Wii sales crashed in the second half of the gen, it's why the 360 and PS3 managed to get so close to the Wii's lifetime sales (there was only like a 10-15m gap in the end) despite the insane numbers the Wii was pulling early on.
-
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.
Wii sales crashed in the second half of the gen, it's why the 360 and PS3 managed to get so close to the Wii's lifetime sales (there was only like a 10-15m gap in the end) despite the insane numbers the Wii was pulling early on.
Pretty much this. There are a lot of combinations to why something succeeds and another fails. Marketing, exclusives, price, hardware performance, gimmicks (unique features), library of third party support. Just look at Nintendo as a prime example of a company who had huge swings either way but their 1st party usually always delivers.
Wii releases were sparse from 2011 onwards, especially in terms of big exclusives.
Timing also matters. You could argue that once all was said and done Wii U's exclusives were just as good as any other Nintendo console, but that's not how things played out in real time. In real time the Wii U launched with two games it shouldn't have launched with (despite the fact that they are very good games), and then got effectively nothing else until 9 months later.
Sounds like a lot of hardware gens to be honest. They usually output 1 or 2 strong titles then mediocre ones for a year or even longer.
360 vs ps3 is weird in terms of who won. Wii actually sold the most but in terms of who actually made or lost money there it is a different story than just saying 360 and ps3 was a virtual tie.
I don't think you can really assign the PS1's success over the competition to just 'exclusives'. It was a cultural phenomenon, or at least here it was, associated with a slightly older audience. The games were a lot cheaper than the cartridges, in some cases by a good ÂŁ20 or so. Because the cd was so cheap to manufacture compared to carts, it ended it with a huge range of games as pretty much everything was on PS1. It wasn't down to people wanting it solely for the exclusives, it's that a PlayStation got you a huge range of games for much less money as it became the default platform for both western and Japanese third parties, in addition to the lineup of exclusive big hitters and way more ports from the arcades as racing and fighting games were huge. Nintendo had a great lineup of exclusives too, but it was the surrounding zeitgeist, as 'PlayStation' overtook 'Nintendo' almost overnight as shorthand for 'games console' in the press, amongst a ton of other factors, in addition to the Playstation's huge library that crowned the PS1.
Last edited:
The difference is: The 3DS had a ton of exclusive games on top of it:
A Link Between Worlds
Bravely Default
Monster Hunter 4/Generations
Mario & Luigi Dream Team
Kid Icarus Uprising
FE Awakening
Pokemon X and Y
Luigis Mansion 2
It just didn't have watered down Wii ports and stuff like that too. It had a crap ton of original content as well.
Except Nintendo Land and NSMBU weren't particularly strong games, especially with word of mouth. They were alright games, but they certainly were not system sellers.
The point is that you can't look at the present when judging the past. The total list of Wii U vs Wii exclusives doesn't tell the whole story, as op seems to imply it does here.
No, Wii U exclusives aren't 15 worse than Wii exclusives as a whole. But they were games that people didn't want when they launched. Games whose excitement was tempered by similar games on the 3ds. Games that took too long to develop so the damage was already done by the time they showed up. Etc.
So when you question why Wii sold 100 mil and Wii U only sold 14 mil and then switch is on track to 100 mil again, exclusives are absolutely an important factor.
I look back and didn't think the PS2 launch line-up of exclusives were that strong either. Like I said, there are a combination of reasons why something succeeds. Sony rarely ever has strong launch line-ups of exclusives. What they do have is the largest support of third party games.
Wii U games happened to be on a console that the market at large didn't want. That's the fundamental and overarching problem with them, hence why removing the Wii U from them was like removing shackles.
As an example, Mario Kart 8 is virtually universally agreed upon to be the best Mario Kart game ever made, but this still didn't help to move Wii U hardware to any significant degree; the game sold ~8.5 million copies on a console that sold only 13.56m units. Every game that Nintendo released on the Wii U couldn't make an impact. At that point the question needs to be asked if anything could have salvaged this ill-conceived piece of hardware, but to this day it's something that Wii U fans want to avoid at all costs. To them, the reason why the Wii U failed always has to be something other than the console itself.
