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

[mightymuffy]

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.

PS3 started making money towards the end of 2012, that's overall, not just for that period, so eventually it went in the black....

Foxi4: You're enjoying using the word 'underwhelming' a lot these days aren't you , and frankly who cares what you think regarding the Gamecube & N64? Rule #1 as a company: you make money. That's all that matters in the end. Both GC & N64 did just that. And if you don't mind me saying weren't exactly 'underwhelming' enough to stifle sales of the Wii. You're not important enough that your personal thoughts on Nintendo's previous generation consoles are gonna single-handedly change the direction the company is gonna take. Neither are mine, or anyone elses on here, for that matter.... Ditto this strange plan of Nintendo's route back to success you've got going on here either: you actually think a port of GTA5 would've transformed the Wii U's fortunes? How short sighted... Firstly it wouldn't have been anything like 'the definitive' version due to bafflingly underpowered architecture in certain key areas for a game like that, as I'm sure you're aware of(?) Secondly, GTA5 aside the biggest selling game of last year was COD:Ghosts - Wii U got a version of that, and I'm sure I don't need to tell everyone how many that didn't shift....

Otherwise yours and Gahars points are valid of course: were the Wii U/Nin themselves more dev friendly from the outset things may have been quite different, but if every AAA 3rd party game of this year suddenly turned out to be coming to the Wii U too (yeah I'm entering fukkin cloud-cuckoo land here! ) it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the console's fortunes. It's on life support, and will always be like that until Nintendo stop supporting it themselves. It's not even gonna reach Gamecube level sales, and no plan that either you, me, or Nintendo themselves is gonna change that (and they know this). 2-3 years of changing the drip is all Nin can do with the Wii U (still, us gamers with more than one console can enjoy some quality titles in this time though, starting with MK8...), then it's back to square 1 for Nintendo and what they do with their 'next generation'..

 

[Foxi4]

The discussion is getting slightly irrational here, so I'll just jettison myself from the thread once more after stating my point of view in a few easily understandable bulletpoints:

• I don't think that being up to par with industry standards and offering innovation is some kind of a mythical and unachievable goal. You can't cut Nintendo slack in terms of poor hardware choices just because they add a tablet controller to the set - poor and irrelevant hardware is still poor and irrelevant. The examples of the PS2 and the PS1 show that you don't have to have the most powerful hardware on the market to dominate it - that's not my point. The point is that the hardware has to meet developer expectations, it has to meet the par, otherwise it will just be a temporary distraction.
• Nintendo exclusives are not a saving grace or a game changer - Nintendo exclusives are to be expected, just like Sony exclusives are on the PS4 and Microsoft exclusives are on the Xbox One. How much you like them is completely irrelevant and subjective.
• Becoming mainstream is the definition of success of a given platform whether you like it or not. The whole point of the game is to gather a large number of adopters which will subsequently buy software for your system so that the the company can turn a profit with each sold piece of software for their system. The larger the number of adopters the better for the hardware manufacturer and this is fact.
• "My favorite Nintendo games" are good, but "my favorite Nintendo games and every other game I could possibly want" is better and not blasphemy, I don't understand how people can possibly disagree with this.

Foxi4: You're enjoying using the word 'underwhelming' a lot these days aren't you , and frankly who cares what you think regarding the Gamecube & N64? Rule #1 as a company: you make money. That's all that matters in the end. Both GC & N64 did just that.

That's not my point, I'm not undermining that. What I'm saying is that they could make much more money if they were designed properly, marketed properly and released in a good time frame. Overall the systems did rather "meh"and can in no way be compared to Nintendo's earlier successes.

And if you don't mind me saying weren't exactly 'underwhelming' enough to stifle sales of the Wii.

Do note that the Wii sold because of motion controls, the focus on casual gaming and partially even the Wii Fit balance board - the N64 and the Gamecube had nothing to do with its success.

You're not important enough that your personal thoughts on Nintendo's previous generation consoles are gonna single-handedly change the direction the company is gonna take. Neither are mine, or anyone elses on here, for that matter....

That doesn't mean that we can't discuss those things online and exchange ideas. People need to complain about what they perceive as flaws in products they have an interest in, that's how products improve.

