Support NeoGAF

[Cipherr]

That is the same situation we have now, only with Wii as the extra platform. They have a 20m gap, and at current sales rates, PS3 could plausibly sell 20m more in 3-5 years

Nah. At the current very clearly declining pace, the PS3 won't move another 21 million units with the new generation out. This is something the entire thread tries to ignore and seems to cover up with "B....b.b...but the PS2!"

The PS3 is not the PS2. The whole moving of the goalposts is for show. Everyone knows the PS3 isn't going to move another 20% of its total sales to date, but giving the Wii that victory stings so much that they want to delay it as long as possible on a dream.

 

[Mackins]

Nah. At the current very clearly declining pace, the PS3 won't move another 21 million units with the new generation out. This is something the entire thread tries to ignore and seems to cover up with "B....b.b...but the PS2!"

The PS3 is not the PS2. The whole moving of the goalposts is for show. Everyone knows the PS3 isn't going to move another 20% of its total sales to date, but giving the Wii that victory stings so much that they want to delay it as long as possible on a dream.

You're forgetting the new markets such as China and Latin/South America that are opening up.

Andrew House of PlayStation UK thinks the PS3 could eventually topple PS2 numbers with the new markets. I don't think it will but I'm pretty certain it will hit the 100 million milestone.

They only recently opened up the PS3 factory in Brasil too so I don't think sales will dwindle as much as you hope/expect.

 

[Metallix87]

You're forgetting the new markets such as China and Latin/South America that are opening up.

Andrew House of PlayStation UK thinks the PS3 could eventually topple PS2 numbers with the new markets. I don't think it will but I'm pretty certain it will hit the 100 million milestone.

They only recently opened up the PS3 factory in Brasil too so I don't think sales will dwindle as much as you hope/expect.

It works both ways. Nintendo could launch the Wii as a budget option in those new markets, and grow even more.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

You can make a lot of valid arguments about the Wii and its place in the market (especially when it comes to average third party software sales, demographics and how it died an early death), but this one doesn't make much sense at all.

If we accept this argument, then no one will ever be able to declare which console dominated a generation since, well, any company could keep a system in the market and it may eventually surpass the competition. Not entirely true due to sales decline, but the argument is still very weak and will mostly result in pointless (and tiring) discussions.

 

[spookyfish]

I'd say it has. It's apparently gotten 73% of GAF's knickers in a twist for all eternity.

Ha! Indeed it has.

 

[Mackins]

It works both ways. Nintendo could launch the Wii as a budget option in those new markets, and grow even more.

It certainly does. I don't dispute that at all and I think the Chinese would embrace the Wii because of it's quirky nature.

The point I was making though is that the PS3 could and should reach 100 million sales if Sony play it right. I think that figure is still attainable with the current markets if they drop the price enough, but whether they can lower the price by much more is questionable, I haven't got a clue how much it costs to manufacture PS3s nowadays.

 

[Jado]

You what mate? I'm sorry, but no. Big losses? You're gonna have to elaborate. The Wii was nothing but pure gains. That part you bolded, just don't make sense to me.

Big losses in consumer confidence, lasting influence and market buzz. Wii has been a stagnant and dead brand for years.

why do you need to have a checklist of other arbitrary points rather than the simple metric we have used for 25 years of sales for every other console generation? I just don't see how anything else matters when that's the only thing we've counted, certainly nobody goes back to previous generations and takes the prior and successor hardware and company strategy into account as well, we just count boxes. I really don't see how 100m sales and their best selling home console ever wasn't a 'smashing success' for Nintendo when it was a success they and everybody else immediately tried to emulate in one way, shape or form with motion controls. It might not have been a wonderful product for the people who preferred the games range elsewhere, and obviously today's HD Playstation and Xbox games take the lead from their own predecessors, but in both sales and profits the Wii was the very definition of a 'smashing success', I don't really see how you can argue otherwise. Does 'smashing success' in videogames require an ongoing influence down through future generations? I'm not sure that it does, I'm pretty sure companies just care about money.

Who is "we?" Posters on Internet message board who only care about sales numbers in a vacuum? The simple metrics used by video game message board posters to determine "winners" is not realistic and not a gauge for actual company health. Unfortunately, a lot more than "we sold X quantity" matters to these companies. It is kind of a huge deal to not erode your brands, create negative outlook for future prospects and anger/bore away a restless user base into the hands of competitors with no content -- all this is a big deal if you want to be deemed a real success story that can make lightning strike more than once. Big short-term gains are only a viable strategy for fly-by-night operations.

The Wii was definitely short-lived. Top-tier software was sparse years before the system was officially finished. Someone even posted Iwata quotes where he essentially apologizes every year for severe droughts.