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is mostly the same game as on the Wii U, including its DLC, as only a few minor additions were made. But on Switch, which isn't offputting hardware, the game is on pace to crack the 50 million mark. Other Wii U games that have been re-released on Switch have found greater success too, despite being old games that are commonly released at the same price as during their original release.
I also already said that. It was my first post in the thread. I'm merely pointing out that certain ways of looking at exclusives (OP's implied way, specifically) is wrong and doesn't tell the whole story.
Mario kart 8 also came out about 2 years into the Wii U's life, well after the system had already failed. And it launched in the first couple of months of the switch's life (with significantly more content right out of the gate). These are important factors. Wii U's hardware sucked and was always going to put a cap on its total potential. But if its exclusives (both in content and the time they released) were more like switch's, that cap would've been significantly higher than 14 million.
Like I already said, multiple factors are important, but I do think some people tend to downplay the importance of exclusives. They're not the end all be all, but they're definitely a bigger factor than some are willing to admit.
30 million is significantly higher than 13.56 million, but that's still a failure. The only thing you can discuss about the Wii U's failure is its magnitude, but the failure itself will always stick because it was never salvagable.
I agree on your second point. There are definitely people who undersell the value of exclusives.
Absolutely. Wii U was never going to be saved. My point was simply that timing is also a factor. OP seemed to be looking at the total Wii exclusives and the total Wii U exclusives and claiming they're of the same quality. And I don't think you should look at things that way.
Original Xbox obvious didn't win the generation, but went toe-to-toe with a Nintendo console largely because of Halo and Halo 2.
I don't think anyone actually believes exclusives on their own are the path to victory. All consoles bar maybe Nintendo would die without third party.
But If Xbox and playstation all get the same third party titles (the bread and butter of most people's gaming collection)...then it's the exclusives that ultimately tip the scales in one or the others favour.
And because of that I'd say most winning consoles did so because of the games you could only get on it...combined with all the games that were shared with other platforms. The exclusives that were on the PS2 or WII, or PS4 ultimately tipped the scales in those consoles favour compared to the competition. But obviously cost and momentum factor into things too.
But If Xbox and playstation all get the same third party titles (the bread and butter of most people's gaming collection)...then it's the exclusives that ultimately tip the scales in one or the others favour.
And because of that I'd say most winning consoles did so because of the games you could only get on it...combined with all the games that were shared with other platforms. The exclusives that were on the PS2 or WII, or PS4 ultimately tipped the scales in those consoles favour compared to the competition. But obviously cost and momentum factor into things too.
I know, I'm just saying the Wii won the entire gen off the strength of exclusives, even if the exclusives (and sales) dried up considerably in the second half of the generation.
What "wins" console wars is creating a compelling narrative for the public about why they should chose to invest in that platform.
Exclusives can be a part, or even a big part of that narrative. But they don't have to be.
Exclusives can be a part, or even a big part of that narrative. But they don't have to be.
It was the Wii and it's not even debateable - stuff like Wii Sports was so ubiquitous that it was a legitimate cultural phenomenon. Switch is definitely replicating elements of this but it's impossible to tell anymore because "platform warz" don't exist in the same context anymore.
And I'd argue the Switch and PS4 are doing better than the XBO because of exclusives
I still find it hard to think of the Wii as the 'winner' of that gen. It sold bucket loads by selling to a demographic that didn't usually play games, but they bought one or two games, then got over it pretty quickly. I remember early 2011, shops were flooded with pre-owned Wiis, coming with all the cables, controllers and Wii Sports for ÂŁ25. This is before it's successor had even been released. I don't think I'd ever seen a console go that cheap once it had been succeeded, but definitely not when it was still 'relevant', but it was clear that there were huge numbers of them being traded in. I don't think Nintendo realised this at all based on some of the stuff they did and said with the Wii U. I remember a staggering amount of confidence that Wii Sports Club would have those 100 million Wii users converting in droves. In reality, I'm not sure even 25% of the Wii owners were still using it.
It's always a mixture of various different factors. The hardware has to be appealing, the marketing and branding has to be strong, the price has to be palatable, and it needs some healthy support as well. Systems like the Wii, PS2, PS4, and Switch certainly benefited from their exclusives and it helped give them an edge. It's just not the only thing that sold them
This is not true. The Wii has one of the highest attach rates of any Nintendo system, only beaten out by the GC. It sold plenty of games, 9 games per system
360 had insane exclusives so that can't be right.
actually nm, 360 exclusives dried up post launch sounds right and why MS fucked it all up.