Ditto this strange plan of Nintendo's route back to success you've got going on here either: you actually think a port of GTA5 would've transformed the Wii U's fortunes? How short sighted... Firstly it wouldn't have been anything like 'the definitive' version due to bafflingly underpowered architecture in certain key areas for a game like that, as I'm sure you're aware of(?) Secondly, GTA5 aside the biggest selling game of last year was COD:Ghosts - Wii U got a version of that, and I'm sure I don't need to tell everyone how many that didn't shift....

First of all, the Wii U is significantly more powerful than the Xbox 360 and the PS3 - if the game could run on those two platforms, it could run on the Wii U just fine. Secondly, it's not a story of a single game, it's a matter of the overall approach. There's nothing wrong in expecting a system to be all-encompasing in terms of video games within its generation - in fact, I'd wager that it's to be expected, and it's up to Nintendo to convince developers to support their system.

 

[blaisedinsd]

The discussion is getting slightly irrational here, so I'll just jettison myself from the thread once more after stating my point of view in a few easily understandable bulletpoints:

• I don't think that being up to par with industry standards and offering innovation is some kind of a mythical and unachievable goal. You can't cut Nintendo some slack in terms of poor hardware choice just because they add a tablet controller to the set - poor and irrelevant hardware is still poor and irrelevant. The examples of the PS2 and the PS1 show that you don't have to have the most powerful hardware on the market to dominate it - that's not my point. My point is that the hardware has to meet developer expectations, it has to meet the par, otherwise it will just be a temporary distraction.
• Nintendo exclusives are not a saving grace or a game changer - Nintendo exclusives are to be expected, just like Sony exclusives are on the PS4 and Microsoft exclusives are on the Xbox One. How much you like them is completely irrelevant and subjective.
• Becoming mainstream is the definition of success of a given platform whether you like it or not. The whole point of the game is to gather a large number of adopters which will subsequently buy software for your system so that the the company can turn a profit with each sold piece of software for their system. The larger the number of adopters the better for the hardware manufacturer and this is fact.
• "My favorite Nintendo games" are good, but "my favorite Nintendo games and every other game I could possibly want" is better and not blasphemy, I don't understand how people can possibly disagree with this.

Industry standards seem to be doing what the mainstream consoles do from your perspecitve.

Nintendo exclusives are the game changer for most people who buy a Nintendo console. Sony vs. Microsoft exclusives are not the same type of game changer. Sure they have there fans, but games that can be found on both consoles in basically identical form are also part of the core appeal of those systems. For a Nintendo console owner in general those games are expected to be scarce and likely bought, if at all, on another mainstream console.

B.S. For the company profits are the measure of success....it's just business. For consumers it's the gaming the console allowed them to enjoy that is the measure of success. Are you not also making the argument the Wii and DS were not successful in spite of huge profits, install bases, and software sales because the HW was not up to your standards? Did I imagine that? Your entire argument seems to boil down to Nintendo is failing because they refuse to be an HD triplet in the console wars.

Sure but you seem to be the only one who cares. Most people simply accept that they need to buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games etc. etc. Are your ranting about how you simply want the console wars to be over and to have only one console to rule them all?


And as far as PS3 financials you guys are way off from what I have been able to find. PS3 is the single biggest disaster in the history of gaming from a financial perspective. It's profits don't even come close to over coming it's gigantic losses. This is the best breakdown of this that I could find http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=158930

remember my post earlier in the thread http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo...es-forecast-by-70.360729/page-15#post-4903532

 

[Foxi4]

Industry standards seem to be doing what the mainstream consoles do from your perspecitve.

Industry standards are set by developers and hardware manufacturers outside on Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft's jurisdiction.

Nintendo exclusives are the game changer for most people who buy a Nintendo console. Sony vs. Microsoft exclusives are not the same type of game changer. Sure they have there fans, but games that can be found on both consoles in basically identical form are also part of the core appeal of those systems. For a Nintendo console owner in general those games are expected to be scarce and likely bought, if at all, on another mainstream console.

Sure, I mean, who plays Halo, right?

B.S. For the company profits are the measure of success....it's just business. For consumers it's the gaming the console allowed them to enjoy that is the measure of success. Are you not also making the argument the Wii and DS were not successful in spite of huge profits, install bases, and software sales because the HW was not up to your standards? Did I imagine that? Your entire argument seems to boil down to Nintendo is failing because they refuse to be an HD triplet in the console wars.

