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

[blaisedinsd]

When you are early adopter for any console, expect technical problems.

Correction, they were barely profitable at end of life. They are not exactly money maker, Gameboy family is.

We'll except for Nintendo consoles pretty much yeah.

And I have seen reports that GameCube was more profitable than ps2 (not including gba), only explanation for that is Nintendo knows how to make money in this business better than their competition.

Just as importantly, Nintendo has piles and piles of cash—over $5 billion in cash and about as much in short-term investments and bonds. Nintendo may not be as big a company as its primary rivals, Sony and Microsoft, but it is incredibly solvent. While Sony is being called on to split its entertainment and manufacturing divisions thanks to its struggles in the television space, and Microsoft is under a huge amount of pressure to spin off Xbox entirely, Nintendo faces no such dilemma.

Nintendo not only has the cash to weather a Wii U flop, the game maker also has a very clear long-term reason to stay in the hardware business: the future of their two major rivals, no matter how big those companies may be, remains uncertain, at least in regards to video games. What happens to the Xbox if Microsoft spins it off? And where would it be spun off to? What would a hedge fund do with the Xbox brand, and what sort of long-term support would the brand see absent Microsoft’s cash flow? What happens to PlayStation should Sony decide to take activist investor advice and split its divisions up?

 

[trumpet-205]

And I have seen reports that GameCube was more profitable than ps2 (not including gba), only explanation for that is Nintendo knows how to make money in this business better than their competition.

You're wrong. Nintendo was indeed more profitable than Sony at that time when you include revenue coming from GBA. Exclude that it is actually losing money throughout GameCube life cycle, only manage to profit when it was discontinued. Nintendo invested 1 billion USD to have IBM come up with Gekko, a custom made CPU with Nintendo being the sole customer (hence shouldering all R&D and production cost).

The biggest loser in 6th gen is Microsoft, where Xbox lose money. But unlike Sega Microsoft had plenty capital to stay in the game.

 

[FAST6191]

The biggest loser in 6th gen is Microsoft, where Xbox lose money. But unlike Sega Microsoft had plenty capital to stay in the game.

Given that the 360 also helped directX, and windows with it, stay relevant now opengl got their game together I would be a bit more hesitant to throw around terms like loser.

 

[slingblade1170]

Thank you, i totally agree with you, but i still believe that the wii u has a chance, once it's hit titles start to come out like mario kart, super smash, bayonetta and zelda, also "X". Once that time comes we can judge if it will be successful or not (likely it will). It probably won't be the top selling console, but it will be good. Seeing as most sony fanboys already purchased a ps4. Also nintendo is not good at one hit wonders, instead it spreads it sales over time. But i believe this generation of gaming is very good. My vote is for ps4 and wii u.

This is true, Nintendo probably won't be getting a 1st place trophy this gen but I believe it will do well with time.

WHere the Fuck is Star Fox, Metroid and so many others? Not only that Where the hell is the Third Party Support? Is nowhere to be found.

Yeah seriously, Star Fox is an F'N blast and hasn't seen a new entry since Assault on GC. A Metroid FPS in Wii U's beautiful HD would be amazing and the gamepad would work perfectly with both Samus & Fox.

 

[blaisedinsd]

You're wrong. Nintendo was indeed more profitable than Sony at that time when you include revenue coming from GBA. Exclude that it is actually losing money throughout GameCube life cycle, only manage to profit when it was discontinued. Nintendo invested 1 billion USD to have IBM come up with Gekko, a custom made CPU with Nintendo being the sole customer (hence shouldering all R&D and production cost).

The biggest loser in 6th gen is Microsoft, where Xbox lose money. But unlike Sega Microsoft had plenty capital to stay in the game.

Well I have seen info that states Gamecube was more profitable by itself and I have seen people like you who basically say that can't be right, maybe if you include GBA (yet like you provide no support for their claim). Apparently PS2 was sold at a loss for the most part while Gamecube was sold for a profit, but anyway you spin it for Sony to have the most successful home video game console in history and not make as much money as Nintendo is something interesting.

Pretty much I see agreement that Nintendos overall video game business was more profitable than Sony in that period. The cube is the least successful homeconsole and I believe GBA is their least successful handheld too. Also overall profit for Nintendo in this business is unmatched.....what are we talking about 28 out of 30 years they have made a profit? That is stellar, and part of a bigger picture the Sony and MS fanboys are missing. Huge cash reserves that they generally made in this business. They are more invested in this business than Sony and Microsoft who both made their money elsewhere and took this up as a side business, a business that their is pressure to spin off.



