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

[blaisedinsd]

Well numbers I see are nearly a 5 billion dollar loss on PS3 reported about a year ago. By some measures you could say that makes PS3 the biggest disaster in history of console gaming. That also reports 360 lost about 3 billion dollars by itself so that doesn't quite match up with that other data that says XBox brand has lost 3 billion dollars.

Whatever the case Nintendo simply not making a profit is huge news.

For all the chatter and good feelings about successful launches of PS4 and Xbone I still think there is cause for concern for the future of console gaming as a business. Will these consoles overall be as successful? With all the success they had they didn't make money last time so if they don't change their business practices it could be even worse. Nintendo not making a profit should not be cause for alarm just for Nintendo, it's not just because they are 3rd in the current console war since we know they have been profitable in that position in the past, it is a bad sign for for the industry. Nintendo overall as a company is not in imminent trouble whether or not their investors are happy right now or not and I still think if this console gen is the last for anyone it is more likely that one or both of the other 2 call it quits than Nintendo but mostly I just hope console gaming continues (because PC gaming sucks pretty much)

 

[FAST6191]

I still think there is cause for concern for the future of console gaming as a business.

Did anybody argue otherwise? Most see something big coming in the future, nobody knows quite what or exactly when, of if they do they are keeping quiet so as to be able to enjoy their private island when it comes to pass, but definitely something that will shatter the model presently used.

Personally I am quite excited to watch it all burn or transmutate.

 

[osirisjem]

Well numbers I see are nearly a 5 billion dollar loss on PS3 reported about a year ago. By some measures you could say that makes PS3 the biggest disaster in history of console gaming. That also reports 360 lost about 3 billion dollars by itself so that doesn't quite match up with that other data that says XBox brand has lost 3 billion dollars.

Whatever the case Nintendo simply not making a profit is huge news.

Interesting point !
Hard to imagine those consoles lost money as they were quite popular.
I am sure Nintendo did very well with the Wii.

I guess the big profits are in software.

Maybe MS or PS should make more games

 

[Wisenheimer]

It's the Cult Classic syndrome, yep.

I would not exactly call games like Mario 64 (12 million) or Super Smash Bros. Melee (7 million) "cult classics". Just as an example, despite selling about 160 million units to the Gamecube's approximate 25 million, the PS2 never had any exclusive games that sold better than Smash Brothers on the gamecube except Gran Turismo.

People emulate Nintendo systems first because that is where the best exclusives can be found. It is as simple as that. There are Nintendo games like "Mother 3" that are "cult classics" (at least in the US), but there are also a lot of Nintendo games even for the less popular systems that sell better than almost any game of the generation.

Interesting point !
Hard to imagine those consoles lost money as they were quite popular.
I am sure Nintendo did very well with the Wii.

I guess the big profits are in software.

Maybe MS or PS should make more games

They were not popular from the beginning and Sony was taking hundreds of dollars in losses on each unit sold, because they were actually really powerful (for the time) computers.

Nintendo did very well with the Wii because it probably broke even or even profited from every unit sold and it also sold a ton of games and something like 1000+ licenses to other companies to make games for the Wii.

Notice how Sony is taking only a modest loss on each PS4. They learned their lesson with the PS3. Better to offer something under-powered but easy to develop for (like the PS4) at a slight loss than something powerful and difficult to develop for at a huge loss. The PS3 was the biggest gaming mistake Sony ever made, from a financial perspective, although it was a pretty good system from a player's perspective.

 

[Foxi4]

I would not exactly call games like Mario 64 (12 million) or Super Smash Bros. Melee (7 million) "cult classics". Just as an example, despite selling about 160 million units to the Gamecube's approximate 25 million, the PS2 never had any exclusive games that sold better than Smash Brothers on the gamecube except Gran Turismo.

This is exactly what small game libraries artificially generate - the userbase has absolutely no selection in games so they all buy the same 3 titles, inflating their sales because at the end of the day you gotta play something.

People emulate Nintendo systems first because that is where the best exclusives can be found. It is as simple as that. There are Nintendo games like "Mother 3" that are "cult classics" (at least in the US), but there are also a lot of Nintendo games even for the less popular systems that sell better than almost any game of the generation.

Again, beggars can't be choosers. When you have whole 5-10 games worth buying on your system, don't be surprised when those games reach ridiculous popularity. It doesn't necessarily make them good games overall, it makes them "good considering the system they're on".

