that consumers aren't always right, which has been proven as early as the 1900-1910's), I'm keeping my stance on this.

#34 Edited by MirkoS77 (7987 posts) -

Funny, a lot of problems with Nintendo can be drawn back to their "not competing" mantra. I don't understand how any company can seriously say such a thing. Running a business, is by definition, being competitive. As long as they insist they're not doing so, they are going to suffer. But then again, as long as you're not fighting, you can't see how weak you really are...

#35 Posted by foxhound_fox (89837 posts) -

It was the name. People at first thought it was a Wii peripheral. Which in turn killed the third party support, along with the slow marketing turnaround, pretty much placed it in the position it's in today.

Had they called it something entirely new (i.e. Revolution) that focused on it being new (i.e. Revolution) and marketed the hell out of it the first few months (leading into Christmas) and paid third parties to make games for it (like really, coming off the DS/Wii cash flow they couldn't do this?) we would be looking at an entirely different generation right now. A gaming console (which the PS4 and Xbone are not) that came out a year early at $100 cheaper than the competition? Jesus fucking Christ.

#36 Posted by foxhound_fox (89837 posts) -
@DocSanchez said:

[...] enjoyment of games is easier with cutting edge technology pushing the boundaries of what you could do before. [...]

Unless that cutting edge technology was only cutting edge several years prior and now is limiting what developers can actually do with their games, still requiring them to make fidelity sacrifices in order for games to even run at the relatively conservative industry standard of 1080p60 (which PC has moved on from and in the next few years will be at 4K).

Console gaming has never been about cutting edge technology. That's what the openness of the PC platform is supposed to do. Console gaming is and always was about standardized hardware that made it easy and convenient to play games: i.e. plug-n-play, no updates, same-room multiplayer, etc etc.

It was a different kind of platform from PC that offered unique experiences that weren't about shiny graphics. Now the PS4 and Xbone are basically ultra-gimped PC's without all the freedoms and niceties that platform offers. And people are paying a premium for the privilege of no new games and rebuying their old favourites.

#37 Posted by ZombeGoast (437 posts) -

Oh yeah, I'm sick of Nintendo's rehashing their franchise.

I would rather have Sony re releasing 1-2 year old Ps3 games on the PS4 as well as getting the yearly Assassin's Creed and CoD game.

#38 Posted by Heil68 (46127 posts) -

Shitty hardware, shitty online with shitty 3rd party support is why.

#39 Posted by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: So because people have other interests they can't possibly have the same interests as you on any capacity? So platformers, kart races, don't exist on other consoles? And if Nintendo went third party, the fans wouldn't buy other consoles at all?

#40 Posted by Heirren (18091 posts) -

I think it is not selling because people were underwhelmed by the tech of the console initially. Then there's the lack of 3rd party support, which deals with forces outside of nintendo, reallly.

Most importantly though, I think people assumed that the next xbox and playstation were going to be a huge step forward. Yet here we are with two consoles pumping out last gen games and games mimicking last gen to a T. I really think wiiu sales will pick up. Like others have said it is the best next gen console out right now. It has the best library and the most promising library in the future.

#41 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17651 posts) -

Nintendo got cocky and it bit them in the ass. They for some reason think they can just exist in a market without trying to "compete" which is just ridiculous.

The Wii-U just illustrates how out of touch Nintendo is with the home console market. They followed-up a console gen dominated by online gaming with a new system whose online component isn't even competitive with the last gens online capabilities. Meanwhile, both of the other major competitors are working on advancing their online components.

They went and put out another weak machine and then do nothing to pull in third party developers following a console gen that had been dominated by multi-plats and which had shown a huge increase in the interest of more-powerful console gaming (remember all the tech arguing between multi-plats last gen?).

On top of all this, even with the year jump on the competition they didn't go and supply their system with strong first party support which would have been their one big chance to get a good foothold in the new console generation.

I really can't even think of anything they did RIGHT this gen. It is like Nintendo didn't pay any attention at all to the changing trends that came about last gen...

