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

[Guild McCommunist]

The Wii U is still getting games though at consistent intervals, nothing too different or inferior to those games mentioned. So it seems like you're mostly advocating a price cut, which i can agree with. That's when i bought my own 3ds, in fact.

It's not getting good games at a consistent interval. It needs a combination of good games at consistent intervals and a price cut. That's what made the 3DS work.

The 3DS got a bunch of first and third party titles as well, this is getting nothing.

 

[DunnoBro]

It's not getting good games at a consistent interval. It needs a combination of good games at consistent intervals and a price cut. That's what made the 3DS work.

The 3DS got a bunch of first and third party titles as well, this is getting nothing.

The Wii U certainly has more than "nothing" but I do agree it needs more still, and likely a price cut.

 

[Foxi4]

Disney infinity, skylanders, Sonic all-stars and lost world seem to be doing well, about as well as those games you mentioned for 3ds anyway. (Though certainly not things to make me want a wii u personally)

Sure. Do note that the spectrum is narrow though - those are all games for younger audiences. You need variety, not just quantity.

I don't really see how not having GTA V and other big multiplat releases is a huge issue. It certainly didn't hurt the Wii, and i definitely wouldn't decide to buy a WiiU if it suddenly got GTA V, as those kinds of games will just be plain better on the stronger consoles.

GTA V is a PS3/Xbox 360 release. According to your logic, a Wii U version would be definitive at the time. The game made a billion dollars in 3 days, as of february 32.5 million copies of the game were shipped, I do think that having games of this caliber on-board would make the Wii U's situation infinitely better.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

The Wii U certainly has more than "nothing" but I do agree it needs more still, and likely a price cut.

...Not really. It has a few first party exclusives and maybe a couple of third parties that are worth it. Everything else is still "TBA".

 

[DunnoBro]

GTA V is a PS3/Xbox 360 release. According to your logic, a Wii U version would be definitive at the time. The game made a billion dollars in 3 days, as of february 32.5 million copies of the game were shipped, I do think that having games of this caliber on-board would make the Wii U's situation infinitely better.

It would help to be sure, but I just don't feel not having it is as big a factor as you're trying to imply.

The Wii also failed to get a lot of important multi-plats, a large chunk if not majority of the successful Wii titles are 1st-party or exclusive. I feel that those are indeed more important than multiplats.

...Not really. It has a few first party exclusives and maybe a couple of third parties that are worth it. Everything else is still "TBA".

Then "nothing" is still inaccurate.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

It would help to be sure, but I just don't feel not having it is as big a factor as you're trying to imply.

The Wii also failed to get a lot of important multi-plats, a large chunk if not majority of the successful Wii titles are 1st-party or exclusive. I feel that those are indeed more important than multiplats.

But this isn't the Wii, the situation is completely different, the demographic has changed, and this whole "it can survive on first parties" mentality is just a fantasy.

 

[DunnoBro]

But this isn't the Wii, the situation is completely different, the demographic has changed, and this whole "it can survive on first parties" mentality is just a fantasy.

The point, however was that multiplats, even big-hitting ones are not be all end alls. You can look at Vita for that.

Also, i fail to see how the 3DS did not essentially survive on first parties for quite a while.

 

[Foxi4]

It would help to be sure, but I just don't feel not having it is as big a factor as you're trying to imply. The Wii also failed to get a lot of important multi-plats, a large chunk if not majority of the successful Wii titles are 1st-party or exclusive. I feel that those are indeed more important than multiplats.

GTA V was probably the biggest game of 2013, there's no good reason to invest in a system that misses such core releases. The Wii was a 100-million-selling dust collector and perhaps it lays in the roots of why the Wii U isn't doing terribly well. Casual gamers who bought the Wii moved on to smartphones and don't give a damn about dedicated gaming systems while the gaming community remains disappointed in the offering of games the Wii gave it and doesn't want to double-dip and buy another system that will get "some games, but not nearly as many as the competition's". The only target audience that's left is the hardcore Nintendo fanbase, and there's only so many of those guys around.

Exclusives are important, they're often times the reason why you pick one system over the other, but that's only valid when all systems have relatively equal footing in other areas. This isn't the case here.