It works both ways. Nintendo could launch the Wii as a budget option in those new markets, and grow even more.

Let's be real. It's not happening. The Playstation brand has consistently sold big numbers of older hardware after Sony launched a new console. Nintendo has not. It's an honest assessment that PS3 will close up on and possibly exceed Wii hardware sales (factor in console prices and it has already outperformed the Wii). And if these figures are true, PS3 software sales are already beyond the Wii.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

How is this cockamamie thread not locked to high hell yet. It is one mad man arguing with figures and facts, raging against the machine.

The Wii won.

I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry you think just because it had different games and different ethics to the PS3/360 it doesn't deserve its trophy. But. The Wii. Won.

/thread

Really, man. This should be locked on any thread disputing Wii's success above the competition last gen. This is proven on any respectable sales data, not revisionism can change that. This is only happening because NeoGAF is flooded with PS3/360 fanboys and they can't accept this actually happened. Jesus Christ.

 

[Metallix87]

Let's be real. It's not happening. The Playstation brand has consistently sold big numbers of older hardware after Sony launched a new console. Nintendo has not. It's an honest assessment that PS3 will close up on and possibly exceed Wii hardware sales (factor in console prices and it has already outperformed the Wii). And if these figures are true, PS3 software sales are already beyond the Wii.

So "it's never happened before, and thus is impossible" is your logic? I guess that explains why you and your lot can't accept that Wii beat a Sony console.

 

[Toxi]

I disagree with the bolded part, after my experience with the Wii, I will never buy another Nintendo console, not even if they brought out a Zelda to rival Ocarina Of Time. The Wii left a really bad taste in my mouth.

I actually think the Wii U deserves more sales than it's getting, but after the N64 (not so much), GameCube and then the Wii, I'm done with Nintendo.

It doesn't matter if you like the Wii U more than the Wii, you bought a Wii and didn't buy a Wii U. Say what you like about the Wii's reputation, it had a brand name that was popularly known by hundreds of millions of people. The Wii U shared that same brand name and completely flopped. Recognition should be enough to guarantee sales at the very least. Why did the Wii U fail then?

Because people don't want the Wii U. A few people do and they buy Wii U's, but clearly the majority don't. Maybe the advertising is not enough for them, maybe the system is not enough for them, or maybe they're people who will say "I think the Wii U deserves sales" on the internet without actually buying a Wii U.

We saw Microsoft's brand change from gold to shit to gilded shit in the space of months last year. And yet you're telling me that Nintendo's failures with the Wii U are based on the Wii's reputation? Really?

 

[Jado]

So "it's never happened before, and thus is impossible" is your logic? I guess that explains why you and your lot can't accept that Wii beat a Sony console.

No, it's obviously not impossible. I'm saying it's unlikely. Wii momentum faded long ago and international consumers in Latin America and Asia don't generally care for old Nintendo hardware. Who is my lot by the way?

How many of you have looked at my post history to confirm some pro-Sony agenda and walked away disappointed that I have absolutely zero history of cheerleading for Sony or MS or any company really? My current sole new-gen console is a Wii U. Before that? Only Wii and DS. Before that? Just Gamecube and GBA. Before? Solely N64 and GBC (with PS1 at tailend of the gen). Before? NES for EIGHT years.

I'm finally contemplating a 3DS due to decent bundle deals and a library that finally actually looks healthy. I'm not buying shit for the sake of remaining "loyal" to a billion dollar entity.

 

[Metallix87]

No, it's obviously not impossible. I'm saying it's unlikely. Wii momentum faded long ago and international consumers in Latin America and Asia don't generally care for old Nintendo hardware. Who is my lot by the way?

iQue is still a big brand in Asia, so you're wrong on that count.

As for Latin America, given how overpriced the latest consoles are, going budget would be a viable strategy, I would think.

The Wii is not like other Nintendo hardware in terms of appeal, and the momentum faded because software support vanished.

 

[SmokyDave]

And if these figures are true, PS3 software sales are already beyond the Wii.

Sorry man, we need to know how many of these software sales were made before some arbitrary cutoff point first. The games that are selling right now don't actually count.

 

[redcrayon]

Who is "we?" Posters on Internet message board who only care about sales numbers in a vacuum? The simple metrics used by video game message board posters to determine "winners" is not realistic and not a gauge for actual company health. Unfortunately, a lot more than "we sold X quantity" matters to these companies. It is kind of a huge deal to not erode your brands, create negative outlook for future prospects and anger/bore away a restless user base into the hands of competitors with no content -- all this is a big deal if you want to be deemed a real success story that can make lightning strike more than once. Big short-term gains are only a viable strategy for fly-by-night operations.