Company =/= System. A successful company can release an unsuccessful system and vice versa, a failing company can release a successful system. You seem to be reading whatever you want to read and adding a fair bit of your own imagination while at it - I never, not once, said that the DS or the Wii were unsucessful systems, I said that they were underwhelming from a hardware stand-point. If I have said that the DS and the Wii were unsuccessful consoles, do me a favor and quote that exact post.

You keep bringing up console wars and I don't quite know why. Your entire point is that from a consumer stand-point, a measurement of success is whether a system is enjoyable or not. I don't know how your gaming habits look like, but I tend to use my consoles to play games on - mainstream systems get those, non-mainstream ones... not so much.

Sure but you seem to be the only one who cares. Most people simply accept that they need to buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games etc. etc. Are your ranting about how you simply want the console wars to be over and to have only one console to rule them all?

Me and everybody else who hasn't bought a Wii U yet and has no plans of doing so, which appears to be a lot of people considering the fact that the PS4 already outsold it after being on the market for a couple months and the Xbox One isn't far behind. Hmm...

Again, I should probably jettison myself from the thread at this point, I'm only still here to reply to you.

And as far as PS3 financials you guys are way off from what I have been able to find. PS3 is the single biggest disaster in the history of gaming from a financial perspective. It's profits don't even come close to over coming it's gigantic losses. This is the best breakdown of this that I could find http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=158930

remember my post earlier in the thread http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo...es-forecast-by-70.360729/page-15#post-4903532

*Follows link, even though it's VGChartz ergo not a reliable source*

(...) loss just for the PS3 in this one year is an educated guess.

*Closes tab*

I'm glad that we're posting "educated guesses" instead of actual calculations based on factual data as "fact".

 

[chavosaur]

Nintendo exclusives are the game changer for most people who buy a Nintendo console. Sony vs. Microsoft exclusives are not the same type of game changer. Sure they have there fans, but games that can be found on both consoles in basically identical form are also part of the core appeal of those systems. For a Nintendo console owner in general those games are expected to be scarce and likely bought, if at all, on another mainstream console.

I bought my PS3 for the sole purpose of playing exclusives like the Last of Us and Infamous.
I bought my Xbox One for the sole purpose of Playing the Next Halo games and Destiny which is only coming to ACTUAL next gen consoles.
My 360 again was bought mostly for Halo and all the good 3rd party's that never made it to Wii.

I think you're generalizing way to much which is ironic considering how mad you're getting at everyone else about generalizing.

 

[blaisedinsd]

You seem to be reading whatever you want to read and adding a fair bit of your own imagination while at it - I never, not once, said that the DS or the Wii were unsucessful systems, I said that they were underwhelming from a hardware stand-point. If I have said that the DS and the Wii were unsuccessful consoles, do me a favor and quote that exact post.

You say:
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.

You are referring to your gaming experience as the other factor of success. (If you were referring to some other mysterious measure of success than please provide a correction)

You say:
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.

And You also say:
the Wii and the DS don't have any excuses for being outdated Day 1,


You are playing word games. You criticize the Wii and DS for being outdated hardware on day 1 and go on to point out how that was mistake that limited your gaming experience on those devices and you are proclaiming this gaming experience to be the thing you use to measure success of system by because you can't use profits because your are trying to slam the most profitable company and you can't just use gaming experience because it is a subjective field of discussion.

I bought my PS3 for the sole purpose of playing exclusives like the Last of Us and Infamous.
I bought my Xbox One for the sole purpose of Playing the Next Halo games and Destiny which is only coming to ACTUAL next gen consoles.
My 360 again was bought mostly for Halo and all the good 3rd party's that never made it to Wii.

I think you're generalizing way to much which is ironic considering how mad you're getting at everyone else about generalizing.

Mad?

Mad like saying what a worthless post you just made because it's so obsurd to be countering my point with your one specific experience (did you also buy a Nintendo console for a Nintendo exclusive?). I said in general because I was generalizing and your speicfic test case is meaningless to me generalization.

No, I am not mad at all.

Are you disagreeing that the majority of people who buy a Sony or Microsft console are doing so for there vast library of games, which do include some exclusives that figure in to that decision. The Nintendo console is bought for it's library of games that mostly consists of exclusives. Just look at the software sales man.

