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

[Bladexdsl]

i'll say it again like i've said before (and this time it's not trolling ) making the wii-u not region free was a BIG MISTAKE. devs these days don't want to make 2 separate versions it not only takes more time but costs them more money. if a console is region free and one isn't they will choose the region free ones to make their games on.

this is one of the big reasons the wii-u is failing.

 

[FAST6191]

The conversation of the last page has me curious. I wonder if this bad news will further see the sales of the Wii U decimated.

 

[Bladexdsl]

nintendo needs to wake up and face reality instead of staying in their own little world and doing things their way it just doesn't work these days. they need to meet the market, change their ways and embrace the future otherwise they will be DOOMED.

 

[Iluyan]

On a second thought an 3D Pokémon game, with online support a bit like mmo could really save the Wii U. One which would include all worlds, Kanto, Jotho etc and all Pokémon.
If the game would be stable then im sure a game like that would be a big hit and could turn a lot of ppl into buying an Wii U for it.

 

[Foxi4]

Wisenheimer On a complete side note, regarding the whole vocabulary debacle, the matter got me thinking and once I had the chance to check some of the publications on the matter, the general conclusion I drew was that English as a language consists of aprox. 54000 word families, out of which 3000 are essential for communitaction. On average, a native speaker wields about 17000 out of those families wheras a non-native speaker ranges between 3000-5000 on average depending on the advancement level. Bummer.

Notwithstanding, non-native speaker vocabulary is richer in systematic terminology and metalanguage, they know how to "talk about the language in that language" so to speak, which is perhaps what I must've connected with the "richness" at the time of writing my reply. This is why often times non-native speakers make better teachers of that language - having been through the process themselves, they're more aware of the problems a student might face.

To summarize, as far as the sheer number of vocabulary items is concerned, native speakers trump non-native speakers, however native speakers have a nasty tendency to use slang or regional idiomatic expressions while at it. Non-natives have a more systematic language, as is their approach towards learning the language.

...which means that you were correct in assuming that my knowledge of vocabulary may be lacking in comparison - I mixed up facts and as such I subsequently struck through the false claim in my post. My bad - I admit that in that regard I was wrong, just to clear the air. Sorry for clinging to the issue like a limpet, it's just that as a linguist this is sort of my area of expertise.

Now, no more linguist off-topic conversations, lest the moderators slam me with the Warn Hammer.

 

[Wisenheimer]

Wisenheimer On a complete side note, regarding the whole vocabulary debacle, the matter got me thinking and once I had the chance to check some of the publications on the matter, the general conclusion I drew was that English as a language consists of aprox. 54000 word families, out of which 3000 are essential for communitaction. On average, a native speaker wields about 17000 out of those families wheras a non-native speaker ranges between 3000-5000 on average depending on the advancement level. Bummer.

Notwithstanding, non-native speaker vocabulary is richer in systematic terminology and metalanguage, they know how to "talk about the language in that language" so to speak, which is perhaps what I must've connected with the "richness" at the time of writing my reply. This is why often times non-native speakers make better teachers of that language - having been through the process themselves, they're more aware of the problems a student might face.

To summarize, as far as the sheer number of vocabulary items is concerned, native speakers trump non-native speakers, however native speakers have a nasty tendency to use slang or regional idiomatic expressions while at it. Non-natives have a more systematic language, as is their approach towards learning the language.

...which means that you were correct in assuming that my knowledge of vocabulary may be lacking in comparison - I mixed up facts and as such I subsequently struck through the false claim in my post. My bad - I admit that in that regard I was wrong, just to clear the air. Sorry for clinging to the issue like a limpet, it's just that as a linguist this is sort of my area of expertise.

Now, no more linguist off-topic conversations, lest the moderators slam me with the Warn Hammer.

I thought you were talking about a university educated foreigner having a larger active vocabulary than an average American, so it did not really trigger my skeptic bells.