The point, however was that multiplats, even big-hitting ones are not be all end alls. You can look at Vita for that. Also, i fail to see how the 3DS did not essentially survive on first parties for quite a while.

Yes, I can, because the PSVita originally suffered from the exact same problem. The 3DS "survived" on first-party titles, but there's a huge difference between merely surviving and succeeding in the marketplace.

 

[DunnoBro]

GTA V was probably the biggest game of 2013, there's no good reason to invest in a system that misses such core releases. The Wii was a 100-million-selling dust collector and perhaps it lays in the roots of why the Wii U isn't doing terribly well. Casual gamers who bought the Wii moved on to smartphones and don't give a damn about dedicated gaming systems while the gaming community remains disappointed in the offering of games the Wii gave it and doesn't want to double-dip and buy another system that will get "some games, but not nearly as many as the competition's". The only target audience that's left is the hardcore Nintendo fanbase, and there's only so many of those guys around.
Yes, I can, because the PSVita originally suffered from the exact same problem. The 3DS "survived" on first-party titles, but there's a huge difference between merely surviving and succeeding in the marketplace.

You revisit an excellent point. I'm sure there are indeed those for whom the deciding factor would be if it had such multi-plat releases in addition to the standard nintendo lineup.

But i don't believe only hardcore ninties will be interested in the console if it gets that price cut and big-hitters. Again, i bring up the 3DS, who until September of 2012 was being sold for a loss, About a year and a half after it's release. Who to this day has the bulk of it's system-sellers and relevant sales belonging to their exclusives, not multiplats. And now has a very mainstream and both casual/hardcore fanbase.

Anywho, I suppose I've said all the things i can say on this topic without revisiting every little point, and will end my posts in this thread as thus:

I don't necessarily disagree with the projections made by those here, but after the 3DS and the "Nintendoomed" mindset of the press and the fanboys, all being put to bed swiftly near the end of 2012(And awoken rudely by the sales of Fire emblem and bundles), I'm optimistic about the end of 2014. But not too optimistic.

 

[Foxi4]

You revisit an excellent point. I'm sure there are indeed those for whom the deciding factor would be if it had such multi-plat releases in addition to the standard nintendo lineup.

That was my point all along. You can't offer just exclusives because it practically means that you'll need another system for multiplats, you can't offer just multiplats because you're not giving the customer any reason to choose your system instead of another one. You need to strike a balance, as with most things in life.

But i don't believe only hardcore ninties will be interested in the console if it gets that price cut and big-hitters. Again, i bring up the 3DS, who until September of 2012 was being sold for a loss. About a year and a half after it's release. And now has a very mainstream and both casual/hardcore fanbase.

Selling hardware at a loss is not something out of the ordinary - only Nintendo appears to believe that the hardware should be profitable in and out of itself. The industry's primary source of profit is licensing, it's been like this for years. A hardware manufacturer's only job is to offer hardware that's technologically relevant and affordable to customers and get developers on-board - the more developers on-board, the more you can reap through licensing. By selling a console, you only make a profit once, by licensing games, you reap profits over the course of the system's life cycle.

I don't necessarily disagree with the projections made by those here, but after the 3DS and the "Nintendoomed" mindset of the press and the fanboys, all being put to bed swiftly near the end of 2012(And awoken rudely by the sales of Fire emblem and bundles), I'm optimistic about the end of 2014. But not too optimistic.

Again, there's a number of factors that contributed to the 3DS's recovery. It wasn't just exclusives, just the price cut or just the multiplats - it was a combination of those reasons, a rainbow bombshell.

 

[Gahars]

Foxi and Guild already made a lot of points I would, so I'm not going to retrace that, but...

Then "nothing" is still inaccurate.

This sort of thing happens in every Wii U thread and it derails the discussion every time. People get hung up on general phrases and bits of hyperbole and take everything at face value. Thread's circle a drain of "Statement -> Offense taken at innocuous word choice -> Argument over word choice -> Statement" and it just won't end. It's gotten old, folks. Can we stop this?

This isn't even really for you, DunnoBro, just the forum in general.