Nintendo isn't exactly a fly-by-night operation, is it. Their history is littered with major failures and major successes, just like most other companies that have been around for a while. I dislike the lightning in a bottle analogy, as it discounts the hard work and risk in doing something different, putting it all down to luck rather than considered risk. The same goes for the DS. It wasn't lucky that the casual audience bought them in droves- they were mercilessly targeted. That's not lightning, that's a successful hardware strategy and marketing, mirrored by the WiiU failing in exactly the same areas, but we don't call the WiiU unlucky- we call it what it is, a failure. Which is why it only seems fair to call the Wii what it was- a success, a hugely profitable one that's the second biggest selling home console yet at the moment. It just seems a bit off to me to put all of a companies failures down to incompetence, and all of their successes down to luck, is all.

I'm sure a lot of things matter to console manufacturers, but why do you think that manufacturers, retailers, analysts, journalists and forum dwellers all use sales figures and profits as a simple shorthand for success? It's because virtually everything else is subjective, with no clear data that can be measured over time. We can either say the metric is pointless without a holistic re-examination of every console generation ever, taking into account a dozen new criteria, or we can go with the simple approach of raw numbers that has served us well over time as they are hard figures rather than soft analysis.

 

[Mackins]

It doesn't matter if you like the Wii U more than the Wii, you bought a Wii and didn't buy a Wii U. Say what you like about the Wii's reputation, it had a brand name that was popularly known by hundreds of millions of people. The Wii U shared that same brand name and completely flopped. Recognition should be enough to guarantee sales at the very least. Why did the Wii U fail then?

Because people don't want the Wii U. A few people do and they buy Wii U's, but clearly the majority don't. Maybe the advertising is not enough for them, maybe the system is not enough for them, or maybe they're people who will say "I think the Wii U deserves sales" on the internet without actually buying a Wii U.

We saw Microsoft's brand change from gold to shit to gilded shit in the space of months last year. And yet you're telling me that Nintendo's failures with the Wii U are based on the Wii's reputation? Really?

Yes I bought a Wii because I normally buy every console, after getting kinda burnt with the N64 then the rapid demise of the GameCube, I was already on thin ice with Nintendo, the Wii was the last straw, for me it was too much filler, not enough killer.

Comparing it to the experiences I had with the 360 and PS3, there just was no comparison, it just felt like it was from the previous gen in regards to tech, networking and the overall package.

I think the Wii U failed, and this is just what I think, I can only speak for myself, because the core gamers were thrown to the wolves with the Wii in an effort to bring in the casuals, the kids, the housewives, the grandmas, it alienated the core and it gained them unimaginable success in doing so.

When the phone and tablet technology caught up, the previous crowd the Wii brought in, moved on to newer pastures, especially as the Wii U wasn't really marketed at them any more, it was definitely aimed more at the core gamers again. But many of us, having experienced the Wii, were and still are disillusioned with Nintendo.

This gen is a strange one for me, I've had every mainstream console since the NES, with about 95% bought on launch day, but this gen, I have only bought one, the PS4, because of past experiences with Nintendo souring that relationship and with the PR clusterfuck of MS, it put me off getting the X1 too.

But the difference is, I probably will pick up an X1 in a year or two but me and Nintendo are done and it's a shame because the Zelda franchise is one of my favourites.

That's just my story though, I'm sure other people will have their own reasons for avoiding the Wii U.

 

[BGBW]

Can we just agree that Wii "won", with the traditional measurement of total sales, during the period of 2006-2014 which we can consider the "active" (i.e. when the Wii, 360 and PS3 were the three home consoles in the spotlight) years of that generation but PS3 has the potential to best it in total sales for the whole generation that said consoles are on sale. Surely that should please all participants in this thread.

 

[redcrayon]

I think the Wii U failed, and this is just what I think, I can only speak for myself, because the core gamers were thrown to the wolves with the Wii in an effort to bring in the casuals, the kids, the housewives, the grandmas, it alienated the core and it gained them unimaginable success in doing so.

My own theory, and I suspect the truth is a mix of various ideas floating around, is that for the remaining audience for Nintendo games, the 3DS is partly eating the WiiUs lunch. Beforehand Nintendo's handhelds couldn't do 3D action games very well. Now they can, which means that the 3DS not only offers a better selection of the Nintendo IP, but it also the usual portable-only franchises in addition to third-party support.

As for the Wii, I didn't feel particularly thrown to the wolves. The main Nintendo IP was as good as ever, it had more great 'core' games than I had time to play, and it complemented my PS3 really well. I'd have to say that while I probably spent more time on the PS3 as a whole, I spent at least three times as long playing Monster Hunter Tri than any third party game on the Playstation.

