Gaming Nintendo Confirms Wii U Has Flopped, Slashes Sales Forecast By ~70%

[calmwaters]

Welcome to the 21st century where there are whole departments specifically devoted to crawling the web and checking opinions on various websites. Perhaps Youtube would be a better outlet, but that doesn't mean that the issues can't be discussed here.

Okay.

Not sure if sarcasm or genuine question. Regardless of how big fitness and wellness is, unless you want Nintendo to become a gym equipment manufacturer, you should probably prefer that they invest money in their gaming departments, not Balance Board U's.

No, I'm being serious. I'm asking you because you live there.

I too am one of the rare breed of people who actually enjoyed the WiiMote - I found it very enjoyable to use in a variety of games, it's the only controller that despite its original intention allowed me to settle into a couch comfortably and stretch my arms as I played instead of cramping my fingers around a small controller and I actually liked it. It continues to have potential and can be used effectively as a controller - my point was that it doesn't have the charm that it used to have.

I suppose so.

You have to strike a balance between casual gaming and quality, traditional gaming.

Well casual means you don't play 12/7; but that shouldn't stop you from playing quality titles. And traditional gaming just means we play first person shooters and role playing games. Can you give me any examples of untraditional gaming? Sure, playing a saxophone is fun, but that really doesn't fall in line with, well, your practices as a gamer.

They're the only ones with an underperforming home console.

There's the even better reason EA should make games for them. It can boost the Wii U's performance if EA did that... I think.

You can read more about the matter here - Atari lost the injunction. Also, errata on my end - it was 80%, not +90%.Yep.

Atari made cartridges compatible with Nintendo systems without a license? Oh no. Consider what would happen if some comic book company started releasing Dr. Strange books that didn't have the Marvel stamp on it. Somebody would get sued. And they said Nintendo monopolized the industry by making the NES available in America? I don't know; it sounds like Atari became jealous of Nintendo's success. I mean; they knew Nintendo made money and subsequently figured out that if they made cartridges that were compatible with the NES, people would buy them, because, everybody had a Nintendo. As you've pointed out, people go where the money is, and it was at Nintendo; obviously. But Atari initiated the suit because they wanted to keep doing this so they would continue to make money and give Nintendo competition. See, some of the games released on the NES were not licensed by Nintendo; but Atari didn't want to lose this privilege.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Atari made cartridges compatible with Nintendo systems without a license? Oh no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Unlicensed_games

 

[Foxi4]

There's the even better reason EA should make games for them. It can boost the Wii U's performance if EA did that... I think.

It would boost its performance which is why Nintendo should be working towards establishing some kind of a deal with them.

Atari made cartridges compatible with Nintendo systems without a license? Oh no. Consider what would happen if some comic book company started releasing Dr. Strange books that didn't have the Marvel stamp on it. Somebody would get sued. And they said Nintendo monopolized the industry by making the NES available in America? I don't know; it sounds like Atari became jealous of Nintendo's success. I mean; they knew Nintendo made money and subsequently figured out that if they made cartridges that were compatible with the NES, people would buy them, because, everybody had a Nintendo. As you've pointed out, people go where the money is, and it was at Nintendo; obviously. But Atari initiated the suit because they wanted to keep doing this so they would continue to make money and give Nintendo competition. See, some of the games released on the NES were not licensed by Nintendo; but Atari didn't want to lose this privilege.

You missed the whole point of the injunction which was filed by Atari, not by Nintendo. To translate from Legal into English, Nintendo owned 80% of the gaming market at the time and releasing a game on the NES required applying for a license, paying a draconic fee for cartridge manufacturing and in the end you still had no guarantee that your game will even be published as it still had to go through Nintendo "quality control". In other words, you had developers making software that never saw the light of day because they either couldn't afford to blow money away just to get the privilege of releasing their games on Nintendo hardware or were unwilling to bend over and simply made their own cartridges, at which point Nintendo threatened to sue. In the end, the Atari injunction fell through, however unlicensed cartridges continued to pop up and not much came out of it. The point of bringing up the injunction was to show that Nintendo owned the gaming industry and felt very comfortable then as they could steer it whichever direction they wanted, but that's not the case anymore. Besides, this isn't the only injunction and antitrust they went through. In 2002, Nintendo had to pay a 149 million Euro fine for price-fixing between 1991 and 1998, one of the largest fines of that nature in history. It's common knowledge that their relations with other companies and developers are anything but friendly and cooperative.