 

[blaisedinsd]

What makes you think WiiU will be turning out profitable?
Although 3DS is selling really fine, Nintendo's expectation is to end in red this year.
Third party support is lacking on WiiU and even major Nintendo IPs fail to do much difference in WiiU current state.
There is nothing indicating that WiiU situation will get any better.

The N64 and Gamecube were profitable. I don't see the Wii U doing much worse than those consoles when it's finished.

 

[Foxi4]

The N64 and Gamecube were profitable. I don't see the Wii U doing much worse than those consoles when it's finished.

Profitable? Yes, maybe. Underwhelming? Definitely. Successful? Not really.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Profitable? Yes, maybe. Underwhelming? Definitely. Successful? Not really.

As a fan of what the company produces I would much rather have this than a disaster like the PS3.

Nintendo keeps squeaking out profits than Nintendo fans get to keep playing Nintendo games.

If Nintendo makes money and I get to enjoy the exclusive games I bought the console for I think that's plenty of success.

 

[Foxi4]

As a fan of what the company produces I would much rather have this than a disaster like the PS3. Nintendo keeps squeaking out profits than Nintendo fans get to keep playing Nintendo games. If Nintendo makes money and I get to enjoy the exclusive games I bought the console for I think that's plenty of success.

The PS3 is a hundred times more successful system than the N64 and the Gamecube combined, even though it was barely profitable - everything depends on your point of view. The PS3 was and continues to be a mainstream console wheras both the N64 and the Gamecube were on the margins of the industry throughout their life cycles. If you define success by means of profitability then sure, by all means, you're right, except that's not the only factor we take under consideration.

EDIT: To elaborate on that point, I'm all happy-clappy-chappy that Nintendo was continuously posting profits and was able to support their software development houses. What I'm not happy with is that they did so by releasing poorly engineered, underperforming and/or underpowered hardware. While both the N64 and the Gamecube were relevant from a hardware standpoint and just poorly designed, the Wii and the DS don't have any excuses for being outdated Day 1, and neither does the Wii U and the 3DS.

Nintendo's profitability has zero impact on my gaming experience. What matters to me is whether or not the company's systems are up to par and whether or not they can deliver the processing power necessary to meet the requirements of the gaming generation they're released in, it's that and that only that's under fire here. There's nothing wrong with designing a system that meets industry requirements, even if it has to be sold at a loss as long as those losses can be counter-balanced with licensing profits. The PS3 is an extreme case where the losses taken were unsustainable, the PS2 on the other hand was a completely different and highly profitable story.

 

[trumpet-205]

Any businessman needs to look at opportunity cost (implicit cost) when evaluating whether a product is thriving or not.

To give an example of opportunity cost, consider retail store with limited shelf space. I can stock product A and product B. Both are profitable, but limited shelf space dictates I can only stock one of them. Product A has lower profit margin per month than product B. If I were to stock product A then I would be losing out all those extra profits had I stock product B. That is the cost I paid when stocking product A; opportunity cost.

Same concept applies to video gaming industry. Nintendo devoted half of its resources (capital, personnel, time, etc) to Wii U while the other half to 3DS. We all know by now that Wii U is losing money, to the point it cuts into 3DS profitability. So if it is not bring in money, then Nintendo wasted half of its resources. Resources that could've been put to other areas. That's Nintendo's opportunity cost.

 

[blaisedinsd]

The PS3 is a hundred times more successful system than the N64 and the Gamecube combined, even though it was barely profitable - everything depends on your point of view. The PS3 was and continues to be a mainstream console wheras both the N64 and the Gamecube were on the margins of the industry throughout their life cycles. If you define success by means of profitability then sure, by all means, you're right, except that's not the only factor we take under consideration.

EDIT: To elaborate on that point, I'm all happy-clappy-chappy that Nintendo was continuously posting profits and was able to support their software development houses. What I'm not happy with is that they did so by releasing poorly engineered, underperforming and/or underpowered hardware. While both the N64 and the Gamecube were relevant from a hardware standpoint and just poorly designed, the Wii and the DS don't have any excuses for being outdated Day 1, and neither does the Wii U and the 3DS.