Spoiler

This might also account for me not having time for many other Wii games

While it's pretty obvious that the AAA games in development for the PS4 and Xbox One are fairly direct descendants of their predecessors, I'm still also looking forward to the evolutions of the Wii games that used the classic controller too. This is heading a bit off topic so I'll avoid listing games.

 

[Jut]

Its crazy how bad Nintendo blew it with the WiiU. Did they recognize the mobile casual games market at all? Instead of making a low cost, easy to use, no frills console to play these kind of games and Nintendo titles...they do the exact opposite.

My niece plays free games on her tablet, thats what kids choose to play. They had to compete with that market and they didn't come close. Even Sony saying that they want to pick up that market...they aren't doing it either.

 

[BGBW]

the core gamers were thrown to the wolves with the Wii

What? Nintendo's output for the Wii was better than their output for the GCN. They provided the usual core content on top of their new content designed to cater to the blue ocean. Because 100% of their resources weren't dedicated to serving you they threw you to the wolves. OH PA-LEASE!

 

[Mackins]

My own theory, and I suspect the truth is a mix of various ideas floating around, is that for the remaining audience for Nintendo games, the 3DS is partly eating the WiiUs lunch. Beforehand Nintendo's handhelds couldn't do 3D action games very well. Now they can, which means that the 3DS not only offers a better selection of the Nintendo IP, but it also the usual portable-only franchises in addition to third-party support.

That is an interesting theory and a very plausible one.

I do think though a lot of gamers would rather have the big screen experience though as opposed to playing solely on handheld. I love my Vita but I much prefer playing on the big screen with most games, you may have a point though.

What? Nintendo's output for the Wii was better than their output for the GCN. They provided the usual core content on top of their new content designed to cater to the blue ocean. Because 100% of their resources weren't dedicated to serving you they threw you to the wolves. OH PA-LEASE!

That's all well and good but the GameCube is hardly the system to be judged against is it?

I judged the Wii against its peers, the 360 and PS3 and I found it sorely lacking for what I wanted.

To give you a bit of insight in to why it was lacking for me personally, my favourite genre is RPGs, turn based, action, it doesn't matter as long as it's a good game, but I also like the FIFAs, Maddens, Call Of Dutys, Grand Theft Autos, Halos, Uncharteds, Tomb Raiders and the like, it's cool nowadays to diss those kinds of games but they're what I like, the Wii offered a few RPGs of standard but for all those other kinds of games, it was just wasn't for me.

I know the Wii is well suited to a lot of gamers, that's obvious, but to a lot of gamers like me, it just didn't cut the mustard. It doesn't mean it was a terrible system though, I just don't think from what I've read and the people I've talked to over the years, that it was a system aimed at core gamers that are like me.

 

[redcrayon]

That is an interesting theory and a very plausible one.

I do think though a lot of gamers would rather have the big screen experience though as opposed to playing solely on handheld. I love my Vita but I much prefer playing on the big screen with most games, you may have a point though.

Oh, absolutely. I'm sure the list of theories for problems with the WiiU is a lengthy one, and as I've said before, I'm not even convinced that my particular theory is anywhere near the top of the list. It's one of many, many colliding issues that started way back at the core concept of the thing which is why there is no quick fix for it.

That's all well and good but the GameCube is hardly the system to be judged against is it?

I judged the Wii against its peers, the 360 and PS3 and I found it sorely lacking for what I wanted.

To give you a bit of insight in to why it was lacking for me personally, my favourite genre is RPGs, turn based, action, it doesn't matter as long as it's a good game, but I also like the FIFAs, Maddens, Call Of Dutys, Grand Theft Autos, Halos, Uncharteds, Tomb Raiders and the like, it's cool nowadays to diss those kinds of games but they're what I like, the Wii offered a few RPGs of standard but for all those other kinds of games, it was just wasn't for me.

I know the Wii is well suited to a lot of gamers, that's obvious, but to a lot of gamers like me, it just didn't cut the mustard. It doesn't mean it was a terrible system though, I just don't think from what I've read and the people I've talked to over the years, that it was a system aimed at core gamers that are like me.

Steady on with those reasonable opinions

 

[Mackins]

Oh, absolutely. I'm sure the list of theories for problems with the WiiU is a lengthy one, and as I've said before, I'm not even convinced that my particular theory is anywhere near the top of the list. It's one of many, many colliding issues that started way back at the core concept of the thing which is why there is no quick fix for it.


Steady on with those reasonable opinions

Hahahaha it's just hard trying to put my point across without upsetting someone so I kinda go a bit overboard in trying to explain myself.