 

[calmwaters]

It would boost its performance which is why Nintendo should be working towards establishing some kind of a deal with them.
You missed the whole point of the injunction which was filed by Atari, not by Nintendo. To translate from Legal into English, Nintendo owned 80% of the gaming market at the time and releasing a game on the NES required applying for a license, paying a draconic fee for cartridge manufacturing and in the end you still had no guarantee that your game will even be published as it still had to go through Nintendo "quality control". In other words, you had developers making software that never saw the light of day because they either couldn't afford to blow money away just to get the privilege of releasing their games on Nintendo hardware or were unwilling to bend over and simply made their own cartridges, at which point Nintendo threatened to sue. In the end, the Atari injunction fell through, however unlicensed cartridges continued to pop up and not much came out of it. The point of bringing up the injunction was to show that Nintendo owned the gaming industry and felt very comfortable then as they could steer it whichever direction they wanted, but that's not the case anymore. Besides, this isn't the only injunction and antitrust they went through. In 2002, Nintendo had to pay a 149 million Euro fine for price-fixing between 1991 and 1998, one of the largest fines of that nature in history. It's common knowledge that their relations with other companies and developers are anything but friendly and cooperative.

Hmm, now I see why developers tried to circumvent Nintendo. It reminds me of people who can't afford games, so they get them by other means. But when Square split from Nintendo to support Sony, those companies got even because then they had a proper way to circumvent Nintendo. As for price fixing, they certainly could get away with it since they had monopolized the industry (well 80% of it anyway).
"It's common knowledge that their relations with other companies and developers are anything but friendly and cooperative. - Foxi4"
Does this mean developers still hold a grudge against Nintendo after all these years? Isn't that immature of them if that's actually true? I'll certainly get a good laugh if this is true. It appears there's plenty of blame to go around. Maybe forgiving and forgetting isn't as easy as I thought, what with the growth in the industry.

 

[Foxi4]

Hmm, now I see why developers tried to circumvent Nintendo. It reminds me of people who can't afford games, so they get them by other means. But when Square split from Nintendo to support Sony, those companies got even because then they had a proper way to circumvent Nintendo. As for price fixing, they certainly could get away with it since they had monopolized the industry (well 80% of it anyway).

Yeah, clearly they didn't. There are anti-monopoly laws in place, y'know - just because you practically own the industry doesn't mean that you're free to gip your customers.

Does this mean developers still hold a grudge against Nintendo after all these years? Isn't that immature of them if that's actually true? I'll certainly get a good laugh if this is true. It appears there's plenty of blame to go around. Maybe forgiving and forgetting isn't as easy as I thought, what with the growth in the industry.

No, they're not holding any grudges, it's just that the licensing terms continue to be unfavourable to developers and since now they have alternatives, they simply don't support Nintendo as much as they used to. Again, let me reiterate my point - when there was no alternative, they went for Nintendo because everybody and their dog had a NES and if they wanted to make money, they had to bend over and just take it. Now there's Sony and Microsoft in the game, they own sizable chunks of the market and third-party has no reason at all to stick Nintendo's policies... which means that those policies have to be changed in order to get third-party support back. If third-party won't be able to make money on Nintendo systems, they won't make games for them and with no games there can be no success, that was my point all along.

 

[calmwaters]

Yeah, clearly they didn't. There are anti-monopoly laws in place, y'know - just because you practically own the industry doesn't mean that you're free to gip your customers.

