I just wanted to say that I hope people can see from how positively the Switch has been received that those of us who were honest about the Wii U's shortcomings weren't "Nintendo Haters" or "Doom mongers." We were just frustrated with a sub-par situation. I still get a lot of use out of my Wii U, but it frustrated me very badly. Now that Nintendo are back on top with the Switch, I'm thrilled! I have nothing bad to say about this incredible machine. So, you see: we weren't mindless "doom-haters," we were just being honest. And that honesty was a better approach from Nintendo's perspective: by actually dealing with their issues, they have put themselves back into first place. Pretending everything was fine and ignoring fans who didn't 100% approve of everything, reflexively, would have dug an even deeper hole. So, no matter what you thought of the Wii U, REJOICE! Brighter days are already here, and they are only going to get better in the ERA OF THE SWITCH!
I'll take my time, a lot of what I'm still playing on Wii U is on Switch. And I have to thank Nintendo still supporting the 3DS to look there for further new games. Also in the case of Wii U, Virtual Console hasn't been bad lately. With Bomberman 64 and Harvest Moon. All in all I see the Switch still having to tweak some things to really make me jump into it. Since of right now seems it's mainly the hardware rather the games that it is pushing it. I think.
Still it's an inevitability I'll get one probably by the time Odyssey is released. Especially if Xenoblade 2 doesn't get delayed.
"they have put themselves back into first place. "
they haven;t done anything yet. they have once again proven that if you play ANY third party games, you NEED one of the other two...and the console is very expensive for the 1st party titles.
I still remember articles with the wiiu being sold out. Just wait to see the problems coming up really really soon...
But the sales data shows the Wii U, while being sold out, never outpaced Wii from week to week. That was during the one year it mattered most, the holiday launch year. Switch has outpaced the Wii, and it was released in the Spring. That's impressive for a console of any kind can do, so I doubt the spur that halted the Wii U will be the same for the Switch, absolutely not within the first year with literally one game from one company released every month through to next year.
as I have said many times before...this means nothing. Had it meant something, we would hear SOME third party support on the switch these past few days.
and I am struggling to think of ANY third party release shown at E3...a first for ANY console in the history of video games. No things do not look good sorry.
Actually, it isn't the first for any console, the GCN experienced several E3s where they laughed it off and announced nothing. But we cannot pretend we're gaming business experts here, cause we don't know how long these been in development first off, let alone how many actually suspected Switch's success to this point to scramble for a Switch build, from scratch, to show on the show floor. Nothing is that easy, sorry. Not to mention some reputations of a couple companies only wanting Nintendo to be responsible for the games they put on their console.
To suspect E3 this year to show much of anything Switch outside Nintendo is lofty from the get-go, that's like expecting failure cause Nintendo didn't show off what the NX was when they first announced the system was in development. Honestly, with Switch's momentum currently and the attachment ratio with it, I would place more bets on how Nintendo would do on the second E3 of Switch's life. The first could have been better judged if Nintendo launched the system in November of 2016.
I still firmly believe Nintendo could have easily matched Sony's PS4 and we'd see the same response. From E3, from dev support, from everyone.
" and announced nothing"
you don't remember it well. The GC had SERIOUS support from EA Activision Ubisoft and other now defunct companies like acclaim and midway, with MANY major third parties being multiplatform. I OWN many of these games.
the wii had a lot of "wii exclusives" which is far better than nothing and the WiiU ran out after the launch wave. The switch is in the worst possible position on third part support compared to any console that sold over 10M units.
So we're entering the stage of our debate that owning a game somehow debunks the others' knowledge of it? No they hardly ever really announced anything for the GCN, was worse at E3 when the Wii was selling gangbusters. Which was even worse to swallow when the Wii Music E3 was upon us and Nintendo didn't announce squat.
The discussion wasn't if the GCN got games, it was what was being announced at E3. Nothing. Many excuses about how people cannot compete with Nintendo games was also the go-to excuse back then too.
The issue you're also not bringing up is that the atmosphere for developing games. People easily churned out games that, when you finally hit a million, you're practically pure profit. Now development takes longer, costs more, and requires millions of units sold in the first week to even consider breaking even. Something that the Switch has yet to gain enough momentum in for companies to blindly buy into merely months after its release, especially not with the passed 5 years on Nintendo.