Yeah it's certainly a highly debatable and sensitive issue to discuss and it's probably been done to death. I've talked about it many times before with other groups and people I know but I'm new round these parts and I like hearing every ones take on the situation so I can build up the bigger picture in my own mind.

I'm loving GAF so far, it's full of passionate gamers with a deep pool of knowledge and insight, it's the best forum I've found by a long shot, I'm usually the one doing the educating on all the other forums, but in here, I feel like I'm the one who's getting educated. It's one hell of a community.

 

[Version 3.0]

by all measurable metrics, Nintendo "won".

Apparently total game sales for the PS3 may have surpassed Wii's game sales (and if they haven't yet, they will). That would be a measurable metric that would not be in the Wii's favor.

If console A sells 100 million units and 500 million games, and console B sells 80 million units and 550 million games...which one "won"?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here - the Wii is the winner. It sold the most, and made its company the most profit. Neither of those metrics is under a real threat of being surpassed.

However, as I said earlier, there's nothing unfair about putting a big asterisk on the Wii's victory - or more accurately, Nintendo's victory. Nintendo handled the Wii's success about as badly as is possible.

 

[enanogrande]

Hahahaha it's just hard trying to put my point across without upsetting someone so I kinda go a bit overboard in trying to explain myself.

Yeah it's certainly a highly debatable and sensitive issue to discuss and it's probably been done to death. I've talked about it many times before with other groups and people I know but I'm new round these parts and I like hearing every ones take on the situation so I can build up the bigger picture in my own mind.

I'm loving GAF so far, it's full of passionate gamers with a deep pool of knowledge and insight, it's the best forum I've found by a long shot, I'm usually the one doing the educating on all the other forums, but in here, I feel like I'm the one who's getting educated. It's one hell of a community.

What? Nintendo's output for the Wii was better than their output for the GCN. They provided the usual core content on top of their new content designed to cater to the blue ocean. Because 100% of their resources weren't dedicated to serving you they threw you to the wolves. OH PA-LEASE!

Very subjective of course, but I was actually disappointed in most of the sequels Nintendo brought out for the Wii. Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 aside, I felt Super Smash, Mario Kart, & Mario Strikers were all noticeable downgrades from their GC counterparts, and Metroid Prime 3 was probably the worst of the series (which still makes it a great game though). Same with Skyward Sword, I was actually a bit disappointed in that game (though it has the best Zelda boss ever.) For me both WW & Twilight Princess are better games.

 

[Mackins]

Very subjective of course, but I was actually disappointed in most of the sequels Nintendo brought out for the Wii. Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 aside, I felt Super Smash, Mario Kart, & Mario Strikers were all noticeable downgrades from their GC counterparts, and Metroid Prime 3 was probably the worst of the series (still a great fame though).

I could never get in to the Galaxies, I used to love those kind of games when I was younger, but the older I got, the less interested I was in them, it's not an age thing though, it's just I went in a different direction gaming wise.

Why do you feel they were downgrades? Was it the controls, content or something else?

Never been a fan of the Mario Kart series either, I thought Brawl was alright though.

Never played any of the others but Metroid is one of the biggest series I've never played but was interested in.

 

[redcrayon]

Apparently total game sales for the PS3 may have surpassed Wii's game sales (and if they haven't yet, they will). That would be a measurable metric that would not be in the Wii's favor.

If console A sells 100 million units and 500 million games, and console B sells 80 million units and 550 million games...which one "won"?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here - the Wii is the winner. It sold the most, and made its company the most profit. Neither of those metrics is under a real threat of being surpassed.

However, as I said earlier, there's nothing unfair about putting a big asterisk on the Wii's victory - or more accurately, Nintendo's victory. Nintendo handled the Wii's success about as badly as is possible.

Yeah, fair point. I'd agree that the handover from Wii to WiiU was appalling in lots of ways (although personally I thought the WiiU games in its first year were pretty good).

I'd have to say though, when they announced a HD Nintendo console, with a tablet, and a 2D Mario, Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest X lined up for it, I was wondering 'how is this not going to go like shit off a shovel in Japan?' Clearly I probably shouldn't retrain as an analyst, and I wasn't alone.

 

[Mackins]

Yeah, fair point. I'd agree that the handover from Wii to WiiU has been appalling (although personally I thought the WiiU games in its first year were pretty good).

I'd have to say though, when they announced a HD Nintendo console, with a tablet, and a 2D Mario, Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest X lined up for it, I was wondering 'how is this not going to go like shit off a shovel in Japan?' Clearly I probably shouldn't retrain as an analyst, and I wasn't alone.

