-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I like the Xbox Series X name, but I feel like this is another Wii U branding disaster in the making
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
Blaming the Wii U's name is a great excuse because then you don't have to admit that the games just weren't compelling.
This.
The games weren't compelling. The hardware wasn't compelling. The services weren't compelling. The marketing wasn't compelling. The wii u was a woefully uninteresting product.
Calling it Wii 2 wouldn't have saved it. There might have been a few people confused by these name, but most just didn't understand what was supposed to make the device worth owning.
Nope, Microsoft knows how to market it and the game and services lineup will be compelling at launch. This is the same backseat gamer product management which I see a lot of on ERA :p
It reminds me of the stabbed in the back theory from WW1.
If you blame the name, you can avoid having to admit that the Wii U was fundamentally just a total failure on basically every front.
It had like 5 great games and 5 decent ones. They came out once every 6 months and most of them were platformers. Unless you were an extremely die hard Nintendo fan, there was no reason to buy a Wii U.
We know it wasn't the name, cause Nintendo bounced back with, essentially, the same friggin games. If MS can do the same is a different story...
Time will tell.
the games were compelling. it's just that even compelling software can't save horribly conceived hardware.
the fact that the best selling Switch game is a Wii U port should be indication that the software was there but nothing can save a crappy concept.
the whole confusion was both the name + "is the console just the controller or an add on to the Wii" combined into one. as proved by others, weird names work if the concept is straightforward but the Wii U itself was confusing and messy. it was also very expensive and all games looked like PS360 games (this can be blamed on them keeping the same ancient tech from the GC era to have hardware BC).
The best selling Switch game is also the best selling one on Wii U, so that doesn't immediately discount the argument that the Wii U simply had a poor library. Mario Kart is also the best selling title on the 3DS and likely would have topped the charts for the Wii as well if Wii Sports had not been bundled with the system.
In my opinion, I am inclined to agree that the software lineup for the Wii U was not compelling. Regardless of how poorly conceived the system was, having a higher quantity of quality titles for the platform would have helped increase sales. The PlayStation 3 launched to anemic fanfare, yet Sony was able to turn it around with a killer output of games. The effect of this hard work continued into today, with the company now home to revered IPs such as The Last of Us and Uncharted. Meanwhile, the Wii U launched with the fourth New Super Mario Bros. game, just a few months after one had been released for the 3DS. Animal Crossing, an absolute behemoth of a game for Nintendo, was given nothing more than a spinoff party game. There was no new form of Metroid. Every release of Zelda was a remake until the exact launch day of the console's successor. Even the brand new games, such as Super Mario Maker and Splatoon, came out too late.
Simply saying the Wii U only failed because it was not an easily comprehensible idea does not paint the entire picture.
Sony wasn't alone. they had 3rd parties helping behind them, unlike Nintendo who was abandoned by almost everyone after the current gen consoles came out (just 1 year after the Wii U released).
Uncharted didn't become big until the 2nd one and that released in 2009, almost 3 years after launch. that's roughly on par with how late Splatoon released on Wii U.The Last of Us came in 2013 and at that point the Wii U had already been killed and replaced by the Switch. Nintendo was trying as best as they could but a platform holder alone can't save a sinking ship like this. also, Nintendo was also managing the 3DS in this period while Sony pretty much left the PSP to 3rd parties alone while they were saving the PS3. and let's not forget it was their transition to HD on top of that and we know how that transition hit almost every Japanese developer.
as you say, one factor doesn't paint the whole picture but the same applies to you example since the PS3 was saved by several factors, not just one. had Sony been abandoned by 3rd parties, they'd have collapsed right there.
Third party support wasn't as universal for the PS3 in its early days as it was on the 360. It either missed out on a game the 360 would get entirely, or the 360 version would be the definitive one to get. Multiplayer games benefitted from the vastly superior Xbox Live. The complex nature of the PS3's architecture also led to numerous titles performing better or be more visually appealing on the 360. Trophy support didn't even exist until July 2008. Not to mention, this was early enough in the generation when someone could purchase a brand new 360 at a significantly lower cost than a PS3 and be able to play the same game. Speaking from experience, the PS3 was only a worthwhile investment during this period if you had an interest in the current exclusives for it.
Your comparison of the release date for Splatoon to Uncharted 2 makes sense only if you do not take into account the length of each generation and the events leading up to the next one. 2009 was only about halfway into the seventh generation. The PS3 and 360 were the flagship console for each company for seven and eight years, respectively. Neither Sony nor Microsoft would announce their new console until 2013. By the time Splatoon was released, Satoru Iwata had already announced the NX. In less than two years from then, the Switch would be on store shelves. Add four more months to that date and you would already have Splatoon 2.