"The discussion wasn't if the GCN got games, it was what was being announced at E3. "
even if nintendo did not bother announcing themselves, (they are third party after all) there COULD be found on thr show floor. And there were A LOT of them. Far more than anything the wiiU offered or even the switch and that console finished third with no one calling it a success.
Actually, unless the GCN had some feature utilized, or MS moneyhatted some to garner their presence on MS's show floor most of the multiplatform games were using PS2 builds and controllers. Hell, I was there for 3 of those events. Game got announced with console details to come later was a common practice then.
ehm first of all I highly doubt that splinter cell used the ps2 build since the Xbox one was far superior. I would wager that even the prince of persia games used the xbox build for looking better. A lot of smaller and japanese games of course used the lead platform but western studios....not so much.
but at the end of the day, we KNEW about the existence of splinter cell on the GC and PS2 a few days after the Xbox announcement (had a 6 month exclusivity) along with a myriad of third party games. The situation here is vastly different and far FAR worse.
Uhhh, I was at those E3's, man. A ton of them did. EA and Ubi were often populating the MS booths with, as you already mentioned, Splinter Cell and various other games.
However, it was AFTER E3 is when they start officializing the, "Oh yeah, GCN is on it too!" where as poking people for information was often met with spiels you think were all given to them by Reggie himself.
I never attended any E3 but I DO remember the multiplatform games announced INSTANTLY for the GC. Also I am pretty sure that many western games (which did play significantly better on the Xbox using the PC as the lead platform) showed the superior version on E3. You see any announcements of any of those games presented at E3? Do you really believe any of them will be ported over? I highly doubt it.
Yeah the Wii u was terrible. Now that the switch is performing well and the philosophy behind it is sound (if it wasn't after all the bad blood generated via the U it would have had a worse launch than the U), 3rd parties will adjust their forecasts and start production. It's not like they're privately owned companies, they have shareholders to answer too. If there's money to made on switch and they're not pursuing it the investors will go where the money is.
i have my doubts on proper 3rd party support but we just have to wait and see.
...the fact that i was not even aware of the 2k wii games (while owning pretty much everything they released last gen and being an even bigger wii fan) means A LOT to the shitty games we should be expecting as a "best case scenario"
You never know which "crappy" game will be the next minecraft.
first of all, that home run swing happens once in a blue moon (at best) and oh please, if you think any 2k wii game had that potential you are seriously trying to force arguments that do not work at all.
You first state they never made any games for wii, which you were shown was grossly wrong. Then you stated you never knew about these games from a rather public, large company. Then younstate there is market demand for a mini wii u. Now you have stated that you somehow have determined the quality of all 40 plus games they delivered in the matter of a few hours, sorry I can't take you or this misinformation seriously anymore. Again let me know how your ventures in the real world go.
1)no made any big budgeted multiplat games for the wii with the exception of a few games like reflex some of which arrived late to the party
2)I am sure very few people on this forum knew that 2k made so much shoverware for the system
3)I never said anything about a mini wiiu. All I said is that there is DEMMAND for BC. Do not misunderstand.
4)the last one is possibly correct after having watched a few of the videos. Many of them are just too bad even for wii fans.
now stop trying to undermine me with nonsense. Thanks
1.. moving the goalposts
2. Don't assume we are like you
3. The market showed clearly it has no desire for the U. It would be like ford making the Ford Super Pinto. Mistakes are fine as long as you learn from them. Making a U2 would all but destroy their console business.
4. HEY! You're starting to research before commenting, a good step for all viral marketers. Now you can ask for a raise! Insulting the wii fan base was a common thread amongst viral marketers in the wii days, as the hd twins retreated upmarket in a classic case of disruption they referred to the customers they left behind as crappy as they didn't understand the market.
you make some way off kilter remarks (simply throwing crap to see what sticks) that stop being annoying and start being simply funny.
love it when i see apologists coming up with all sorts of nonsense to simply downplay other people's opinions. Just accept the fact that some have more experience than you and you can not agree with everyone and you can DEFINITELY can not keep pestering.
Well let's see your list of experience and I'll definitely give you props for it. So far all I've seen is that you are part way through some training, the quality of which I question, and some work experience as a viral marketer. Can message if you don't want it public.
Ps. An apologist would try to defend their actual failures like the wii u. A viral marketer would suggest to continue down that wrong path. Which are you?