 

[Foxi4]

You say: 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.

This is a conditional statement, which is signified by the "If". To me, a successful system is a system that both manages to enter the mainstream of gaming and is profitable.

You are referring to your gaming experience as the other factor of success. (If you were referring to some other mysterious measure of success than please provide a correction)

The gaming experience is an obvious measurement of success of a gaming system. To be successful on the market place, a video game console needs to have video games, preferably from a variety of developers. How is that mind-boggling?

You say:
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.

And You also say:
the Wii and the DS don't have any excuses for being outdated Day 1,

Nintendo's profitability has zero impact on my gaming experience, my gaming experience is derrived from, I don't know, gaming? And yes, the Wii and the DS have absolutely no excuses for being outdated from Day 1, they could've been far greater systems than they were, which doesn't negate the fact that they were successful in certain areas. To be exact, both were successful as business ventures for Nintendo as a company, in addition to that, the DS was a successful system for its consumers because it offered plenty of games. The Wii's situation in regards to the latter factor can be disputable, I can't imagine having just a Wii and treating it as a primary gaming system simply because the vast majority of titles flew right over it due to hardware inferiority.

You are playing word games.

I'm typing in plain English.

You criticize the Wii and DS for being outdated hardware on day 1 and go on to point out how that was mistake that limited your gaming experience on those devices

On the Wii it did. The DS happened to dominate the gaming market (I'll exclude soccer moms and Wii Fit users in the Wii's case, thank you very much) so it wasn't hindered by its poor hardware nearly as much as the Wii was.

and you are proclaiming this gaming experience to be the thing you use to measure success of system by because you can't use profits because your are trying to slam the most profitable company and you can't just use gaming experience because it is a subjective field of discussion.

Wow. Reading is hard.

First of all, constructive criticism is not slamming, you're imagining things or you're purposely reading things completely out of context desperately looking for something to grab hold onto. Secondly, yes, gaming experience is entirely subjective, however when given two options, "Nintendo franchises and every major multiplatform title" and "Just Nintendo franchises and a handful of select multiplatform titles", one of those options is clearly superior. I don't think you'll need a degree of any kind to pick which one it is. It's literally like asking whether you'd like a basket of 10 apples and 2 oranges or a basket of 10 apples and 20 oranges.

Are you disagreeing that the majority of people who buy a Sony or Microsft console are doing so for there vast library of games, which do include some exclusives that figure in to that decision. The Nintendo console is bought for it's library of games that mostly consists of exclusives. Just look at the software sales man.

Explain, pray tell, why the N64 sold like donkey poop when it had all the great Nintendo franchises you speak of. Clearly it should've sold more than the PS1, I mean, it had all the Nintendo franchises people buy systems for! Unless... unless the amoung of die-hard Nintendo fans is greatly limited and catering to them and them alone spells doom for a system when it comes to global adoption? Could that be it?

 

[Gahars]

Gahars' Maxim: If you have to tell people you aren't mad, you're pretty mad.

 

[blaisedinsd]

Industry standards are set by developers and hardware manufacturers outside on Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft's jurisdiction.
Sure, I mean, who plays Halo, right?
Company =/= System. A successful company can release an unsuccessful system and vice versa, a failing company can release a successful system. You seem to be reading whatever you want to read and adding a fair bit of your own imagination while at it - I never, not once, said that the DS or the Wii were unsucessful systems, I said that they were underwhelming from a hardware stand-point. If I have said that the DS and the Wii were unsuccessful consoles, do me a favor and quote that exact post.

You keep bringing up console wars and I don't quite know why. Your entire point is that from a consumer stand-point, a measurement of success is whether a system is enjoyable or not. I don't know how your gaming habits look like, but I tend to use my consoles to play games on - mainstream systems get those, non-mainstream ones... not so much.
Me and everybody else who hasn't bought a Wii U yet and has no plans of doing so, which appears to be a lot of people considering the fact that the PS4 already outsold it after being on the market for a couple months and the Xbox One isn't far behind. Hmm...

Again, I should probably jettison myself from the thread at this point, I'm only still here to reply to you.

*Follows link, even though it's VGChartz ergo not a reliable source*

*Closes tab*

I'm glad that we're posting "educated guesses" instead of actual calculations based on factual data as "fact".