Japan is going through a strange transition, the console industry over there has been dwindling since the PS2 era, they're a nation transfixed on handhelds and that ties in with your earlier point about the 3DS biting in to the Wii U's lunch, over there that is definitely a contributing factor.

I'd be surprised if the PS4 had an impact over there also.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Sorry man, we need to know how many of these software sales were made before some arbitrary cutoff point first. The games that are selling right now don't actually count.

Jackasses aside that is really impressive.

PS3 attach rate must have went up over the past couple of years.

Like I don't think it's likely PS3 will outsell Wii. But if it does I'll easily say Sony was the market leader for that generation. But with the caveat that it took a really long time to get there. I mean if it's still on shelves in 2020 I wouldn't be shocked that it got there. Same for 360. If both are still on shelves in 2020 for like $59 I wouldn't be shocked if both make it past Wii.

Just in Sony's case I can see a legit reason for why they'd want to cut their losses. Cell didn't pan out and very few things use it meaning there's a limit to just how cheap it can get before it starts becoming more expensive to produce the thing. One of their RAM pools is a highly specialized form that doesn't see much usage anymore. Their GPU is based on a model that all companies have left behind.

I think there's a reason it hasn't gotten much cheaper while the PS family continues to drain money. It's just a costly esoteric design. Obviously this is why Vita and PS4 were designed as they were. To get to the chewy profitable center much faster. It's actually closer to their PSOne design philosophy than their PS2 and PS3. Modified off shelf parts, designed for ease of use above anything else.

I see a few inconsistent parallels with their first generation actually. Sony's design principles, One taking the place of 64 with a very western design approach, and WiiU taking the place of Saturn because they aren't selling all too dissimilar.

 

[enanogrande]

I could never get in to the Galaxies, I used to love those kind of games when I was younger, but the older I got, the less interested I was in them, it's not an age thing though, it's just I went in a different direction gaming wise.

Why do you feel they were downgrades? Was it the controls, content or something else?

Never been a fan of the Mario Kart series either, I thought Brawl was alright though.

Never played any of the others but Metroid is one of the biggest series I've never played but was interested in.

Well, like I said it's mostly a subjective thing. The GC was always the party console for my friends & I, and as such we spent hours and hours playing a mix of Mario Kart DD, Smash Melee, Mario Tennis & Strikers. I know my views on the later games are probably strongly influenced by this, but I can't help it xD

I can't really speak for Wii Mario Strikers, as I never owned it - I played ~10 hours the week after release at a friends house, and we just kept gravitating back to GC Mario Strikers. Can't really remember why, but I believe our biggest problem was they slowed the game down quite a lot.

Smash Brawl is a good game, but for Melee players the 'problems' are well documented xD Tripping, the floatiness, the smash balls... just so many things they changed from Melee, arguably for the worst. There's a reason the competitive scene is still (mostly) playing Melee after all these years.

Mario Kart also has a number of problems: Battle Mode is drastically changed (gimped, to me), I was never a big fan of the controls (it always seemed looser than Double Dash), and I felt the Track Design was also a step below. Of course, Double Dash was probably the game I played the most in High School/Early College, so this might just be me preferring one play style to another.

This isn't saying any of those games are bad, per se, just not as good as their predecessors. Of course, some of my complaints are surely subjective things that others won't have a problem with, but for me (and my friends at large) a working GC is still a must for any Game Night.

I think my problem with most of these games (though I'm sure most people will disagree on Mario Kart at least) is that it seems Nintendo tried to make them all a bit more accesible. This is fine, and seeing as they're all party games it makes sense. But when you spend so many hours playing them semi-competively, some of these changes just aren't made for you. I also don't really agree (especially with Smash Bros.) on how they went around doing this - its fine to lower the Skill floor, but this shouldn't mean lowering the skill ceiling as well.

As for Metroid, it's really a great series. If you can somehow get Prime Trilogy, the wii controls are great for all 3 games and it's very much worth a buy (It's a steal too at retail price, $50 for three near-masterpieces)

TL;DR - I'm probably just too used to the GC games, and the (perceived) change of direction of their Wii counterparts didn't gel with me.

 

[web01]

It won in sales only because it was a huge mainstream fad but it lead to Nintendo chasing the golden rabbit down the hole that doesn't exist placing them in the dire situation they are currently in with WiiU. System was severely underpowered, the games Nintendo produced are generally much lower quality than those released on the GameCube and was the beginning of them becoming severely dumbed down. The online system was terrible, fridge full and the cluster fuck of control option needed to adequately play multiple different VC games was terrible instead of having proper remapping.
Best thing about wii is now being able to play it how it should have been from the start with emulation on PC.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

It won in sales because it was a huge mainstream fad but it lead to Nintendo chasing the golden rabbit down the hole that doesn't exist placing them in the dire situation they are currently in.