I don't care what you believe. You question quality because it does,not make sense to you well business is not as straightforward as you think.
So take it or leave it but I am not interested in trash talking so you can stop trolling now
So are you admitting now you don't have any experience? Cause i asked you directly for proof and once again nothing...
and again I'm directly involved in business in my own ventures and via investing in others, in which I've done well. so it would stand to reason I'd have a better grasp of business in general to any reasonable person. so any of your attacks on myself are not taken serious unless of course you can back them up, then I can learn from you. as it stands I'm just here to call out the baloney for the greater good. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you are quite young which just means you need to humble yourself a little to be able to learn from others. Best of luck. and once again if you can present anything of substance I'm more than willing to listen or adapt my position, but until that time....
Dude this is no poker game. There are people with a lot of inside knowledge who simply give their opinions and they never have to prove anything. So take it for what it is and if you just dont agree walk away, stop bullshitting people. I backed up my opinions with some business concepts, feel free to do what you will with this.
"and again I'm directly involved in business in my own ventures and via investing in others, in which I've done well."
Also I don't care about your credentials. No one does. Yet your concepts are similar to nintendo's on the SNES era and FYI people HAVE got certain things wrong while in business ie jools stating that demos are not helping sales, clearly missing the entire point. So i wish you all the best and instead of advertising yourself (I never said what kind of experience I got) just use your proper name and come on record. Otherwise piss off.
you're the one that brought up your credentials to show what a smart guy you are. then you made comments about my business knowledge. I then asked you to show something anything to prove yourself and nothing. I then showed you a little of mine to show I'm not just some kid talking out of his hat. the balls in your court or you can give it up. means nothing to me.
So for the 3rd time do you have any of this experience you've touted or not? if you can't answer the question truthfully don't bother and let us be. once again if you don't want it public feel free you pm me. otherwise your simply full of it.
actually no. You had to trashtalk that the school I go is unreliable and you provided me with 20 year old business strategies. Heck you are not even aware of what an MBA is and who does it (more suited to execs than entrepreneurs - also the whole point is NOT to make execs with the same views but help them cultivate their skills and form their own identity as managers) so excuse me for not being persuaded of your nonsense.
For the 3rd time I have some experience on the video game sector having spoken to quite a few people oer the years hearing the immensely ironic "we do not expect you to have only one console" coming from the distributor product manager at the wii's launch and I do know why many of square's and ubi's games were sold to online stores for less than 10eu when companies flooded the market as a penetrative measure. I do NOT work on the video game sector but I HAVE been following nintendo for over 20 years and can back up my views with some business knowledge.
so here is what I will do. I will keep voicing my opinion (because democracy) and if you feel you do not like it, feel free to report me. Just remember that you have been breaking TOS for quite some time now.
thank you for your patronage.
yeah I know what an mba is several people I know have completed it and I have all the course materials and have studied it myself. they commonly get guys that are out of work to take the course so it's very common where I live.
disruption is far older than 20 years it's been happening since the turn of the century. blue Ocean may fit your rant better. The whole reason disruption works so well is that execs stick to closely to the rules they're taught in school.
which makes me repeat the "your views are outdated" since business is not the same as it was 20 (or even 10) years ago as the industry is moving much faster and things become obsolete far quicker.
but again, each to his own.
I think Nintendo took a lot of mis-steps with the Wii U, especially making a system with a neat idea they didn't even know what to make for it. Most of the games were tacked on with features that didn't utilize the system in unique ways. In fact, without Nintendo Land, I feel the whole of Nintendo's future releases never seized it like the motion controls in the Wii era.
And with that, the trouble with developers even getting something ON the Wii U, and a couple who treated the consumer like garbage (EA, of no surprise). The system was destined to die unless Nintendo could just stick to their guns like the 3DS and do some amazing things. Yet, they didn't, even a motion camera and Pokemon Snap would been a cool idea, but they didn't.
The Switch though has a utility even casual game consumers can understand and enjoy (especially once it is in the house). The accessibility, the freedom, the options of choice to how one plays it. The Switch is taking off with the more casual market because of this, and it being a traditionally designed console games aren't too complicated with learning new shticks about each game.