 

[Wisenheimer]

This is exactly what small game libraries artificially generate - the userbase has absolutely no selection in games so they all buy the same 3 titles, inflating their sales because at the end of the day you gotta play something.
Again, beggars can't be choosers. When you have whole 5-10 games worth buying on your system, don't be surprised when those games reach ridiculous popularity.

The Gamecube had about 650 games. It was not exactly a "small game library". The PS3, for instance, has only about 150 more games, and it benefits from the existence of an online game purchase system as well as an install base 3 times the size (although maybe a lot of those PS3's overheated and died and are no longer in circulation).

The N64 had a smaller selection of games, mainly because of the cost of producing ROMS, but those games tended to be a lot better in quality.

In either case, neither system fits the definition of "cult classic", which would be games that were well received by a devoted following but not commercially successful. Every system had "cult classics", but I don't see any evidence that systems like the N64 or the Gamecube had more "cult classics" than the competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_video_game

 

[osirisjem]

To me, xbox may not be a profitable division for Microsoft, but Microsoft profits from it.
For a stodgy company like Microsoft to be associated with something Hip and Cool like a popular gaming system helps the Microsoft Brand.
That being said, the cool factor didn't exactly translate to Windows Tablet or Windows Phone !

The same might be said for Sony.

For Nintendo, a small, exclusively gaming company .... they have less flexibility.

 

[Foxi4]

The Gamecube had about 650 games. It was not exactly a "small game library". The PS3, for instance, has only about 150 more games, and it benefits from the existence of an online game purchase system as well as an install base 3 times the size (although maybe a lot of those PS3's overheated and died and are no longer in circulation).

You are incorrect, sir. There's 795 disc-based retail games + PSN-Only games + PlayStation Minis + PSone and PS2 Classics which I can't be arsed to count. Content-wise the PS3 eats the Gamecube alive - not all PS3 games were released on-disc. Even if you only count content exclusively on the PS3, meaning PS3 retail discs + PSN-Only games, it's still above and beyond 650 games.

The N64 had a smaller selection of games, mainly because of the cost of producing ROMS, but those games tended to be a lot better in quality.

Sure, all the Superman 64's, Carmageddon 64's, Terrible PC Game Port 64's and other meh games are totally worth playing on the system and it's not like there are only 10 good quality games that people play over and over on it.

In either case, neither system fits the definition of "cult classic", which would be games that were well received by a devoted following but not commercially successful. Every system had "cult classics", but I don't see any evidence that systems like the N64 or the Gamecube had more "cult classics" than the competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_video_game

The N64 is the sheer definition of a cult classic - it's a system that flopped so badly that the endangered species of whale became jealous and yet it has millions of fans all across the globe who all claim that "they had one" when the sales data says it's bollocks.

 

[slingblade1170]

The N64 may have flopped financially but to me it was one of my favorite consoles with some of the best games I've ever played during the best time of my childhood. I love the N64 and i'm not going to bother naming off the amazing games that I still play to this day but I do not see the N64 a failure by any means.

 

[Wisenheimer]

You are incorrect, sir. There's 795 disc-based retail games + PSN-Only games + PlayStation Minis + PSone and PS2 Classics which I can't be arsed to count. Content-wise the PS3 eats the Gamecube alive - not all PS3 games were released on-disc. Even if you only count content exclusively on the PS3, meaning PS3 retail discs + PSN-Only games, it's still above and beyond 650 games.

Sure, all the Superman 64's, Carmageddon 64's, Terrible PC Game Port 64's and other meh games are totally worth playing on the system and it's not like there are only 10 good quality games that people play over and over on it.

The N64 is the sheer definition of a cult classic - it's a system that flopped so badly that the endangered species of whale became jealous and yet it has millions of fans all across the globe who all claim that "they had one" when the sales data says it's bollocks.

A "cult classic" is something that is commercially unsuccessful but has a significant, devoted following. Being outsold by the competition does not make something a cult product. The Nintendo 64 was commercially successful. Heck, it outsold the Atari 2600, which was the undisputed leader of the home gaming industry prior to Nintendo's entry into the market. And the "numbers say" there were tens of millions of Nintendo 64 fans. The fact is, both the PS1 and the N64 were commercially successful products. They both had their share of cult classics, like Conker's Bad Fur Day and R-type Delta. They both had their share of games that were huge commercial successes, for instance the PS1's biggest exclusive success was Gran Turismo (11 Million copies) which was barely edged out by the N64's best selling exclusive, Mario 64 (12 Million copies).