Of course, unless a foreigner grows up and is educated for most of his life in a foreign land, he will likely never have the same working vocabulary as an educated person. For instance, think about all the subjects you studied in school that contained jargon of some sort. I am no biologist, but I know what acetylcholinesterase is. Now, science is a probably a bad example, because the US currently dominates it and most foreign scientific words are somewhat similar, but I remember a Russian physics professor who did not know how to say flywheel in English.

And, of course, there are cultural references that might be hard to get. If I say someone hit a home run with their offer, that they punted the work order, that they were a Monday morning quarterback, or that I brought in a designated hitter to deal with the situation, that might not make much sense to you if you were not an American or familiar with American sports euphemisms. Likewise, if you actually play and watch certain sports, your vocabulary is probably full of terms like Line of Scrimmage, Read Option, red zone, infield fly rule, et cetera that a foreigner would not be familiar with and which you might make reference to in metaphor.

 

[Deltaechoe]

I'll just put this here, I'm glad I didn't have to pay a cent for my Wii U, it's sitting in a drawer in my bonus room and I don't see it coming out of there any time soon

i'll say it again like i've said before (and this time it's not trolling ) making the wii-u not region free was a BIG MISTAKE. devs these days don't want to make 2 separate versions it not only takes more time but costs them more money. if a console is region free and one isn't they will choose the region free ones to make their games on.

this is one of the big reasons the wii-u is failing.

Lack of power, a different architecture than the rest of the systems, less than stellar marketing all lead to the anemic support by third parties which in turn lead to lousy sales numbers. Nintendo failed to evolve along with the market and are behind by about a generation now. The Wii was a bit of a fluke but the Wii U is a bonafide flop and I don't think even a great game can pull it out of this funk.

 

[Social_Outlaw]

Not fixing error due to the fact im on the web version of gba temp on my phone, and it takes forever to fix .

I think nintendo messed up a little.
My opinion

When the 8th gen came out, Nintendo thought they could pull it off Again like they did with the 7gen, but people didn't care about graphics until later on in 7th gen, when big titles start showing up on ps3 xbox 360 and wii with improvement of graphics things start changing early . Now lets talk a couples months later when sony, and Microsoft start teasing new consoles, that was the day when 7gen basically was over, because people was, so eager to wait to get the new consoles, people didn't care no more of their 7th gen console they still played for fun, but all that fun was over when the ps4, and xbox 1came out therefore introducing us in to early 8th gen. When the wii u came out it was somewhat over, due to the fact that the hardware is basically 7th gen...
I hope nintendo pull it together I still believe in them I been a nintendo fan since 03, and im still enjoying it.

 

[Foxi4]

Lack of power, a different architecture than the rest of the systems, less than stellar marketing all lead to the anemic support by third parties which in turn lead to lousy sales numbers. Nintendo failed to evolve along with the market and are behind by about a generation now. The Wii was a bit of a fluke but the Wii U is a bonafide flop and I don't think even a great game can pull it out of this funk.

This pretty much encompasses most of what's currently wrong with their Wii U strategy. Nintendo needs to step out of their 90'ties mindest - "releasing games for their system" is no longer a priviledge developers are going to fight for, it's rather a favor developers do them on occasion. Either they'll make it worth the third-party's time or... the third-party will go elsewhere - they have plenty of alternatives, and first-party alone will not push the system to greatness.

 

[blaisedinsd]

I agree with that but think it is a shame. I haven't seen anything on PS4 or Xbone that makes me think "damn these 7th gen games look like ass".

Looking at multi-platform game footage most people would be hard pressed I believe to pick out which looks the best with out going in to detailed analysis of the images.

Wii U is plenty powerful enough to compete and run these games right now so its sad for people to dismiss the console as under powered in my opinion. I think the power factor is a big reason so many have been quick to jump on the new consoles but I don't think that is going to sustain their growth for very long unless they start coming out with the games that justify the need for this extra horse power.

 

[WarMachine77]

I like the use of the word flop.