However, I am concerned about how third parties will treat it. Obviously, this would be a reflection of how they would treat Nintendo even if they decided to go the "Power Pissing Contest" with the other two. That problem; Ports of everything!Literally there is a button that makes building a Switch version for their system a breeze, which in turned made it a button for a lot of quick and dirty, "Nintendo never had X before!" button. And quite frankly, I sincerely doubt -MOST- of the real reasoning behind this is cause Nintendo's new system isn't "as powerful" as the other two systems. I believe it has more to do with capitalizing on the sheer excitement of the IDEA their games are on a Nintendo console. Bethesda on Switch? EA core game on Switch?! Meat Boy on Switch?!?!?! Of course a TON of these games are older, pre-made as it were, so easier to just label power as an excuse, let people eat each other up as fanboys and blame Nintendo. All the while they make more bank cause the ease of port-a-thon 2018 is the next best thing to making new games that half the experience is sold through DLC.
"the freedom, the options of choice to how one plays it."
and that freedom is a burden to developers who essentially need to code the game TWICE, one for the handheld and one for the docked console with cases where the game plays identical docked because the developer did not have time to optimize or care about utilizing the additional features when the console is docked.
and I would have preferred the freedom of streaming from the console into the TV with a small dongle, supporting dual screens along with full 3DS and WiiU (digital) support. THAT would have made a killing.
I doubt that dongle would been viewed for a killing. If anything it would been viewed as another gimmick and immediately tossed right into the Wii U doom and gloom and we'd be at this square 1. Hell so many wanted "just a traditional console" almost throughout the entire lifetime of the Wii U. In ways they technically got it.
Don't get me wrong, the streaming features idea is actually something I suspected from Nintendo, which is where the discussions led to my fears of how one would feel they would view the dongle; A gimmick 3.0
you completely missed the point. Instead of a cheap dock, the console could utilize wireless connectivity for streaming onto the TV while allowing the use of the 2nd screen and have full wiiu and 3DS support. Now THAT would be a console worth buying for. This feature incomplete console can do far less than its predecessors and most importantly, has no NEW games!
So how would pitching a new sustem to play a failed system somehow become better to sell? Consumers will see a Wii U2, developers will see a repeat offender to avoid supporting.
Yeah, as much as I would like that, it's Gimmick Machine 3.
a console that is exactly like the switch but does not require the docking bay and plays WiiU and 3DS games has a FAR better value proposition on the core audience than the switch has. But nintendo does not seem to care about wiiu owners buying a switch since they just rerelease their wiiu games.
yes the console would be a bit more expensive but I would buy THAT in a heartbeat.
Don't confuse what you want with what the market wants. The market rejected the wii u core philosphy. That's exactly why Nintendo made a point of the switch not being a super wii U. Not one asymmetrical game moved systems. The idea was so bad even mario kart had a hard time moving systems. Nintendo if smart will distance themselves from anything wii u related(the core philosphy) if they want any chance of success or 3rd party support.
once again your grasp of business is quite distorted. People have bought crappy products because of GOOD marketing and business decisions, and of course vice versa. The WiiU had a terrible marketing along with the fact that ehm..the CPUs are BLOODY SLOW and that pissed off many developers who had to optimize (ahem coming up switch ports - getting a deja vu here)
as for backward compatibility, that feature is used by less than 10% of its users. Yet the buzz it generates is phenomenal so yeah I see the value keeping BC even if the company want to distance themselves. By that plan (dongle concept) the nintendo switch could have been the first console that can emulate EVERY single nintendo console released with a killer VC service that could grab many old time fans and the undecided, the same way the SNES mini sold out in 30 minutes.
Yeah everyone's clamoring for a wii u mini. Lol. You're so far out to lunch I'm not sure what to say anymore. I'm interested to hear how your future business ventures go once you are in the real world. Shoot me a message then and let me know.
we all need to accept it, nintendo are NOT getting 3rd party support back anytime soon. Virtual Console is the only way to capitalize on its brand equity and give a good value proposition to a wider audience for the switch.
as for the other comments there is nothing i can say either so you can simply stop writing them.
Are you funding your schooling by being a low cost viral marketeer for microsoft? Only someone with hopes of Nintendo failing would suggest such things as another wii u. I've figured you out. Lol nice try
Just because you misunderstand my arguments and are completely unaware of the model many companies have been using all these years (despite my SINCEREST efforts to explain), you can not simply assume such nonsense. Keep researching.
if i wanted nintendo to fail, i would simply not bother writing a single word. They are on that track anyway.