No what has hurt them is chasing that rabbit badly while a more competent competitor was siphoning them away.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Sorry man, we need to know how many of these software sales were made before some arbitrary cutoff point first. The games that are selling right now don't actually count.

So... we're now using software sales as the metric for who "won"?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

So... we're now using software sales as the metric for who "won"?

He's just being a smartass because peeps have been acting like unit totals have cut off dates.

He'd admit it doesn't have the same weight as beating Wii in its prime, but for posterity sake a unit total is a unit total.

 

[Laughing Banana]

He's just being a smartass because peeps have been acting like unit totals have cut off dates.

He'd admit it doesn't have the same weight as beating Wii in its prime, but for posterity sake a unit total is a unit total.

Heh.

Anyways,

This is such a tiring thread to read.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Heh.

Anyways,

This is such a tiring thread to read.

I love arguing. I think it's fun.

And it's SmokyDave man!

Smartassery and rugged good looks make him the whole fucking package.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Package of what is the question.

 

[truly101]

I like how the Wii won the last generation because it sold the most consoles, but other Nintendo consoles won because they had the best software lineups, quality over quantity or whatever.
When did last gen end anyway, when Nintendo released the Wii U?

 

[Currygan]

Package of what is the question.

glad you were faster than me at writing that

 

[Sandfox]

I like how the Wii won the last generation because it sold the most consoles, but other Nintendo consoles won because they had the best software lineups, quality over quantity or whatever.
When did last gen end anyway, when Nintendo released the Wii U?

Which Nintendo consoles are you talking about?

 

[leroidys]

Big losses in consumer confidence, lasting influence and market buzz. Wii has been a stagnant and dead brand for years.



Who is "we?" Posters on Internet message board who only care about sales numbers in a vacuum? The simple metrics used by video game message board posters to determine "winners" is not realistic and not a gauge for actual company health. Unfortunately, a lot more than "we sold X quantity" matters to these companies. It is kind of a huge deal to not erode your brands, create negative outlook for future prospects and anger/bore away a restless user base into the hands of competitors with no content -- all this is a big deal if you want to be deemed a real success story that can make lightning strike more than once. Big short-term gains are only a viable strategy for fly-by-night operations.

The Wii was definitely short-lived. Top-tier software was sparse years before the system was officially finished. Someone even posted Iwata quotes where he essentially apologizes every year for severe droughts.



Let's be real. It's not happening. The Playstation brand has consistently sold big numbers of older hardware after Sony launched a new console. Nintendo has not. It's an honest assessment that PS3 will close up on and possibly exceed Wii hardware sales (factor in console prices and it has already outperformed the Wii). And if these figures are true, PS3 software sales are already beyond the Wii.

You're conflating "Wii brand" with "nintendo". And, let's be real, the Wii U did far more damage to the Wii brand than the original Wii did. I still don't see a compelling argument for pinning the Wii U's failure on the Wii.

If you take the Wii out of the equation, the Wii U is selling within the same scope as the GC, with much weaker software (in terms of quantity at least), and a much higher price. So if we black out 2006-2011, Nintendo is basically doing the same business as they were ten years ago. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, it's not, but it's not the Wii that caused the current failure of the Wii U. If you want to insist that it's a Pyrrhic victory, you have to establish some actual causative mechanism.

 

[Eusis]

I love arguing. I think it's fun.

And it's SmokyDave man!

Smartassery and rugged good looks make him the whole fucking package.

I actually think this is a genuinely more interesting discussion than it would have been for any prior generation too. PS2, PS1, NES? Don't kid around, we know those decimated the competition and at best Nintendo was a leader in game design, which is separate from "winning" a console war or whatever. But this is more like SNES vs Genesis but with more wrinkles to it. At least so long as you look at what sold over certain periods of time, I don't think topics like brand strength or whatever are particularly relevant to who "won", and whichever you liked best is a different type of discussion anyway.

Though this can also be a VERY pedantic argument, which is why it can get tiresome especially to those with a low threshold for that.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

What would our conclusion be? Yes, absolutely NeoGeo/Turbo Grafx won the generation, but so what? If the content for those systems die and remain in that generation and become unpopular in future generations, what kind of victory is that?

Exactly. There isn't a single major company that relies solely on "our numbers are bigger," disregarding everything else, to make bold claims that it's winning at anything. When was the last time Amazon had net profit? Never? It's the most successful online retailer. They know they're in this for the longhaul. What is Apple's smartphone marketshare compared to Google Android's? A fraction of the latter, yet Apple is still considered the influential market leader and trendsetter.