Yup.

No, they're not holding any grudges, it's just that the licensing terms continue to be unfavourable to developers and since now they have alternatives, they simply don't support Nintendo as much as they used to.

Maybe they can learn to deal with Nintendo's strict conditions? I want some games on the Wii U. Maybe I should take the act of restoration upon myself?

Again, let me reiterate my point - when there was no alternative, they went for Nintendo because everybody and their dog had a NES and if they wanted to make money, they had to bend over and just take it.

Right: I think I hinted at this in my last sentence.

Now there's Sony and Microsoft in the game, they own sizable chunks of the market and third-party has no reason at all to stick Nintendo's policies... which means that those policies have to be changed in order to get third-party support back.

I suppose so: and who better to change those policies than me? If the internet doesn't work, I'll just have to go door to door.

If third-party won't be able to make money on Nintendo systems, they won't make games for them and with no games there can be no success, that was my point all along.

I think that's the general point thought and referenced to by everybody.

 

[Foxi4]

Mocking really isn't leading anywhere - I'm outlining a problem with Nintendo's policies that has to be ammended and your response is "well, I can't do anything about that so I'll just accept the way things are". How is that in any way constructive? This thread exists solely for discussing the Wii U's situation and ways in which users such as yourself and myself think the situation could be improved. Of course it's purely theoretical, of course we're not Nintendo's board of directors, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss about it or that it's pointless. I'm not the president of the United States either but I can engage in discussions regarding U.S policies.

 

[JoostinOnline]

his thread exists solely for discussing the Wii U's situation and ways in which users such as yourself and myself think the situation could be improved.

And here I thought it was so you could spread rumors about the number and price of games without doing even a drop of research yourself.

 

[xxNathanxx]

I can engage in discussions regarding U.S policies.

Nothing to discuss there, they all suck!

 

[calmwaters]

I think I have a better chance at inspiring change if I physically visit these places instead of just roaming the internet. But, you may do as you wish.

 

[Foxi4]

And here I thought it was so you could spread rumors about the number and price of games without doing even a drop of research yourself.

Oh, I'm sorry, there I thought that Cold, Cold Heart DLC for Batman: Arkham Origins was cancelled on the Wii U just like I said it was, that the Wii U is missing critical releases just like I said it does and that there isn't a whole lot of triple-A on it that is otherwise available on last or next gen consoles. The whole point about retail game prices was brought up by you and you only - what I said was that the Wii U is not competitively priced against the PS3 and the Xbox 360 which are currently better value deals as they have all the software the Wii U gets aside from Nintendo exclusives and more and they tend to be cheaper and have more storage, not to mention all the bundles. It would appear that you read only what you want to read and disregard the rest.

 

[xxNathanxx]

Oh and by the way I didn't know about this until now (the wii u flopping completely and Nintendo giving up on it), so I'll comment: I believe this has to do with Nintendo refusing to give more logical names to their devices (3DS = normal DS with 3D effect, Wii U = special controller for Wii) and not realising they need to make 100% clear that it is an entirely new device before it launches.

Nintendo should make a new Gameboy, i.e. a handheld with one screen and no silly extra stuff that sucks battery and is never properly used by third parties. Instant hit.

 

[calmwaters]

Foxi4 gonna turn into a mother fox protecting her children.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh and by the way I didn't know about this until now (the wii u flopping completely and Nintendo giving up on it), so I'll comment: I believe this has to do with Nintendo refusing to give more logical names to their devices (3DS = normal DS with 3D effect, Wii U = special controller for Wii) and not realising they need to make 100% clear that it is an entirely new device before it launches.

I don't think it's solely a matter of the name, it's a matter of how you market the system. If it was explicitly stated that this is a brand-new system and not some kind of an expansion from the get-go, things might've been different. Most of the ads and even the presentations seem to revolve around the gamepad rather than the actual system, so it's no surprise that some people think it's all about the gamepad. If this was just a matter of the naming scheme, the Super Nintendo would've been treated as an expansion for the NES and the Game Boy Advance would've been dismissed as a normal Game Boy with shoulder buttons. People can be confused or clueless, but they're not idiots.