There was an idea in that article I quoted that makes some good sense. Nintendo would do well to intigrate their handheld and home consoles better. We see them doing this on some level, but what if they really knock it out of the park with the successors to Wii U and 3DS? Design them from the ground up to completely obliterate the distinction between handheld and console gaming. Basically a Wii U with a portable gamepad or something, heck sell the portable component separately so it is a completely standalone game system and as an integrated part of the home console experience at the same time.

We can call it the WiiDS. Put that in your pipe and smoke it CO and WA!

 

[WiiCube_2013]

Ironically, chances are that 10 years from now, just as with the 64 and Gamecube, this will be the "retro" console most people will want (vs. its contemporaneous competition).

Yep and it's better to grab the exclusives now than years later.

One of them being Wonderful 101.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Well I have seen info that states Gamecube was more profitable by itself and I have seen people like you who basically say that can't be right, maybe if you include GBA (yet like you provide no support for their claim). Apparently PS2 was sold at a loss for the most part while Gamecube was sold for a profit, but anyway you spin it for Sony to have the most successful home video game console in history and not make as much money as Nintendo is something interesting.

Pretty much I see agreement that Nintendos overall video game business was more profitable than Sony in that period. The cube is the least successful homeconsole and I believe GBA is their least successful handheld too. Also overall profit for Nintendo in this business is unmatched.....what are we talking about 28 out of 30 years they have made a profit? That is stellar, and part of a bigger picture the Sony and MS fanboys are missing. Huge cash reserves that they generally made in this business. They are more invested in this business than Sony and Microsoft who both made their money elsewhere and took this up as a side business, a business that their is pressure to spin off.



There was an idea in that article I quoted that makes some good sense. Nintendo would do well to intigrate their handheld and home consoles better. We see them doing this on some level, but what if they really knock it out of the park with the successors to Wii U and 3DS? Design them from the ground up to completely obliterate the distinction between handheld and console gaming. Basically a Wii U with a portable gamepad or something, heck sell the portable component separately so it is a completely standalone game system and as an integrated part of the home console experience at the same time.

We can call it the WiiDS. Put that in your pipe and smoke it CO and WA!

Please provide a source saying Sony didn't make as much money as Nintendo with the PS2. Sold at a loss at first doesn't mean they made less profit overall, especially considering they got 150 million console sales and millions upon millions of software sales.

Please provide a source as well for Nintendo making a profit for 28 out of the 30 years they've (roughly) been in the business.

The argument that Nintendo has huge cash reserves so they're doing so well is wrong. When they realize they aren't going to be turning profits the company won't stay afloat and slowly bleed out. Everyone's gonna just drop it and run.

 

[osirisjem]

Please provide a source as well for Nintendo making a profit for 28 out of the 30 years they've (roughly) been in the business.

I've read that 3 or 4 times on different sources in the last few days.
https://www.google.ca/#q=Nintendo+profit+30+years&safe=off
2012 was the first non-profitable year.
and 2013 is the second.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I've read that 3 or 4 times on different sources in the last few days.
https://www.google.ca/#q=Nintendo profit 30 years&safe=off
2012 was the first non-profitable year.
and 2013 is the second.

Okay, thanks for the info

 

[blaisedinsd]

Finding exact numbers is difficult, as I said I have simply seen both stated.

Overall though I see no disagreement that the gamecube was profitable. There also seems to be agreement Nintendo made more profit overall in that time.

The only thing I see is that Sony lost more money in ps3 than they made on ps2.

http://m.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/the-sony-reciprocal-ps3-losses-surpass-ps2-profits/

The point still stands, if wii u is a gamecube type of disaster as many are quick to say it is, that Nintendo still did quite well and that would not be a devastating must exit the business kind of result. For all their dominance, the competition doesn't have the track record and could very well be pressured to spin off their games divisions. There are major reasons to fear how well they would do on their own without the backing if their parent companies.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Finding exact numbers is difficult, as I said I have simply seen both stated.

Overall though I see no disagreement that the gamecube was profitable. There also seems to be agreement Nintendo made more profit overall in that time.

The only thing I see is that Sony lost more money in ps3 than they made on ps2.

http://m.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/the-sony-reciprocal-ps3-losses-surpass-ps2-profits/

The point still stands, if wii u is a gamecube type of disaster as many are quick to say it is, that Nintendo still did quite well and that would not be a devastating must exit the business kind of result.