Sensationalist writing at it's best.

 

[osirisjem]

I like the use of the word flop.

When someone slashes a yearly sales forecast by 30%, that's a "Major Miss"
When someone slashes a yearly sales forecast by 70%, that's definitely a Flop.

What word would you use ?

 

[Foxi4]

Wii U is plenty powerful enough to compete and run these games right now so (...)

No, it really, really isn't. The CPU alone is aprox. 3 times slower in terms of raw DMIPS and GPGPU will not help in this situation when the GPU itself is also poorer in comparison. Even the (not so) small differences between the XBox One and the PS4 cause discrepancies - games generally run at a higher resolution on the PS4 wheras on the XBox One they're rendered at a lower resolution and upscaled by the on-board scaler, and this alone makes a world of difference. The Wii U isn't in the same league in terms of hardware and although it will be able to more or less keep up with multiplatform titles for now by getting watered down versions like the Wii initially did, this state of matters will not last. In 2-3 years time the Wii U hardware will enter the realm of hardware obsoleteness.

 

[blaisedinsd]

No, it really, really isn't. The CPU alone is aprox. 3 times slower in terms of raw DMIPS and GPGPU will not help in this situation when the GPU itself is also poorer in comparison. Even the (not so) small differences between the XBox One and the PS4 cause discrepancies - games generally run at a higher resolution on the PS4 wheras on the XBox One they're rendered at a lower resolution and upscaled by the on-board scaler, and this alone makes a world of difference. The Wii U isn't in the same league in terms of hardware and although it will be able to more or less keep up with multiplatform titles for now by getting watered down versions like the Wii initially did, this state of matters will not last. In 2-3 years time the Wii U hardware will enter the realm of hardware obsoleteness.

Right, so exactly like I said pretty much. 2-3 years where the Wii U is plenty powerful enough to run multi-platform games pretty well. As of now these multi-platform games do not look all that much better on the PS4 to most people. The people who do think the graphical improvements are a big deal should really think about going to PC gaming if those graphical improvements are a big deal.

IMO the diminishing returns of improved processing power delivering improved graphics is a major reason the console generation was the longest ever. The Wii was behind and not in the same boat and should have been replaced about 2 years sooner than it was. Skyward Sword could have gone just like Twilight princess and been released on both consoles.

The Wii U can do that this time around. Give us 4 years of support (a new console in 2-3 years) and I don't think anyone would be complaining if Nintendo comes out with a replacement more powerful than PS4 and Xbone at that time. I think Nintendo fans will be happy to get the newest iterations of flagship franchises and will not complain about the consoles life lingering on past that. Heck Sony was fine releaseing GOW2 on PS2 even after PS3 launched so I doubt anyone would freak out if the wheels were turning on a new console while Wii U still has some games on the way.

I am not exclusively a Nintendo gamer, but I see nothing compelling about PS4 or Xbone at this time and think the Wii U is far and away a better choice in every way. As a PS3 and 360 owner I see nothing compelling me to upgrade right now. Wii U was more compelling at launch than what they have so far and it's even more so now as it's game library has grown.

Q3 financials show Nintendo with a profit this quarter. Wii U is close to having sold 6 million units.

 

[osirisjem]

source: http://bgr.com/2014/01/28/wii-u-most-anticipated-games-2014/

I guess these are all sequels ?
is X heavily derived from Xenoblade ?

 

[blaisedinsd]

http://www.nintendo.com/corp/annual_report.jsp

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/

http://www.microsoft.com/investor/AnnualReports/default.aspx

You can see here for Sony PS1 makes profit, Ps2 initially loses money but then makes a profit, the PS3 loses a bunch of money before it starts making a some.

Microsoft loses a bunch on Xbox, but 360 for the most part makes money.

For nintendo you see them making money consistently, than the Wii making tons of money before slowing down. You would see a small dip if the graph was updated I think. But to think a small dip mean Nintendo is doomed or that this is their last home console? That doesn't compute for me.