While the PSP did experience a turbulent release schedule after the initial dust settled, Sony did not completely neglect it. In fact, Sony exhibited more care towards it while they also worked to get the PS3 off the ground than they did with the Vita and simultaneous runaway success of the PS4. Even after the PS3 launched, the PSP received two highly rated entries in the God of War series, favorable handheld renditions of Hot Shots Golf, LittleBigPlanet, MotorStorm, Resistance, SOCOM, Syphon Filter, and even new IPs such as LocoRoco and Patapon. In contrast to the Vita, these titles were mostly developed under Sony by a first or second party studio. Meanwhile, the nail in the coffin for the Resistance series known as Resistance: Burning Skies was rushed out by Nihilistic Software.
Admittedly, The Last of Us did release pretty close to the launch of the PS4. But, Sony had managed to catch up to a respectable sales total and didn't need a game that would "save" their system. Releasing a game of that caliber late into the generation has generally been par for the course for Sony. God of War II was released for the PS2 in March 2007, after the PS3 had already hit shelves. Now, with the PS4, Ghost of Tsushima is expected to be the final major first party release prior to the PS5 launch. This trend is now looking more likely for the other guys as well. Most recently, Nintendo followed it with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Microsoft is also poised to do the same with the release of Halo Infinite alongside the Xbox Series X next year.
I am not a developer, but even I know that the transition to HD development affected studios of all sizes. Regardless of what increase it caused to development costs and time, Nintendo had an entire generation to be prepared for it. Do you remember the free Animal Crossing Plaza app for Wii U? Less than a year into launch and Nintendo already had somewhat decent assets for a potential Animal Crossing game. It was characterized by an overabundance of bloom, but was still a sufficient starting point for use in a proper game. Animal Crossing: amiibo Festival improved upon this with better lighting and a more appropriate saturation of color for the series. Again, that was all that came out of it for the Wii U. But for what reason? Poor sales of the console? A video game system will not sell well without video games to play on it. Nintendo had created a poor track record for themselves of not being able to avoid a drought of releases. It happened back-to-back with the 3DS and Wii U. In hindsight, they unintentionally handed the reigns to Microsoft and Sony to experience the trials and tribulations of this shift in creating video games while they sat back and broke records with the Wii. If the Wii U is what it took for Nintendo to really get themselves together and properly release new games on a consistent schedule, then that is just the way it came to be. The past cannot be changed.
even after all that, Nintendo was in a much bigger disadvantage than Sony. the Wii U was more comparable to the Saturn than the PS3 in how screwed up it was in the market.
the PS3 was a lot closer to the 3DS in how it performed since they had a similar trajectory (started out very expensive with few games and sold bad but then took off after a price drop and redesign and managed to do decently in the end) but the Wii U was a Saturn-level disaster that was unsalvageable since it never recovered and had to be killed off to give way to the replacement.
the biggest difference is that Nintendo was always good with money so they didn't have Sega's problems and didn't end up like them despite their failed console. i'm pretty sure Nintendo could have survived the Saturn and that a failure like the Wii U or Saturn would have destroyed Sony. the PS3 wasn't that bad all things considered since it still retained desirability (several people waited for the price drops and redesigns to jump in, supported by the fact it caught up and beat 360 eventually) but the Wii name was already dead and poisonous by the time the Wii U was out.
also, Nintendo was always divided between handheld and console with their lineups. now that they combined their lineups we can see a somewhat consistent release schedule but if they still operated on separate systems, half of the current Switch games would be on the handheld and half on the console. they didn't even need to increase their output at all since we do get less games on average compared to the 3DS/Wii U days (we were guaranteed 2 entries per gen of several big series because of 2 platforms but now it's down to 1 per gen) but since it's just one system, it looks more complete and consistent (in the old days, Pokemon SwSh, Link's Awakening and Fire Emblem would be on the handheld, leaving the console with a very dire lineup). we could also flip this and imagine their lineup in the 3DS/Wii U days if all the games they released were on just one system. they never actually fixed this since circumstances worked in their favor in the end.
about Animal Crossing, that game seems to have been in development hell for a while since it took a very long time to get it completed. it's over 7 years since the last main one. maybe it's not as easy as slapping some HD assets in their old AC engine...
Given these same wii u games went on the sell millions on the switch (or in some cases sequels that plat smiilarly to the originals like Splatoon ,MM2 and Smash) i think they games were compelling ,it was the console that was not at all
Haven't read through this entire thread but my opinion is its not confusing at all, and come Holiday 2020 we will all look back at this moment and wonder what the hell was all this about anyway. This is all about non-Xbox fans trying to create a negative narrative to tag on to the ever-growing Microsoft hype train that has been building like a Tsunami. There are more Mega tons to come.