Industry standards are set by hardware manufacturers actually and they only become standards if they are successful. Supporting motion controlled gaming is now basically a standard I guess in the way you are talking about it.

My point about the console wars is that you are making points that all go back to the console wars and I say that console wars do not mean jack squat.

The company is trying to make money. That's what matters to the company. The consumer is trying to have fun playing games. That's what matters to someone buying a video game console. All the crap you are talking about outside of those things, they don't matter.

You have an opinion about Nintendo and the Wii U and you want to tell everyone WHY you won't buy a Wii U. NOBODY CARES. Stop being so self important. I bought a Wii U. I like it. I don't care that you don't like it and won't buy it. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the console. If I like it and Nintendo ends up making money on it then everyone is happy except you who didn't even buy one. We don't need to hear about how you think the console you like better is actually better to you....you know why? Because that is just BS console war poppy cock talk that no one needs. Your console can't do plenty of awesome shit that I really enjoy doing with my Wii U just like my Wii U can't do stuff the other consoles can. I buy each one based on there own merits. Someone coming around telling you why one is not as good as the other because of such and such comparrison...well that person is just a fan boy and should be ignored.

 

[chavosaur]

You have an opinion about Nintendo and the Wii U and you want to tell everyone WHY you won't buy a Wii U. NOBODY CARES.

I care full well actually, as do many others because we get a non biased opinion on Nintendo instead of the Typical fanboy perspective.

 

[Foxi4]

Industry standards are set by hardware manufacturers actually and they only become standards if they are successful. Supporting motion controlled gaming is now basically a standard I guess in the way you are talking about it.

And there I thought gaming standards were set by global conglomerates like the Khronos Group who's in charge of OpenGL and oversees the development of 3D technology years ahead of its implementation by console manufacturers. Or by Intel, AMD and IBM, the major CPU manufacturers who control their roadmaps and set new milestones in computing years ahead of implementing their technologies in consoles. Or by game developers who follow those industry trends and take advantage of certain features, creating a demand for their implementation and/or polishing in future systems. Damn, I was deceived!

My point about the console wars is that you are making points that all go back to the console wars and I say that console wars do not mean jack squat.

Pretty sure that you're the only one in this thread who even invoked that term.

The company is trying to make money. That's what matters to the company. The consumer is trying to have fun playing games. That's what matters to someone buying a video game console. All the crap you are talking about outside of those things, they don't matter.

You are confusing the success of a company (profitability) with the success of a product (adoption by the target audience), and you continue to do so despite explaining to you numerous times that products are profitable because there's a demand for them coming from customers and not the other way around.

You have an opinion about Nintendo and the Wii U and you want to tell everyone WHY you won't buy a Wii U. NOBODY CARES. Stop being so self important. I bought a Wii U. I like it. I don't care that you don't like it and won't buy it. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the console. If I like it and Nintendo ends up making money on it then everyone is happy except you who didn't even buy one. We don't need to hear about how you think the console you like better is actually better to you....you know why? Because that is just BS console war poppy cock talk that no one needs. Your console can't do plenty of awesome shit that I really enjoy doing with my Wii U just like my Wii U can't do stuff the other consoles can. I buy each one based on there own merits. Someone coming around telling you why one is not as good as the other because of such and such comparrison...well that person is just a fan boy and should be ignored.

"You have an opinion about Nintendo and the Wii U and you want to tell everyone WHY they should buy a Wii U. NOBODY CARES. Stop being so self important. I didn't buy a Wii U. I think it's a missed opportunity. I don't care that you like it and bought it. It doesn't affect my lack of enjoyment of the console. If I don't like it and Nintendo ends up losing money on it then everyone is sad except you who did buy one. We don't need to hear about how you think the console you like better is actually better to you....you know why? Because that is just BS console war poppy cock talk that no one needs. Your console can't do plenty of awesome shit that I really enjoy doing with my other systems just like my other systems can't do stuff the Wii U can. I buy each one based on their own merits. Someone coming around telling you why one is not as good as the other because of such and such comparison...well that person is just a fan boy and should be ignored."