And as for your characterization of 800 retail games versus 650 as "eating the gamecube alive," that would only be true in some kind of world where rhetorical nonsense trumps numbers. 25% more retail disks for the PS3 is on the same order of magnitude. And, if you take install base into consideration, there were more than two times the retail games per console sold for the Gamecube than the PS3.

 

[Foxi4]

A "cult classic" is something that is commercially unsuccessful but has a significant, devoted following. Being outsold by the competition does not make something a cult product. The Nintendo 64 was commercially successful.

It flopped big time in comparison to the PS1, it was discontinued early because sales died down - of course it flopped. It was not a mere instance of being outsold - it was stomped into the ground. You have to differentiate between being profitable and being successful - Nintendo, the behemoth with the NES and SNES on the pedestal, the company that single-handedly revived the gaming industry after the crash was beaten by a gaming upstarter. The N64 lost to Sony's very first system, and not "marginally so", rather at an almost 3:1 ratio. It was a brand disaster.

Heck, it outsold the Atari 2600, which was the undisputed leader of the home gaming industry prior to Nintendo's entry into the market.

Please don't be silly, you're comparing two products from completely different time periods. The N64 entered the market when gaming was already a popular pass time activity and owning a home console was nothing out of the ordinary - Atari paved the way to that state of matters, they sold systems in a time when you had to go to an arcade to play games, it makes a huge difference.

And the "numbers say" there were tens of millions of Nintendo 64 fans. The fact is, both the PS1 and the N64 were commercially successful products. They both had their share of cult classics, like Conker's Bad Fur Day and R-type Delta. They both had their share of games that were huge commercial successes, for instance the PS1's biggest exclusive success was Gran Turismo (11 Million copies) which was barely edged out by the N64's best selling exclusive, Mario 64 (12 Million copies).

The N64 only succeeded in the U.S. and this is historical fact. It sold 32,9 million units, 20 million of which were sold in the U.S., 6,75 in Europe and Australia and 5,54 million in Japan, Nintendo's home turf. In the grand scheme of things, the N64 fell on its face globally, it didn't "exist" outside of the U.S. beyond the scope of Nintendo die-hards and exclusives lovers. PS1 on the other hand sold 102,49 million units - it was a no-contest generation whether you like it or not.

And as for your characterization of 800 retail games versus 650 as "eating the gamecube alive," that would only be true in some kind of world where rhetorical nonsense trumps numbers. 25% more retail disks for the PS3 is on the same order of magnitude. And, if you take install base into consideration, there were more than two times the retail games per console sold for the Gamecube than the PS3.

So you're implying that if a game is not released on-disc and is only available via Digital Distribution it's "less of a game"? Oh, okay - I'll keep that in mind next time I use Steam. Jokes aside, the PS3 offers more content and that's a fact. You can argue otherwise to your heart's content, but the actual numbers beg to differ.

Edit: On top of what was already said and to end this debalce, I'd like to point out one more thing - the "incredibly well-performing" titles you mention all coincidentally happen to be Nintendo's games... how odd-bizzare... it's almost as if there was a group of people who bought Nintendo systems specifically for Nintendo games and nothing else... oh right, because that's actually totally true.

Third-party studios complained about this for years now - Nintendo systems sell Nintendo games and pretty much nothing else - it's been the case since the Nintendo 64 and it is the case now. Mario Does the Plumbing 128 would sell 389 million quadrillion copies eventually not because it's a particularily good game but rather because that's the only game the audience is interested in while the rest underperforms.

That's not to say that there aren't groups of people buying XBox'es specifically for Halo or PS3's specifically for inFamous, but they're infinitely smaller in size. The Nintendo Camp is pretty spacious in size, all things considered.