I still say the games weren't compelling. Nintendo did roll out some good to great first party software, eventually, but 3rd party support was abysmal.
The "concept" (which was a marketing issue, not a naming issue)didn't help matters, but if the everything surrounding the system was more interesting, people would have been more apt to wrap their heads around the concept (which really isn't that radical: standard console concept + a controller that has features a video screen)
I think that the fact that the best selling Switch game is a Wii U port signifies that a good game alone isn't enough to move hardware - the hardware, software outlook, and marketing need to be on point. It also doesn't hurt to have good services - but Nintendo has be doing fine in spite of struggling in this category.
Last edited:
I like that 3DS to PS3 comparison! It is very apt when you think about how similarly their lifecycles started and ended. The 3DS came hot off the heels of the wildly successful DS, only to be faced with a lukewarm reception driven by a high price point and lack of compelling titles. Steel Diver, anyone? The PS3 equally had difficulty following in the footsteps of the blockbuster that was the PS2. The 3D feature of the 3DS was also perceived as a gimmick, somewhat akin to the overly expensive Blu-ray format in 2006. Neither feature provided the claimed benefits out of the gate, further necessitating a price drop for each system. I thought the 3D display was neat, but not to the point where I was willing to spend $250 on a new Nintendo handheld. This decision was driven even further by the Vita launching at the same price. The first time that using 3D actually made a positive effect on the gameplay was when I played Super Mario 3D Land, many months after launch. When it came to the PS3, I can recall even the smaller capacity 25GB Blu-ray discs coming nowhere close to being necessary for early first party or third party titles. It wasn't until many years further into the generation that certain games began requiring multiple discs for their Xbox 360 counterpart.
I do not think that a console on the level of the Sega Saturn would have destroyed Sony, especially if it were to be the PS5. Case in point, Sony as a whole is doing better now than at the beginning of the seventh (2006) or eighth (2013) generation of consoles. This is largely attributed to PlayStation, where the success of the PS4 and accompanying online services have allowed the division to bring in money hand over fist. Even if the next PlayStation doesn't immediately prosper as the PS4 did, Sony has still created a safety net with their online services like PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now. It was not possible to convert additional revenue streams like those into a successful ecosystem during the days of Sega participating in the hardware race. This can also be compared to the major losses the company was taking while preparing to launch the PS3. Not only was Sony pouring copious amounts of money into research and development for the platform, but then subsequently took a loss on the sale of each console. I firmly believe that the risks taken with the PS3 taught (and maybe even forced) Sony to be cautious of exploring new technologies with their hardware. The notion of using conventional hardware was evident with the PS4, and Sony doesn't seem to be bucking the trend anytime soon with the PS5.
Going back to the topic of additional revenue streams, Nintendo has proven time and time again they are king at picking up the slack with a new product. It could be argued that this talent of theirs is what has allowed them to always bounce back. While the Wii U continued to falter in sales, Nintendo managed to divert everyone's attention and wallets to amiibo. In about six months after their monstrous debut, Nintendo had already shipped more than 10 million figures! Even after the craze had somewhat dissipated and support wasn't as prevalent among Switch games, Nintendo still sold a similar amount between March 2017 to March 2018.
If you could not already tell by my avatar, I am just glad Animal Crossing is finally coming! If I am understanding correctly, a number of the key developers from Animal Crossing had also worked on Splatoon and Splatoon 2. Series creator Katsuya Eguchi's last credited role for the series is the general producer on Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer. He was also credited for being the general producer on Splatoon, Splatoon 2, and Splatoon 2: Octo Expansion. Hisashi Nogami served as director for all main Animal Crossing games, with the exception of Animal Crossing: New Leaf. He then went on to be a producer for the Splatoon series, while maintaining the position of producer for Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer and Animal Crossing: amiibo Festival. He reprises this role for Animal Crossing: New Horizons, alongside director Aya Kyogoku. So that could possibly at least partially explain why the series was seemingly at a standstill. Aya Kyogoku also explained that the creation of Animal Crossing: amiibo Festival was based upon wanting a line of amiibo figures tailored to the franchise. Perhaps a mainline Animal Crossing for the Wii U was never in the cards?
There were compelling games. It's just that there were only 5 of them (maybe 10 depending on your preferences). And they only came out about once every 6 months on average. And it took like 2 years before the Wii U had enough of them for anyone but the most diehard Nintendo fan to make the plunge, and by that time, people had moved on.
The Wii U had other problems, but it's first year was anything like the Switch's first year, and not one of the worst first year's in any console's history, it would have had a different fate.