Right, first of all. Telling someone that something is better than something else by means of comparison is not fanboyism - it's comparative analysis. Telling someone that something is better than something else because it's made by company X and disregarding comparative analysis is fanboyism. Secondly, you say that I don't like the Wii U and don't want to buy one - that's interesting, considering that I'm planning to buy one in the nearby future. Regardless of whether I'd want to buy one or not, neither the Wii U nor Nintendo as a whole are immune to criticism, they're not wearing any form of a holy veil and they can be criticized for their shortcomings - if you can't handle that, chances are that perhaps you're the fanboy here.

Now, forgive me for not kneeling down and gobbling on the huge Nintendo shlong and being happy with each and every policy and each and every piece of hardware they ever released on the market - I guess I just judge things by their real-life merits, just like you claim you do.

 

[blaisedinsd]

This is a conditional statement, which is signified by the "If". To me, a successful system is a system that both manages to enter the mainstream of gaming and is profitable.
The gaming experience is an obvious measurement of success of a gaming system. To be successful on the market place, a video game console needs to have video games, preferably from a variety of developers. How is that mind-boggling?
Nintendo's profitability has zero impact on my gaming experience, my gaming experience is derrived from, I don't know, gaming? And yes, the Wii and the DS have absolutely no excuses for being outdated from Day 1, they could've been far greater systems than they were, which doesn't negate the fact that they were successful in certain areas. To be exact, both were successful as business ventures for Nintendo as a company, in addition to that, the DS was a successful system for its consumers because it offered plenty of games. The Wii's situation in regards to the latter factor can be disputable, I can't imagine having just a Wii and treating it as a primary gaming system simply because the vast majority of titles flew right over it due to hardware inferiority.
I'm typing in plain English.
On the Wii it did. The DS happened to dominate the gaming market (I'll exclude soccer moms and Wii Fit users in the Wii's case, thank you very much) so it wasn't hindered by its poor hardware nearly as much as the Wii was.
Wow. Reading is hard.

First of all, constructive criticism is not slamming, you're imagining things or you're purposely reading things completely out of context desperately looking for something to grab hold onto. Secondly, yes, gaming experience is entirely subjective, however when given two options, "Nintendo franchises and every major multiplatform title" and "Just Nintendo franchises and a handful of select multiplatform titles", one of those options is clearly superior. I don't think you'll need a degree of any kind to pick which one it is. It's literally like asking whether you'd like a basket of 10 apples and 2 oranges or a basket of 10 apples and 20 oranges.

Explain, pray tell, why the N64 sold like donkey poop when it had all the great Nintendo franchises you speak of. Clearly it should've sold more than the PS1, I mean, it had all the Nintendo franchises people buy systems for! Unless... unless the amoung of die-hard Nintendo fans is greatly limited and catering to them and them alone spells doom for a system when it comes to global adoption? Could that be it?

Well your definition of a consoles success is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.

Gaming experience is a completely subjective experience. It has to be in the mainstream of gaming which is also subjective because you absolutely would not equate sales or profit with this criteria either.

And then you also criticize the DS which is successful by all your random measures and still criticize it for not being powerful enough.

Basically nothing you say makes any sense when you try to present as anything other than console war anti-Nintendo rhetoric and it makes perfect sense when you do present it as that. You should either admit you are just a fan boy or cease and desist.

And to everyone else, I am not even a Nintendo fan boy here. I am not blindly defending Nintendos actions. I am not saying they do everything right. I am not saying their console is the greatest or anything of the sort. I own plenty of video game consoles and the Wii U is one I own and I happen to enjoy it. It has plenty of games that I enjoy and I have a good time playing it. I fully acknowledge it has not been selling well and has been struggling, I am simply saying that doesn't really matter. I think they will still end up making money on it in the end and even if they don't they are still in a strong financial position and committed to hardware and software and will try to come out with something even better next time. I have plenty of criticisms I can level at the Wii U as well but power and gaming standards or third party support are not part of those.

 

[Foxi4]

Well your definition of a consoles success is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.

Thank you?

Gaming experience is a completely subjective experience. It has to be in the mainstream of gaming which is also subjective because you absolutely would not equate sales or profit with this criteria either.

Holy crap, I'll explain it again. Nintendo games + third party is objectively better than just Nintendo games because it covers a wider spectrum, it's better overall, it provides variety with absolutely no losses on first-party titles, it's a better choice for the customer, damn. Not rocket science.

And then you also criticize the DS which is successful by all your random measures and still criticize it for not being powerful enough.