 

[Wisenheimer]

It flopped big time in comparison to the PS1, it was discontinued early because sales died down - of course it flopped. It was not a mere instance of being outsold - it was stomped into the ground. You have to differentiate between being profitable and being successful - Nintendo, the behemoth with the NES and SNES on the pedestal, the company that single-handedly revived the gaming industry after the crash was beaten by a gaming upstarter. The N64 lost to Sony's very first system, and not "marginally so", rather at an almost 3:1 ratio. It was a brand disaster.
Please don't be silly, you're comparing two products from completely different time periods. The N64 entered the market when gaming was already a popular pass time activity and owning a home console was nothing out of the ordinary - Atari paved the way to that state of matters, they sold systems in a time when you had to go to an arcade to play games, it makes a huge difference.
The N64 only succeeded in the U.S. and this is historical fact. It sold 32,9 million units, 20 million of which were sold in the U.S., 6,75 in Europe and Australia and 5,54 million in Japan, Nintendo's home turf. In the grand scheme of things, the N64 fell on its face globally, it didn't "exist" outside of the U.S. beyond the scope of Nintendo die-hards and exclusives lovers. PS1 on the other hand sold 102,49 million units - it was a no-contest generation whether you like it or not.
So you're implying that if a game is not released on-disc and is only available via Digital Distribution it's "less of a game"? Oh, okay - I'll keep that in mind next time I use Steam. Jokes aside, the PS3 offers more content and that's a fact. You can argue otherwise to your heart's content, but the actual numbers beg to differ.

Edit: On top of what was already said and to end this debalce, I'd like to point out one more thing - the "incredibly well-performing" titles you mention all coincidentally happen to be Nintendo's games... how odd-bizzare... it's almost as if there was a group of people who bought Nintendo systems specifically for Nintendo games and nothing else... oh right, because that's actually totally true.

Third-party studios complained about this for years now - Nintendo systems sell Nintendo games and pretty much nothing else - it's been the case since the Nintendo 64 and it is the case now. Mario Does the Plumbing 128 would sell 389 million quadrillion copies eventually not because it's a particularily good game but rather because that's the only game the audience is interested in while the rest underperforms.

That's not to say that there aren't groups of people buying XBox'es specifically for Halo or PS3's specifically for inFamous, but they're infinitely smaller in size. The Nintendo Camp is pretty spacious in size, all things considered.

The definition of flop from Webster's is, to fail completely. The Gamecube sold more units than the Atari 2600 (which was considered to be a very successful system) and Nintendo made a net profit from it over the system's lifetime. Nintendo published a number of commercially successful and critically acclaimed games on the system. But I guess using your definition of flop, where we can just arbitrarily chose criteria and ignore commonly accepted American-English definitions, I will state that the PS2 was also a "flop", because it never had a single Sony-published game that broke 15 million units sold and Sony had only one pathetic niche franchise that broke 5 million units sold, while the Gamecube had a mighty successful franchises that sold over 5 million units.

Your original assertion was that Nintendo made "cult" systems, whereas the facts show that the systems Nintendo has made, even in the two instances where they were less commercially successful than a competitor, saw mainstream success. I understand English is probably not your first language, so I have to wonder why you would want to have a debate with a native English speaker about what amounts to English semantics. I have a feeling something is being lost in translation.

Nintendo did make one possible "cult" system, and that was the Virtual Boy, because, while innovative, it was a commercial failure (>1 million units sold) and it still has a devoted following of aficionados, including an active homebrewing community.

 

[Foxi4]

The definition of flop from Webster's is, to fail completely. The Gamecube sold more units than the Atari 2600 (which was considered to be a very successful system) and Nintendo made a net profit from it over the system's lifetime. Nintendo published a number of commercially successful and critically acclaimed games on the system. But I guess using your definition of flop, where we can just arbitrarily chose criteria and ignore commonly accepted American-English definitions, I will state that the PS2 was also a "flop", because it never had a single Sony-published game that broke 15 million units sold and Sony had only one pathetic niche franchise that broke 5 million units sold, while the Gamecube had a mighty successful franchises that sold over 5 million units.

You cannot even begin to compare the sales of the Atari 2600 to the sales of the Gamecube with a clean conscience simply because the overall number of gamers at that time was infinitely smaller and the popularity of this form of entertainment was highly limited. You might as well start saying that KFC is a more successful fast-food chain than McDonald's because it has more restaurants now than McDonald's had in the 80'ties. In this sort of a comparison, you have to account for those things and adjust the figures accordingly, otherwise you end up with an overblown result that does not reflect actual popularity during the period. Your own criteria are shaky and you have the audacity to lecture me about mine. Both the Gamecube and the N64 failed to make any impact whatsoever outside of the United States, so if it really bothers you so much then I'm going to narrow the field for you and say that "they flopped in Europe, Australia and Asia", meaning the great majority of the globe. They're generally considered unsuccessful on a global scale, you can't say that your system was successful just because it sold in one area and failed everywhere else - if you don't want me to narrow my criteria, don't narrow down your own. Whether they were profitable for Nintendo or not does not make them any better nor more successful as gaming systems, whether or not they were successful business ventures is a whole different matter. Both systems failed to draw in an audiece, both systems underperformed, both systems were poorly designed and both systems did not deliver, end of story.