Foxi4 gonna turn into a mother fox protecting her children.

Very constructive. I see that we've ran out of arguments to use in the discussion so we devolve to practical jokes. Good, good.

 

[xxNathanxx]

I don't think it's solely a matter of the name, it's a matter of how you market the system. If it was explicitly stated that this is a brand-new system and not some kind of an expansion from the get-go, things might've been different. Most of the ads and even the presentations seem to revolve around the gamepad rather than the actual system, so it's no surprise that some people think it's all about the gamepad. If this was just a matter of the naming scheme, the Super Nintendo would've been treated as an expansion for the NES and the Game Boy Advance would've been dismissed as a normal Game Boy with shoulder buttons. People can be confused or clueless, but they're not idiots.

You're right about that. Still, a Super Nintendo and a Game Boy Advance suggest at least some kind of evolution, a stronger, more powerful kind of device, whereas 3DS or Wii U might suggest some sort of difference, but no evolution.

 

[calmwaters]

Very constructive. I see that we've ran out of arguments to use in the discussion so we devolve to practical jokes. Good, good.

What? It might've been my imagination, but you sounded almost crabby in your response to Joostin. Besides, if we can't have fun arguing, then why don't we devolve to that? (Okay, bad example.)

 

[Foxi4]

You're right about that. Still, a Super Nintendo and a Game Boy Advance suggest at least some kind of evolution, a stronger, more powerful kind of device, whereas 3DS or Wii U might suggest some sort of difference, but no evolution.

Ehh... I dunno, I really dunno. I still think that it's more so a matter of the presentation than the actual name, although it's definitely beneficial if the name suggests progression. Everybody thought the Xbox One will fall flat on its face because 360 is greater than 1 (One) and yet it seems to be doing perfectly fine, all it took was a barage of advertisements.

What? It might've been my imagination, but you sounded almost crabby in your response to Joostin. Besides, if we can't have fun arguing, then why don't we devolve to that? (Okay, bad example.)

I just don't want this to become a name-calling thread for no reason when I genuinely want to discuss the matter and keep it civil. This is not the EoF, so let's try not to go down the deep end.

My response to Joostin was sarcastic, yes, but that's because he accuses me of "not doing my research" and yet I turn out to be right - the Wii U is missing out on DLC for its games, the Wii U is missing out on triple-A releases and, although this is subjective, its library is (in my opinion) lacking. Sure, it may have "plenty of games" for Joostin, but I don't see it that way - I see a library that's missing a lot of releases that are available on every other system except the Wii U and I do perceive that as a game draught. I apologize if I sounded "crabby", but I don't like being accused of "not doing my research" or lying/spreading rumours when I'm right.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Oh, I'm sorry, there I thought that Cold, Cold Heart DLC for Batman: Arkham Origins was cancelled on the Wii U just like I said it was

Actually, you said that there was no DLC for it. I told you that all current DLC is available, but that Cold, Cold Heart wouldn't be. You then countered with pointing out Cold, Cold Heart wouldn't be, just like I said.

and that the Wii U is missing critical releases just like I said it does

I never said otherwise. I disagreed with your ridiculous statement that that it's suffering "from a software draught". I even let you know you were wrong before so you would stop making a fool of yourself, but I guess it didn't stick. You're stuck in 2012.

and that there isn't a whole lot of triple-A on it that is otherwise available on last or next gen consoles.

I think you mean "last or current gen consoles." Anyway, are there really that many games that you can ONLY get on the PS4, or ONLY get on the X1?

The whole point about retail game prices was brought up by you and you only - what I said was that the Wii U is not competitively priced against the PS3 and the Xbox 360

That's not what you said:

I'm glad that you're playing 2 dozen Wii U games, but for the same (or actually lower) price people can buy an Xbox 360/PS3 and enjoy 700-1100+ at lower prices and comparable quality.