#42 Edited by nintendoboy16 (27477 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

@nintendoboy16: So because people have other interests they can't possibly have the same interests as you on any capacity? So platformers, kart races, don't exist on other consoles? And if Nintendo went third party, the fans wouldn't buy other consoles at all?

At the very least, completely move on to content from other creators (which has been going on anyway). Funny you mention those genres when there alternative games in each of those.

#43 Edited by Nike_Air (18376 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

Shitty hardware, shitty online with shitty 3rd party support is why.

You just described the Wii as well , though. It's probably the lack of a successful gimmick and the games to go along with said gimmick. The pricepoint , lack of a hardrive , and a bunch of other factors which results in confused or apathetic customers ...... which we can then pile on top of the crappy hardware , online , and 3rd party support.

The Wii - U is getting boned on all fronts unlike this generation's LEADER , PS4.

#44 Edited by Wiiboxstation (338 posts) -

Hardware has little do with anything. The ps1/ps2/Wii/3ds didn't/doesn't have the best hardware but dominated their generations.

#45 Edited by LadyBlue (3929 posts) -

Gamers... smh

#46 Edited by Solaryellow (498 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

It's not selling for a lot of reasons.

Shit marketing

Recycled first party games/lacks unique first party games/no revisits of old franchises like F Zero. Only hardcore gamers care about smash and zelda.

No 3rd party support.

Outdated hardware that doesn't compete with the 8th gen consoles.

Casual market went mobile.

The lack of third party doesn't have much to do with it. Why? The right marketing can make nearly anything sound appealing to consumers and we all know Nintendo is severely backward when it comes to the proper ways of pushing this system to the masses. The Wii U has a better library than its competition but you'd never know it since you barely see anything when it comes to advertising and promotion.

#47 Edited by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

The WiiU is "bombing" because consoles are still tech toys and people care more about specs than great games. It's the same reason hermits spend $1500 on high end builds and spend all day running benchmarks instead of playing games. The 360 sold well because it was more powerful than any pc in 2005. The Wii sold well because of its specs, the motion controls. The ps4 has the "most powerful specs" right now, so it is selling appropriately, despite the fact that there is literally nothing compelling on it to play.

#48 Posted by vickissv2 (1779 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

The WiiU is "bombing" because console are still tech toys and people care more about specs than great games. It's the same reason hermits spend $1500 on high end builds and spend all day running benchmarks instead of playing games. The 360 sold well because it was more powerful than any pc in 2005. The Wii sold well because of its specs, the motion controls. The ps4 has the "most powerful specs" right now, so it is selling appropriately, despite the fact that there is literally nothing compelling on it to play.

The Wii did not sell well because of it's specs. It was obviously less powered than the 360 before it even launched.

#49 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (8907 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@ChubbyGuy40 said:

The fans are very vocal. Being vocal is what got us a new Star Fox and all those new projects they're working on for Wii-U. Right now it's all we can do since it's impossible to show our support for Star Fox, Metroid, etc. financially when there's no NEW games to buy.

But actions speak louder than words, especially in ANY form of industry. Knowing the fact that many gamers come off as hypocrites (going into the fact that consumers aren't always right, which has been proven as early as the 1900-1910's), I'm keeping my stance on this.

Yep, Fans being vocal didn't help the Wii's end lifecycle after many complained that Nintendo no longers care for them. Then they release Metroid: Other M, Skyward Sword, Xenoblade, and the Last Story. Other than their receptions of the games, that didn't help the Wii's longterm sales. Just like what Malstrom has predicted. Listening to fans on message boards isn't a healthy business model.

#50 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@vickissv2 said:

@farrell2k said:

The WiiU is "bombing" because console are still tech toys and people care more about specs than great games. It's the same reason hermits spend $1500 on high end builds and spend all day running benchmarks instead of playing games. The 360 sold well because it was more powerful than any pc in 2005. The Wii sold well because of its specs, the motion controls. The ps4 has the "most powerful specs" right now, so it is selling appropriately, despite the fact that there is literally nothing compelling on it to play.

The Wii did not sell well because of it's specs. It was obviously less powered than the 360 before it even launched.

The motion controls were the only reason it sold so well, which are part of its specs.