Because having a good games library and fantastic sales does not in any shape or form influence the hardware which was poopie. Succeeding in one field doesn't cover your failings in another - they're still there and they can still be criticized.

Basically nothing you say makes any sense when you try to present as anything other than console war anti-Nintendo rhetoric and it makes perfect sense when you do. You should either admit you are just a fan boy or cease and desist.

It would probably made sense if you sat down and read it instead of pulling the victim routine and accusing me of anti-Nintendo rhethoric when all I'm posting is criticism of real-life flaws of the systems.

And to everyone else, I am not even a Nintendo fan boy here. I am not blindly defending Nintendos actions. I am not saying they do everything right. I am not saying their console is the greatest or anything of the sort. I own plenty of video game consoles and the Wii U is one I own and I happen to enjoy it. It has plenty of games that I enjoy and I have a good time playing it. I fully acknowledge it has not been selling well and has been struggling, I am simply saying that doesn't really matter. I think they will still end up making money on it in the end and even if they don't they are still in a strong financial position and committed to hardware and software and will try to come out with something even better next time. I have plenty of criticisms I can level at the Wii U as well but power and gaming standards or third party support are not part of those.

We're all happy that you enjoy the Wii U. I don't think any less of you for enjoying it, each to their own tastes. Does it magically protect the Wii U from objective criticism? Not really.

 

[blaisedinsd]

I am not defending the Wii U from objective criticism. Where am I doing that? Am I saying that sales are great? Am I saying third party support is great? Am I saying that the gamepad was a brilliant idea? Am I saying the system is the most powerful? Am I saying that you should buy one?

NO NO NO

To repeat what I am saying:
1. If Nintendo makes money on it than they don't care what you think.
2. If I (or any other Wii U owner) enjoys their console than I(we) don't care what you think.

3. Everything else is just console war topics (this has this, this doesn't have that, they should have done this, they shouldn't do that, blah blah blah)

Comparitive analysis of video game consoles not a fanboy topic?

I engage in plenty of conversations about what the Wii U needs to do better, yes I even criticize it. But I don't sit there and criticize it for not being a mainstream standard type of console. It's not even trying to be that and I simply don't think your criticisms saying it's failing because it's not that make much sense. You could give the Wii U the power, the hard drive, the online service, the bluray playback, etc. and it would still be in the same position basically IMO. The only difference may be that some extra third party games that don't even sell on the console would be available because the port was so cheap to do.

 

[VMM]

Industry standards are set by hardware manufacturers actually and they only become standards if they are successful.

Usually, hardware is done to attend to third party developers expectations.
The difference between a game in PC and on a console tends to get bigger with time, so hardware developers release new,
more powerful hardware to keep up with the latest games.

Sony and MS followed the trend to release systems that could keep with third party developers expectations,
while Nintendo decided to take a ride in Wii success and release a successor,
a underpowered console, that would appeal to casual public with a gimmick.

It seems that the public that once bought Wii is not interested in what WiiU offers,
and probably have already migrated to other platforms(smartphones and tablets).

It would probably made sense if you sat down and read it instead of pulling the victim routine and accusing me of anti-Nintendo rhethoric when all I'm posting is criticism of real-life flaws of the systems.

I agree with everything you posted so far except this.
It's obvious DS was underpowered, but that does not translate into a failure,
it had fantastic sales and great third party support,
viewing it from the point of view of market, it's an absolute success.

 

[Foxi4]

I am not defending the Wii U from objective criticism. Where am I doing that? Am I saying that sales are great? Am I saying third party support is great? Am I saying that the gamepad was a brilliant idea? Am I saying the system is the most powerful? Am I saying that you should buy one?

NO NO NO

To repeat what I am saying:
1. If Nintendo makes money on it than they don't care what you think.
2. If I (or any other Wii U owner) enjoys their console than I(we) don't care what you think.
3. Everything else is just console war topics (this has this, this doesn't have that, they should have done this, they shouldn't do that, blah blah blah)

Okay, we're slowly reaching a common ground on which we can actually talk, but we're still quite a bit away from reaching total consensus. Let me contest those three points by presenting a scenario.