Your original assertion was that Nintendo made "cult" systems, whereas the facts show that the systems Nintendo has made, even in the two instances where they were less commercially successful than a competitor, saw mainstream success. I understand English is probably not your first language, so I have to wonder why you would want to have a debate with a native English speaker about what amounts to English semantics. I have a feeling something is being lost in translation.

That's cute - the language barrier argument. I just so happen to study English at the University level, chances are that my vocabulary is richer than yours as it is the case with most second language speakers versus native speakers on an academic level. If anything, your pronounciation might be superior (unless compared to Queen's English, meaning RP, in which case most native speakers fall flat on their face, including the Queen herself) which means absolutely nothing in a written debate. Don't attempt to lecture me about English - my English is perfectly fine. Defending a shabby argument with an ad hominem is never a good strategy, by the way. Good game, good game.

EDIT: Upon some research it turns out that NNS are lacking in vocabulary in comparison to NS - they make up for it in other areas and they acquire new vocabulary quicker, but alas, they do not match NS as far as the sheer number of vocabulary items is concerned. My bad!

Nintendo did make one possible "cult" system, and that was the Virtual Boy, because, while innovative, it was a commercial failure (>1 million units sold) and it still has a devoted following of aficionados, including an active homebrewing community.

Here we agree, the Virtual Boy is indeed a cult classic - its market performance, software support and overall reception wasn't just bad, it was horrific. It's a miracle that a homebrew scene actually popped up for this thing - I'll have to grab one myself sometime, right after I get some protective glasses as well in case it causes burn-in... on the retinas.

I suppose that our disagreement doesn't so much lay in the definition of what a cult system is, rather in what we consider a failure. You're pretty forgiving when it comes to those matters and seem to focus on the financial side of things wheras to me it matters squat whether some Japanese CEO somewhere out there made some money on the system or not. I don't see the "mainstream success" you speak of - all I see is "limited appeal" at best.

To be considered even remotely successful, the system has to be popular in its time, it has to be well-supported, it simply has to do well all-around, not just in one specified area, and both the Gamecube and the N64 failed at just that. They had their limited appeal and I understand why, but compared to their contemporaries they were the underdogs which is one of the reasons why they're so "popular" these days - people consider them cult classics.

 

[Joe88]

The definition of flop from Webster's is, to fail completely. The Gamecube sold more units than the Atari 2600 (which was considered to be a very successful system) and Nintendo made a net profit from it over the system's lifetime. Nintendo published a number of commercially successful and critically acclaimed games on the system. But I guess using your definition of flop, where we can just arbitrarily chose criteria and ignore commonly accepted American-English definitions, I will state that the PS2 was also a "flop", because it never had a single Sony-published game that broke 15 million units sold and Sony had only one pathetic niche franchise that broke 5 million units sold, while the Gamecube had a mighty successful franchises that sold over 5 million units.

Your original assertion was that Nintendo made "cult" systems, whereas the facts show that the systems Nintendo has made, even in the two instances where they were less commercially successful than a competitor, saw mainstream success. I understand English is probably not your first language, so I have to wonder why you would want to have a debate with a native English speaker about what amounts to English semantics. I have a feeling something is being lost in translation.

Nintendo did make one possible "cult" system, and that was the Virtual Boy, because, while innovative, it was a commercial failure (>1 million units sold) and it still has a devoted following of aficionados, including an active homebrewing community.

theres so much stuff wrong with that post I dont even know where to begin...

but I'll guess I will start with how a console and its total sales from about 25 years before the gamecube has any relevance on the gamecubes total sales
back then those were great sales, at least in the US, completely flopped in japan
given the industry growth and how many more people play video games now, as well as the death of video arcades, those are terrible sales numbers

 

[Foxi4]

Wisenheimer Simply claims that those systems were not "failures" because they did not fail in each and every category possible like the Virtual Boy (arguably, before I offend Virtual Boy fans) did, which is one legitimate way of looking at things and he's entitled to it. I however don't call a system that fails at everything a "failure" - there's a more fitting term, and that term is "disaster".