I think you mean "Higher prices and lower quality."

which are currently better value deals as they have all the software the Wii U gets aside from Nintendo exclusives and more and they tend to be cheaper and have more storage, not to mention all the bundles. It would appear that you read only what you want to read and disregard the rest.

They don't have all Wii games ever made though. I know you look down on backwards compatibility, but it's a huge deal to anyone who didn't own a Wii, or who wants to sell their old Wii.

It would appear that you read only what you want to read and disregard the rest.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

 

[Foxi4]

Actually, you said that there was no DLC for it. I told you that all current DLC is available, but that Cold, Cold Heart wouldn't be. You then countered with pointing out Cold, Cold Heart wouldn't be, just like I said.

That is not what I said. I said that "every platform gets DLC except the Wii U" refering to the one specific instance when that happened, which happens to be Cold, Cold Heart (hence the clarification). You never mentioned Cold, Cold Heart by name - I did. You mentioned Deathstroke DLC which was indeed released on all platforms.

I never said otherwise. I disagreed with your ridiculous statement that that it's suffering "from a software draught". I even let you know you were wrong before so you would stop making a fool of yourself, but I guess it didn't stick. You're stuck in 2012.

With games like Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, GTA V, Thief, Metal Gear Solid V and other top dogs skipping the system yes, I'm going to say that it's suffering from a software draught.

I think you mean "last or current gen consoles." Anyway, are there really that many games that you can ONLY get on the PS4, or ONLY get on the X1?

Why bring the matter of exclusives to the table when we're talking about the entirety of the library here?

That's not what you said:
I think you mean "Higher prices and lower quality."

Wow, that was the part you were referencing? Whooptie-doo - at least now I know what you're on about. Yes, the quality is entirely comparable and yes, they're either cheaper or the same price. If you're going to bring up games that were price-reduced to $30, fair game, but keep in mind that those things are called "stock clearance".

They don't have all Wii games ever made though. I know you look down on backwards compatibility, but it's a huge deal to anyone who didn't own a Wii, or who wants to sell their old Wii.

Can't wait to play all those old games that I can already play on my old Wii on my brand-new and expensive next generation console. They are totally an incentive for me to upgrade. Also, anyone who didn't own a Wii? The system sold a 100+ million units, let's not even go there. As for selling the old system (to get funds for the upgrade, I assume) you first need an incentive to do so, preferably in the form of software support (which again, I find lacking, and that's just my personal opinion).

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

Okay.

 

[JoostinOnline]

That Is not what I said. I said that "every platform gets DLC except the Wii U" refering to the one specific instance when that happened, which happens to be Cold, Cold Heart (hence the clarification). You never mentioned Cold, Cold Heart by name - I did.

I said the next one wasn't coming out.

With games like Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, GTA V, Thief, Metal Gear Solid V and other top dogs skipping the system yes, I'm going to say that it's suffering from a software draught.

That's not a software "draught".

Why bring the matter of exclusives to the table when we're talking about the entirety of the library here?

Because you'd mentioned that there weren't many Nintendo exclusives.

Wow, that was the part you were referencing? Whooptie-doo - at least now I know what you're on about. Yes, the quality is entirely comparable and yes, they're either cheaper or the same price. If you're going to bring up games that were price-reduced to $30, fair game, but keep in mind that those things are called "stock clearance".

They AREN'T cheaper though. Plenty of good games are $30 or less, and they aren't just on clearance. If you're going to talk about price drops, then all games from every system that isn't $60 is a price drop.

Can't wait to play all those old games that I can already play on my old Wii on my brand-new and expensive next generation console.

The next generation console won't be out for like 7 years. I suppose next you'll be talking about how you could "care less".

You may or may not be aware of this (I expect not, since you keep acting like it's not true), but not everyone in the world owned a Wii.


Stop saying stupid things and start looking at prices.