Imagine if you will, that Nintendo releases a console which 1) Doesn't sell very well and isn't adopted into the mainstream, 2) Isn't supported by major development studios and as such has a very narrow library of titles, not to say "nogaems", 3) Makes a profit. Now answer a question - is that a successful console in terms of gaming and/or adoption, not in terms of profitability, we've established that a profit was made, however insignificant it might be. Because that's what I'm driving at.

Some people, if not most, expect regular game releases on systems they own. They want to be certain that they won't find themselves in a situation where they buy one (probably first-party) game, enjoy it for a bit, then wait several months before they can buy another because nothing interesting is coming out. People generally like variety, they like to have choices. I think the Wii U's offering is lacking and I think that's a short-coming that needs to be addressed. I've been driving at that point for the last two pages, but you seem to interpret that as fanboyism.

I agree with everything you posted so far except this.
It's obvious DS was underpowered, but that does not translate into a failure,
it had fantastic sales and great third party support,
viewing it from the point of view of market, it's an absolute success.

Perhaps if you read my actual post instead of blaisedinsd's interpretation of it you'd know that I acknowledge the DS as a highly profitable, widely adopted and successful system with a big library of games but at the same time criticize it as underpowered. The example was used to show that a console's merits can be measured by a variety of factors, but the idea flew right over everyone's heads for some reason even though I think it's as straight-forward as it gets.

 

[VMM]

Perhaps if you read my actual post instead of blaisedinsd's interpretation of it you'd know that I acknowledge the DS as a highly profitable, widely adopted and successful system with a big library of games but at the same time criticize it as underpowered. The example was used to show that a console's merits can be measured by a variety of factors, but the idea flew right over everyone's heads for some reason even though I think it's as straight-forward as it gets.

I think you didn't get what I mean.
I'm saying, how can you criticize DS for been underpowered when it became such massive success?
Just look at PSP, a powerful handheld for it's time, but it had tons of problems with sales and third party support in it's early years.
From a point of view of market, releasing DS, even underpowered as it was, was the right thing to do.

 

[Foxi4]

I think you didn't get what I mean.
I'm saying, how can you criticize DS for been underpowered when it became such massive success?
Just look at PSP, a powerful handheld for it's time, but it had tons of problems with sales and third party support in it's early years.
From a point of view of market, releasing DS, even underpowered as it was, was the right thing to do.

I can criticize the DS for being underpowered because it was underpowered - why wouldn't I if it was? I think it would've been a better system if it had a little bit more juice to it, as good as it already was. Again, Nintendo started off from the privileged pole position after the massive success of the GBA and I have no doubt that this alone contributed to the initial adoption rate. I offer the same criticism to the 3DS - I think it's underpowered as well. The difference between the 3DS/DS and the Wii/Wii U is that the former met the par, meaning developer requirements, and as such, they enjoy/ed a steady flow of quality releases. The Wii/Wii U didn't meet said par and suffer from it. Of course this kind of a comparison is a matter of comparing apples and oranges, but that's besides the point.

 

[VMM]

I can criticize the DS for being underpowered because it was underpowered - why wouldn't I if it was? I think it would've been a better system if it had a little bit more juice to it, as good as it already was. Again, Nintendo started off from the privileged pole position after the massive success that was the GBA and I have no doubt that this alone contributed to the initial adoption rate. I offer the same criticism to the 3DS - I think it's underpowered as well. The difference between the 3DS/DS and the Wii/Wii U is that the former met the par, meaning developer requirements, and as such, they enjoy/ed a steady flow of quality releases. The Wii/Wii U don't meet said par and suffer from it. Of course this kind of a comparison is a matter of comparing apples and oranges, but that's besides the point.

Let me make things this way:
If you could go back in time, assume as Nintendo CEO and had the option to release DS is, or more powerful the way you, as a consumer wanted,
what would you do?
Since DS made such huge success and had plenty third party support, it can be said it was right to release it the way it is,
from the point of view of marketing. You can keep criticizing DS for been underpowered as long as you want, but I doubt you would have done defferent,
only a fool would trade the certain success of DS for having a somewhat better system.

 

[Dork]

1. If Nintendo makes money on it than they don't care what you think.

Companies are always looking for feedback, and you have to understand that there is more to selling a console than just gross profit for the company, like market share and investors.

2. If I (or any other Wii U owner) enjoys their console than I(we) don't care what you think.

So why are you on this forum than if you're gonna just tell people you don't care, then go off to write walls of text?