?
Xbox One was more expensive to begin with, noticeably weaker with demonstrably worse results in most games, and Game Pass didn't really hit it's stride until the last couple of years.
Xbox was also never the market leader.
That was only the begining
Trough most of the generation xbox one was either cheaper had a cheaper version or had better deals.
And only the most hardcore care about pixel counting. To the great majority of people games look exactly the same on both. The graphics difference between both was nothing compared to previous gens where games would have lower polycounts or less complicated shaders.
Other than a pixel diference both consoles had identical looking games.
People don't care about counting pixels, but they care about having the most powerful console.
A console race is over as soon as someone gets the upper hand and Ms made sure that Sony got the upper hand by checking all points on the shit list like the mentioned lower power, a higher price, a mandatory and expensive peripheral that no one wanted together with endless pr disasters and as if all that wasn't already enough they tried a 24h mandatory "fuck you" online check to absolutely make sure they sunk the ship.
By that logic the wii should have been destroyed......and the switch...and the 3ds and the DS.
By that logic the original xbox should have destroyed the ps2
I feel like this is so incredibly subjective. Like I felt like the 360 had the best lineup of exclusives in its generation, followed by the Wii, unless you count Wii + Wii U as one generation in which case it probably wins. But someone else could easily think that the PS3 had the best exclusives.
Yes, because saying people care about having the most powerful console means that everything else doesn't matter.
That's also why i listed all these other reasons why the One lost /s.
If i wrote people care about price would you have also reacted as if i wrote cheapest = win?
I mean it takes like 2 seconds to understand that it can't work like this.
This also depends on the region where the PS3 won. Way too many variables to go by with the success of a game console. Some even bought it mainly for a bluray player.
I remember a sales chart at the time, of all PS4 exclusives from its release till 2015 or thereabouts, and they didn't look good at all, it was clear that the exclusives didn't do much for it, at least up to that point. Now it might be a different story, but it wasn't the driving force in the first 2-ish years. The better price, better hardware, and XB's disaster looked like the main factor.
I was always under the impression that 360 sold less overall consoles than PS3 but more software sales and took way less of a loss on said consoles. I think you need to define what a win is first.
Lucky Sony(tm)
So lucky, they lucked their way to 3 generational wins.
If you go back and look at forum comments around the launch period the promise of UC4 was enough for many buyers.
Just because there weren't exclusives to buy at launch, future expectations based on Sony's PS3 output was clearly a factor in people's purchasing decision.
Last edited:
We're talking hard numbers, not what you or someone else felt at the time. Bloodborne was quite important for so many people, yet, at the time, it didn't transfer to that many sales, like a huge exclusive would do. And we're talking worldwide, not a forum full of massive fans/day1 purchasers of some platforms.
PS4 was selling better even in the beginning of the gen while the XBO could have been said to have had better exclusives. I switched primarily from Xbox to PS last gen and it wasn't really because of the games.
While it's obviously not totally luck both Nintendo (carts with the N64), and MS (The whole XBO launch) did make terrible decisions which certainly helped.
Well that's a good metric to go off of. Especially considering that was the generation that all 3 companies did extremely well, and were super close to each other. Like, this was probably the only generation where all 3 found huge success. It was really because all 3 had amazing, incredible games, and a large majority of people picked out multiple consoles during that time. In that case, exclusives did sell consoles. Because what happened afterwards?
Well the Wii U flopped because there weren't any exciting games.
Then XBO comes out, shits the PR bed, and then have a scarce amount of "okay" exclusives compared to Sony's juggernaut titles.
Despite the differences in failure for Microsoft and Nintendo, they both had one thing in common. Unexciting exclusives to drive usership of the consoles. And then we have seen Nintendo completely turn things around software wise, and now Nintendo is the best it's ever been.
Not true Sony did not start outselling Xbox 360 until years later after its rebranding and thd release of exclusives that caused it to pivot starting off with God of War 3 and Uncharted 2. PS3 may have been outselling in more markets, but it wasn't selling in the main over the 360 such as North America and the U.K.