 

[Wisenheimer]

You cannot even begin to compare the sales of the Atari 2600 to the sames of the Gamecube with a clean conscience simply because the overall number of gamers at that time was infinitely smaller and the popularity of this form of entertainment was highly limited. You might as well start saying that KFC is a more successful fast-food chain than McDonald's because it has more restaurants now than McDonald's had in the 80'ties. Your own criteria are shaky and you have the audacity to lecture me about mine. Both the Gamecube and the N64 failed to make any impact whatsoever outside of the United States, so if it really bothers you so much then I'm going to narrow the field for you and say that "they flopped in Europe, Australia and Asia", meaning the great majority of the globe. They're generally considered unsuccessful on a global scale, you can't say that your system was successful just because it sold in one area and failed everywhere else - if you don't want me to narrow my criteria, don't narrow down your own. Whether they were profitable for Nintendo or not does not make them any better nor more successful as gaming systems, whether or not they were successful business ventures is a whole different matter. Both systems failed to draw in an audiece, both systems underperformed, both systems were poorly designed and both systems did not deliver, end of story.
That's cute - the language barrier argument. I just so happen to study English at the University level, chances are that my vocabulary is richer than yours as it is the case with most second language speakers versus native speakers on an academic level. If anything, your pronounciation might be superior (unless compared to Queen's English, meaning RP, in which case most native speakers fall flat on their face, including the Queen herself) which means absolutely nothing in a written debate. Don't attempt to lecture me about English - my English is perefctly fine. Good game, good game.
Here we agree, the Virtual Boy is indeed a cult classic - its market performance, software support and overall reception wasn't just bad, it was horrific. It's a mirracle that a homebrew scene actually popped up for this thing - I'll have to grab one myself sometime, right after I get some protective glasses as well in case it causes burn-in... on the retinas.

I suppose that our disagreement doesn't so much lay in the definition of what a cult system is, rather in what we consider a failure. You're pretty forgiving when it comes to those matters and seem to focus on the financial side of things wheras to me it matters squat whether some Japanese CEO somewhere out there made some money on the system or not. To be considered even remotely successful, the system has to be popular in its time, it has to be well supported and it has to do well all-around, not just in one specified area, and both the Gamecube and the N64 failed at just that. They had their limited appeal and I understand why, but compared to their contemporaries they were the underdogs which is one of the reasons why they're so "popular" these days - people consider them cult classics.

When you are not using a word in a manner consistent with either American or Oxford English, yes, I feel it is reasonable to believe that there is a language barrier. Even if your vocabulary were larger than mine, which is unlikely, it is a non sequitur, because the issue is not understanding some less-common English word such as nepenthe, crapulent, or minacious, which might be useful scoring high on the general GRE test. I have had many colleagues in academia who were very good English speakers with large vocabularies and very intelligent, but they often struggled to fully understand every aspect of every conversation, even after a decade of living in the United States.

When someone says something has a cult following, that denotes a very strong and very loyal but very limited (either demographically or numerically) group of devotees. If someone calls something a cult movie/game/et cetera, in context, that usually means a product that was not commercially successful but still has a very strong bunch of devotees.

Maybe the Xbox was a cult product in Japan (because it surely did not sell well there). Maybe the Gamecube was a cult system in Pakistan (perhaps too hard to pirate for 3rd world success), but in the United States and the world at large, it was fairly successful commercially. Being successful commercially does not mean selling the most units. We do not say that the BMW 325i is a cult product because it does not sell as well as the Corolla. It means that the product was generated profit and penetrated into a wide variety of demographics.

In other words, you might say that Star Trek has a cult following, but the Star Trek movies are not "cult" movies (because they have seen widely penetrating success). By the same token, certain games which were commercially successful have a cult following (like people who are still making new commercial games for the NES or modding the original Doom or whatnot), but they were not cult games or gaming systems.

For instance, Ocarina of Time was a very successful game, not a cult game at all, but there is still a cult following of speed runners and other devotees to that game. The Nintendo 64, gamecube, and PS2 were not cult gaming systems. They had mainstream success, but they still have a cult following to this day, which does things like create emulators and even mods games and creates new homebrew.

 

[assassinz]

All this means is that the Wii U will see another price drop this year and I'll finally buy one!

 

[Foxi4]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here Wisenheimer, I'm not going to look at the systems through the prism of 2-3 highly successful games, I look at it from the broader perspective, but you're free to have your own opinion.