To be fair that article is from 2008. The PS3, especially sold at a loss, was kinda digging a hole for the company but with plans to fill it in plus some later. The PS3 has already turned profitable a couple years ago.

The thing is that the Wii helped dig Nintendo out of that Gamecube rut. I mean if it wasn't for that things would look even more dismal. Nintendo had a continuing history at that point of diminishing returns. The Wii was a fad, a phenomenon, that can't really be matched again. If the Wii U does poorly, do you think they'll get another Wii to dig them out? Sure, they're handhelds do well but they can't have a cancerous home console cutting into those sales.

If the Wii U doesn't kill their home console market it's definitely gonna be a herald to the end.

 

[blaisedinsd]

You never know what may happen in the future.

Clearly we are biased. I would say gamecube was fine, I did find quotes where it is called a success as far as it's business and as far as the games and the consumers experience. The wii wasn't digging out of that rut, the wii was an enormous gigantic runaway smashing success that sent the company soaring. You want to characterize it as a fad or a bandaid in the midst of a downward trend that merely delayed their execution. I don't see it that way. The wii u being another gamecube is not a disaster. Nintendos future in this business is more secure than Sony or Microsoft in my view.

And I agree ps3 did start making profit later on. I do not think overall it ever overcame the losses it initially had. That article is maybe from their lowest point. But regardless, the ps3 was not great overall for sony and while ps4 is currently doing well it just shows that a struggling console doesn't mean the doom and gloom people like to spout off.

 

[osirisjem]

it just shows that a struggling console doesn't mean the doom and gloom people like to spout off.

Well, to go from the highs of the Wii to the depths of the Wii U feels like gloomy and doomy.
I guess I am mad at Nintendo for the Wii U. The first time I heard their plan for the Wii U, I said it would be a failure.
I wasn't alone. Their stock dropped 10% that day.
18+ months later, the Wii U is in horrible shape. For me, IMO, the Wii U brought nothing to the table. I don't care about HD graphics (many others do) and the tablet is an ill-conceived poorly implemented flop.

Sadly, the inertia against the Wii U is gaining, not losing momentum.

 

[FAST6191]

the wii was an enormous gigantic runaway smashing success that sent the company soaring

as long as you ignore the last couple of years of its lifetime.
And the stock price.

Clearly we are biased.

You said it, not me.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Wii is also the longest gen for a Nintendo console isn't it. Overall it was a smashing success even if it slowed down at the end.

And your right. Only people with assholes are biased.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Wii is also the longest gen for a Nintendo console isn't it. Overall it was a smashing success even if it slowed down at the end.

And your right. Only people with assholes are biased.

It was the longest console generation for everyone.

The Wii had a steep drop off and while the PS3 and Xbox 360 continue to still get good games, the Wii has basically been dead for years at this point.

That's not saying it didn't do well but it solidified its fate as a fad.

 

[mightymuffy]

And your right. Only people with assholes are biased.

FAST6191, being a fellow Brit, has an arsehole rather than an asshole, therefore by your judging clearly isn't biased after all. Unless you know he's got a pet donkey living his back garden, in which case please refrain from the bestiality accusation laddie

and the tablet is an ill-conceived poorly implemented flop.

Actually there's not a thing wrong with 'the tablet' - it's an excellent bit of kit! Perhaps there's no stand out 'must have' reason as of yet for it, so your 'poorly implemented' comment might hold weight, but otherwise I'd say you're mistaken there. It's the relative complete absence of oomph and the piss poor marketing that's ill-conceived.. I was expecting Nintendo to get their advertising sorted out last year, but it's like they've just given up!

 

[osirisjem]

That's not saying it didn't do well but [the Wii] solidified its fate as a fad.

Hmmm .... interesting. I tend to agree.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Wii struggled late in its life from being underpowered. As games matured on the other platforms this gap became larger.

I see what your saying, but with the wii being the best selling home Nintendo console of all time it's a bit odd to refer to it as a fad. It was the hot thing for awhile, and that did boost it's sales, but all consoles eventually fade.

 

[FAST6191]

Fad
A phase wherein an item, concept or action rapidly rises to immense popularity, often against conventional wisdom and often by finding an unseen market, before returning to low levels and having a legacy as being little more than a fad and maybe a well padded bank account for the fad creator/pusher.
Fads may be cyclic or otherwise see revivals from time to time, they may also spring from broader societal movements.

If that can not be used to describe the Wii I am not sure what can.