 

[calmwaters]

"...opt for the faster PS4 and Xbox One." I hate to say this, but, your lust for power is helping to kill Nintendo's game system. Any person (and I do mean any person) who buys an electronic device just for its power is a dipshit. I know you people on here aren't like this, though. You just clamor about how pathetically easy Mario games are and that you'd like them to be harder so you would die in them more often.

I got to try out the U demo station at Best Buy and I loved every minute of it. The Super Mario Bros. U was so much fun; Rayman was fun too, but I'd have to play it a bit more because I sucked at it. I don't know what else to say; I'm so disappointed. You people call yourselves gamers and don't even buy a game console so you can play games on them. Instead, you endlessly bitch about how there are no games on the system (or none that are incredibly hard and make you rage every 20 minutes; ); just what is your definition of a game? I've concluded from everything I've heard that games are supposed to be challenging. If I'm wrong, then correct me, but I don't see how something challenging could be fun. And I'm not referring to Lego-style games either. Would you wish that all the fun be sucked out of the game so it would be a challenge? Or can you just settle for having an enjoyable experience? If it's the former, then I would just stop playing games if I were you: it might be hard to admit it, but you've gotten too old for games. But if it's somewhere in between, then you'll have to let the enjoyable experience be more than 50 out of 100 points, 100 being the amount of value you get from a game.

 

[Foxi4]

*Look! They make more money!*

Literally nobody cares. I don't care, the guy next to me doesn't, neither does his grandma. The amount of money Nintendo makes as a company is completely irrelevant if they cannot deliver a good system which provides a good gaming experience.

Moreover, your little chart there omits one very important detail - Nintendo's handhelds. From what I noticed, everybody under the sun completely ignores that the N64 bombed but the Game Boy and the Game Boy Colour carried the company through, the Gamecube bombed even worse but the Game Boy Advance carried the company through and right now the Wii U bombs and the 3DS carries the company through. When you sit down and realize that they haven't released a "good" console since the SNES, it stops being funny. The Wii is no exception - it sold well, but only due to the emerging casual market and the "Wii Fit" mom and pops market, both of which are gone now - they moved on and Nintendo didn't.

There was a time not so long ago when people didn't refer to a video game system by saying "console" - the average mum or dad yelled at their kids "turn off your Nintendo or you'll be late for school!" - remember those days? Gone.

Nintendo used to be the go-to place for entertainment - people didn't buy the NES or the SNES solely to play Mario games y'know. People bought those systems to play the next Final Fantasy, to play the next Contra, the next Street Fighter or Castlevania. People bought those systems because they had good games - the name "Nintendo" used to be synonymous with fantastic support and an abundance of titles to choose from. This is not the case anymore.

It's great that they're making loads of money - primarily because they have a strong first-party development machine which spits out games like there's no tomorrow and secondarily because they rarely sell systems at a loss, and when they do, the loss is negligable. That's not what Microsoft or Sony do - when Sony released the PS3, selling one actually cost them around $200, but they hoped to make up for this by selling games. Microsoft sold the 360 at a loss as well, hoping that the services they provide, including XBox Live about which post statisticians forget when rounding up the profits and losses.

In a lot of ways, Nintendo lost its way - the company lost touch with the gaming industry and confined themselves in a bubble of ignorance. They don't follow industry standards, they release systems with specs relevant only to their own imagination and they continue to live according to the "releasing a game on a Nintendo system is a privilege" mindset taken straight from the 90'ties - it's not the 90'ties anymore.

The 3DS is doing well, very well in fact, but the money pillow it provides shrinks every single day. Somebody has to wake up at Big N and revise their strategies, otherwise soon enough that chart of yours is going to show a pretty sharp decline.

 

[calmwaters]

Literally nobody cares. I don't care, the guy next to me doesn't, neither does his grandma. The amount of money Nintendo makes as a company is completely irrelevant if they cannot deliver a good system which provides a good gaming experience.