I'm not going to comment on your collegues from the world of academia either, as it's simply circumstancial, anecdotal evidence and hearsay. The general consensus in the world of lingusitics is that non-native language speakers have a broader understanding of the systematic side of a given language simply because they learn it in a systematic way rather than acquire it naturally like a native language speaker does. The language of a native speaker is and always will be stained by regional differences springing from for example the dialect. That being said, you do have a point - communicative competence is a whole different matter as it's connected with the cultural aspect of a given language as well as speaker anxiety, this can be an issue with learners who acquire a given language late in their life, however it doesn't concern me simply because I've been learning English as a second language ever since I was 7 and I was exposed to it from that time onwards. Let's just leave that matter aside though, as again, it's an ad hominem argument - we'll have to, otherwise we'll soon reach the conclusion that all international gatherings make no sense whatsoever, from internet forums to bigger structures such as the EU Council or the NATO simply because all attendants didn't happen to be born in Washington, DC.

Just to build a bit further on the whole "dictionary definition" argument, as it actually bothers me, I'll say this: imagine a situation where you have two runners, one actually wins the race, balancing his stamina well throughout the competition wheras the other sprints on the first lap and then slows down to a crawl - is the fast sprinter a good runner? No, not necessarily - he or she wasted all his or her energy on the very first lap. He or she was good in this one particular lap, but failed otherwise, performed poorly and lost. He "flopped" as a runner because his technique was poor, making him a poor runner, despite his capacity to run faster than his oponent... for the duration of one lap.

 

[Wisenheimer]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here Wisenheimer, I'm not going to look at the systems through the prism of 2-3 highly successful games, I look at it from the broader perspective, but you're free to have your own opinion.

I'm not going to comment on your collegues from the world of academia either, as it's simply circumstancial, anecdotal evidence and hearsay. The general consensus in the world of lingusitics is that non-native language speakers have a broader understanding of the systematic side of a given language simply because they learn it in a systematic way rather than acquire it naturally like a native language speaker does. The language of a native speaker is and always will be stained by regional differences springing from for example the dialect. That being said, you do have a point - communicative competence is a whole different matter as it's connected with the cultural aspect of a given language as well as speaker anxiety, this can be an issue with learners who acquire a given language late in their life, however it doesn't concern me simply because I've been learning English as a second language ever since I was 7 and I was exposed to it from that time onwards. Let's just leave that matter aside though, as again, it's an ad hominem argument - we'll have to, otherwise we'll soon reach the conclusion that all international gatherings make no sense whatsoever, from internet forums to bigger structures such as the EU Council or the NATO simply because all attendants didn't happen to be born in Washington, DC.

Just to build a bit further on the whole "dictionary definition" argument, as it actually bothers me, I'll say this: imagine a situation where you have two runners, one actually wins the race, balancing his stamina well throughout the competition wheras the other sprints on the first lap and then slows down to a crawl - is the fast sprinter a good runner? No, not necessarily - he or she wasted all his or her energy on the very first lap. He or she was good in this one particular lap, but failed otherwise, performed poorly and lost. He "flopped" as a runner because his technique was poor, making him a poor runner, despite his capacity to run faster than his oponent... for the duration of one lap.

I think non-native speakers who learn a foreign language tend to understand more about the formal structure of the language, but only because they are forced to study those rules rather than pick them up naturally, and by extension, people who study a foreign language, especially one similar to their own (like an English speaker studying an Indo-European language, especially a Romantic or Germanic one), also learn more about the formal structure of their own language, many aspects which are often not taught in school, because most people acquire them naturally.

But that is not really the same thing as an actual ability to understand a language, especially as it is spoken. Even to certain English speakers, they might not understand what the phrase, "I was hell of crossfaded and I tripped out and got put on blast by this bear from the four one five, " means.

I would say that "underperform" would be the best term to describe the Gamecube. It is also a good way to describe how the Wii U and Vita are faring now.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm glad that we finally found some common ground. You are correct, comperhension of language is a broad field of competence and an issue not only between native and non-native speakers - problems occur between native speakers as well. Put a native speaker with a thick cockney accent and mannerisms and an Australian in one room, ask them to have a conversation and see what happens. This is precisely why we have standardized varieties of English - to facilitate communication. My problem with what you said was that you claimed I don't understand your argument - I do, I just disagree with it because I have different standards of success and failure. I'm not claiming that nothing is lost in translation as you put it, I'm not infalliable, but I get your point - I simply find it insufficient for denoting success. Linguistics aside though, let's settle for "underperforming", whatever that may mean to us individually.