Nintendo's profitability has zero impact on my gaming experience. What matters to me is whether or not the company's systems are up to par and whether or not they can deliver the processing power necessary to meet the requirements of the gaming generation they're released in, it's that and that only that's under fire here. There's nothing wrong with designing a system that meets industry requirements, even if it has to be sold at a loss as long as those losses can be counter-balanced with licensing profits. The PS3 is an extreme case where the losses taken were unsustainable, the PS2 on the other hand was a completely different and highly profitable story.

When did the PS3 become profitable? I understand in certain quarters it reported a profit but I don't believe it has made enough to dig it out of that massive hole it's early losses put it in. Info I had looked up had PS3 losses basically wiping out all the profit the first two playstations made.

My point is that I am not a sheep who cares about something being mainstream as far as judging it's success. I barely comprehend that attitude.

It's hard to criticize the Wii and DS, the second best selling home console of all time and the single best selling video game console ever made. Those consoles don't need excuses.

Your "gaming experience" is based on a narrow point of view that ignores people who actually enjoy that Nintendo platforms offer something different than your "mainstream" "successful" machines. Basically you bash Nintendo for not making an HD triplet when we already have the HD twins. I on the other hand am glad Nintendo is around to bring some diversity to the gaming world, and whether or not you judge what they do as successful or not doesn't really matter except in your own head.

 

[VMM]

What major IP is even available on wii u at the moment?

NSMBU, Zelda WW HD, Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, Pikimin 3 etc

 

[Foxi4]

When did the PS3 become profitable? I understand in certain quarters it reported a profit but I don't believe it has made enough to dig it out of that massive hole it's early losses put it in.

The PS3 began being profitable per unit sold back in 2010, it's been "digging itself out" of the "hole" ever since. Whether that was enough to cover the losses or not is something I'd have to research.

My point is that I am not a sheep who cars about something being mainstream as far as judging it's success. I barely comprehend that attitude.

I'll help you comperhend the attitude then. Mainstream systems that sell to the mainstream audience get games. Systems on the margins get scraps and a first-party CPR.

It's hard to criticize the Wii and DS, the second best selling home console of all time and the single best selling video game console ever made. Those consoles don't need excuses.

It's very easy to criticize hardware that was outdated Day 1. Both systems sold extremely well and they were incredibly profitable, here we agree. The DS actually has a nice library of games to go with it, but the Wii struggles in that regard. The reason for that is simple - the Wii failed to meet the par of the generation, it was far too weak to push contemporary games and as such it became the dumping ground of shovelware with few-and-far-between triple-A releases. The DS on the other hand had no par to meet - it was "the par", the PSP was a newcomer and it simply raised the bar.

You "gaming experience" is based on a narrow point of view that ignores people who actually enjoy that Nintendo platforms offer something different than your "mainstream" "successful" machines. Basically you bash Nintendo for not making an HD triplet when we already have the HD twins. I on the other hand am glad Nintendo is around to bring some diversity to the gaming world and whether or not you judge what the do as successful or not doesn't really matter except in your own head.

Okay, my gaming experience and my point of view is "narrow" because I expect a system to be all-encompassing instead of sitting in the comfort zone and offering only Nintendo games and very little beyond that? So... my mindset is narrow... because it covers a broader spectrum of games? You have me scratch my head here.

NSMBU, Zelda WW HD, Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, Pikimin 3 etc

Pikimin is not a major IP, Donkey Kong has been irrelevant for years and only appeals to Nintendo fans, the only Zelda game the Wii U offers is a remake and both NSMB and Mario 3D World belong to one IP - Mario. So all in all, you hit one target in five tries.

 

[osirisjem]

I on the other hand am glad Nintendo is around to bring some diversity to the gaming world and whether or not you judge what they do as successful or not doesn't really matter except in your own head.

Well it's not quite as easy as you suggest.
Nintendo has to make popular consoles or shareholders will prevent them from releasing more consoles.

The Wii U may very well be the last true home console from Nintendo.

Nintendo could bring gaming diversity by releasing their IP on PS and XBOX consoles.

If Nintendo is going to produce crappy hardware (read: Wii U gamepad) ... why don't they just become a software company ? or maybe they are and it just hasn't been announced.