Good being used subjectively here. They delivered a system; they delivered a gaming experience; I am one of the few people who finds it to be good in both aspects.

Moreover, your little chart there omits one very important detail - Nintendo's handhelds. From what I noticed, everybody under the sun completely ignores that the N64 bombed but the Game Boy and the Game Boy Colour carried the company through, the Gamecube bombed even worse but the Game Boy Advance carried the company through and right now the Wii U bombs and the 3DS carries the company through. When you sit down and realize that they haven't released a "good" console since the SNES, it stops being funny. The Wii is no exception - it sold well, but only due to the emerging casual market and the "Wii Fit" mom and pops market, both of which are gone now - they moved on and Nintendo didn't.

I guess we can say that this chart only refers to the selling lives of consoles, not consoles and portables. And I never really understood why Nintendo's handhelds dominated their sales. I mean, console games had so much more content on them, which is what people look for in a game... I think.

There was a time not so long ago when people didn't refer to a video game system by saying "console" - the average mum or dad yelled at their kids "turn off your Nintendo or you'll be late for school!" - remember those days? Gone.

I've taken to calling the U the Nintendo; this trend needs to start again, and not just for nostalgic purposes.

Nintendo used to be the go-to place for entertainment - people didn't buy the NES or the SNES solely to play Mario games y'know. People bought those systems to play the next Final Fantasy, to play the next Contra, the next Street Fighter or Castlevania. People bought those systems because they had good games - the name "Nintendo" used to be synonymous with fantastic support and an abundance of titles to choose from. This is not the case anymore.

Thanks for depressing me. It's not wise to let the facts of the past influence your beliefs of the present. Apparently after 400 years, the Mystics still hold a grudge against the humans because they lost the war. Two of the Mystics' mottoes were forgive and forget, but not many people seemed to agree with them.

It's great that they're making loads of money - primarily because they have a strong first-party development machine which spits out games like there's no tomorrow and secondarily because they rarely sell systems at a loss, and when they do, the loss is negligible. That's not what Microsoft or Sony do - when Sony released the PS3, selling one actually cost them around $200, but they hoped to make up for this by selling games. Microsoft sold the 360 at a loss as well, hoping that the services they provide, including XBox Live about which post statisticians forget when rounding up the profits and losses.

Yes it is.

In a lot of ways, Nintendo lost its way - the company lost touch with the gaming industry and confined themselves in a bubble of ignorance. They don't follow industry standards, they release systems with specs relevant only to their own imagination and they continue to live according to the "releasing a game on a Nintendo system is a privilege" mindset taken straight from the 90'ties - it's not the 90'ties anymore.

Releasing a game on the Nintendo is a privilege; but fewer and fewer people are taking advantage of it. It's sad, really. Developers should jump at the chance to publish their games, no matter what the console is.

The 3DS is doing well, very well in fact, but the money pillow it provides shrinks every single day. Somebody has to wake up at Big N and revise their strategies, otherwise soon enough that chart of yours is going to show a pretty sharp decline.

Like you said, the GameBoy dominated the GameCube. It's likely that the 3DS will dominate the Nintendo, based on this. It's hard to imagine a portable that will become my sole provider of entertainment since I like playing a console at home instead of a portable and have become accustomed to it. Then again, I didn't accrue 80,000 studs in the Lego Star Wars game just from playing it every now and then.

 

[Foxi4]

Releasing a game on the Nintendo is a privilege.

Please tell that to all the shovelware developers on the Wii, the DS, the 3DS and the Wii U. The "Nintendo's Seal of Quality" is all but spent. Releasing a game on a Nintendo platform isn't a privilege anymore, it hasn't been for a number of years - there are plenty alternatives. It's Nintendo who should work towards enticing third-party developers to develop for their system, not the other way around because it's Nintendo who wants to sell that system in the first place. It's their job to secure its future - developers can go elsewhere, to Sony, to Microsoft, to Valve, to Google or to Apple.