Viral marketer caught in the headlights.
reminds me the same sort of stupidity when you say "the UK are the 2nd biggest gun trader globally and if this does not stop, more and more terrorists will be hitting western countries" and people call you a terrorist..
...because they have figured it all out!
Nope. When you see people pushing ideas that are obviously false and are designed to influence public perception, then either one of two things are true: The poster is completely off his kilter which I don't want to believe about you, or they more likely are viral marketers with an agenda.
As I said, there are many reasons something flops and it is not because it is crap. This is a simplistic view that shows how off beat you arw when it comes to consumer elctronics and marketing n general. So agree that we disagree move on and do not act like a brat
The reason they didn't put money into marketing the Wii u was because they saw very shortly that the product did not resonate with customers. you're putting the horse before the cart, it's not that the product didn't sell because they didn't market it. do you truly believe they would bite their nose to spite their face? If the product resonated they would have dumped marketing dollars into it, exactly like what they are doing with the switch now. it's business 101 you don't put good money after bad.
The console could not explain not even to myself that this was a new console. We were expecting a wiihd and we were not sure what we were watching. THIS was the biggest marketing blunder any company could have ever done. Fail to communicate what you are selling. Then the console was getting inferior ports of old games no one cared. There are a lot of factors behind the failure and marketing is one of thrm but the console WAS promising and had potential even if it did not deliever due to pulling the plug after mk8
unfortunately the market showed it was not promising. it was on the market long enough to show it was a poor product no matter how much of an apologist you want to be. They spent marketing dollars to show it was it's own console. The truth of the matter was the market showed no desire for it, Nintendo took a risk but being smart business men realized they had to cut their losses and prepare for the next gen for the long term health of the company. The fact you liked the console means nothing in the business world. The product was a complete deviation from the Wii strategy and it failed. Not even the Wii name could save it.
there are a number of products that are either too early or wrongly positioned but yes they could have fought it and if yamauchi was still alive he would not have allowed it. Had they kept support for a full 5 years, the console would have easily sold more than the GC due to the bigger size of the market and that would not burn the fans who paid money to support the company (I would mention CSR but I will have to explain again)
and in sharp contrast, I do not present my view as fact. Just as my own opinion. You could try doing the same instead of trolling "non believers"
If I remember correctly the wii u was designed after the gamecube but then was shelved in favour of the Wii and the change in business strategy associated with it. So Yamauchi was at least on the board of directors during its design. What do mean he wouldn't have allowed it? Allowed what?
Not sure what csr or ethics really has to do with wii u, they released breath of the wild on it which I'm sure cost them money at least from an opportunity cost view anyways, and as sales for the U showed everyone was ready to move on and try to forget about those dark days.
I can see why the Wii U failed but personally I had no issues with the system. In retrospect though - Man they were some dark times for Nintendo fans. Like others have said, I'm also not rushing out to buy a Switch, I still have a back catalogue of Wii U games to tired me over.
I was one of the people who actively expected and hoped for Nintendo to turn around the system's fortunes like they did with the 3DS. I love my system and I was thrilled by many of the scarce first party releases because I kept thinking This is the one! This will revitalize the console!
I sometimes got a bit too defensive about it, I'll admit there was so much frustration with the weekly NINTENDOOMED/"They should go third party" articles popping up everywhere and the negativity coming from many fans.
I guess I wanted something to prove the naysayers wrong, I miss and still long for how the fans were in the pre-Wii era. There was (comparably) little infighting.
The one thing that pissed me off the most was seeing all the people on Nintendo fansites, sometimes including here who actively wished for Nintendo's management (Reggie, Iwata, Miyamoto, etc.) out of a job or in the worst cases actually wanted harm to come to them because of the Wii U's failure.
There was a lot of unfounded and exaggerated cynicism and optimism; certainly not the best time to be a Nintendo fan.
If Nintendo had removed someone directly involved with the Wii U failure it would have signaled that they were serious about turning the ship around. By keeping the same faces that tried to market a system that to most reasonable people was a poor idea from the get go, and carrying the same philosphy from the end of the wii life when things started going sideways, is part of the reason 3rd parties are slower on the uptake with the switch. They can't trust what the nintendo execs say, as they all heard the same story during the wii u era.
They're stubborn, yet it was sad Iwata had to step down the way he did.