For fucks' sake. Do some of you think the industry hinges overall success on the child-like mentality that rock beats scissors, or 5 is more than 4 therefore we win?

Excellent points here. Anyone care to comment on Jado's post? I'd like to hear a counter-argument to that.

 

[Version 3.0]

the Wii U is selling within the same scope as the GC, with much weaker software (in terms of quantity at least), and a much higher price. So if we black out 2006-2011, Nintendo is basically doing the same business as they were ten years ago. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, it's not, but it's not the Wii that caused the current failure of the Wii U. If you want to insist that its a Pyrrhic victory, you have to establish some actual causative mechanism.

I don't know if I'd call it "within the same scope". Nintendo's shipped 5.86 million Wii U's as of December, according to their financial reports. I don't have Gamecube's shipment figures as of Dec 2002, but as of Mar 2003, they'd shipped 9.55 million Gamecubes.

Or just look at US sales, by far the strongest territory for both systems. As of the end of December of their second year, with the same amount of time on sale (to the day), it's 2.1 million vs. 3.5 million, in favor of the Gamecube. The Wii U's only doing 60% of the Gamecube's unit sales.

It's even worse on the software side - the Wii U is moving less than half the games vs. the Gamecube's equivalent time frame, again according to Nintendo's financial reports.

 

[Senor Kami]

Every previous gen, sales equaled winner. When it's Wii sales don't count any more... then we use sales to decide who won between PS3 and 360. C'mon man.

 

[leroidys]

I don't know if I'd call it "within the same scope". Nintendo's shipped 5.86 million Wii U's as of December, according to their financial reports. I don't have Gamecube's shipment figures as of Dec 2002, but as of Mar 2003, they'd shipped 9.55 million Gamecubes.

Or just look at US sales, by far the strongest territory for both systems. As of the end of December of their second year, with the same amount of time on sale (to the day), it's 2.1 million vs. 3.5 million, in favor of the Gamecube. The Wii U's only doing 60% of the Gamecube's unit sales.

It's even worse on the software side - the Wii U is moving less than half the games vs. the Gamecube's equivalent time frame, again according to Nintendo's financial reports.

Yeah, Wii U sales are very bad right now. That's down to their catastrophic post-launch period though. My argument isn't that Wii U is fine, it's that the Wii U is selling like shit because it's not an appealing product.

Software sales are much lower because there's much less to buy for it then there was for the GC.

Excellent points here. Anyone care to comment on Jado's post? I'd like to hear a counter-argument to that.

The counterargument is that by almost every metric from gross sales, to revenue, to software sales, to retail relations, to brand awareness, to demographic reach, to 1st party output, to stock price... the Wii was a resounding success.

 

[Mentok]

You're conflating "Wii brand" with "nintendo". And, let's be real, the Wii U did far more damage to the Wii brand than the original Wii did. I still don't see a compelling argument for pinning the Wii U's failure on the Wii.

If you take the Wii out of the equation, the Wii U is selling within the same scope as the GC, with much weaker software (in terms of quantity at least), and a much higher price. So if we black out 2006-2011, Nintendo is basically doing the same business as they were ten years ago. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, it's not, but it's not the Wii that caused the current failure of the Wii U. If you want to insist that it's a Pyrrhic victory, you have to establish some actual causative mechanism.

Fantastic post. You can criticize Nintendo's business practice (especially off of the success of the Wii), but the Wii sold very well to it's target audience.

 

[Version 3.0]

Excellent points here. Anyone care to comment on Jado's post? I'd like to hear a counter-argument to that.

I believe it's been commented on, but he's dead wrong. These companies routinely release statements about "beating" their competitors. Microsoft released PR every single month for the last few years that said, for example, "Xbox 360 is the #1 selling console for the 30th month in a row, commanding 46% of the market".

Or take this old classic Sales-Age shot, for instance:

 

[Version 3.0]

My argument isn't that Wii U is fine, it's that the Wii U is selling like shit because it's not an appealing product.

I agree with that 100%. Quite frankly, anyone who doesn't needs to get their head checked (including Nintendo execs, apparently).

But I do disagree with the idea that the Wii U damaged the Wii brand, rather than the Wii. I don't think the Wii U damaged the brand at all. I think it was already a dead brand. The Wii was pretty much dead about two years prior, and sales plummeted even before that - first software, then hardware (which was bundled with the all-powerful Wii Sports). Ask yourself why. Some people will tell you the market went away, smartphones were emerging, Facebook games were becoming popular, etc. But that's not it at all. It's because the Wii was a dumping ground for awful games. The Wii died well before it should have, and it took the brand down with it - how could it not? It was the brand.

And it was stupid of Nintendo to think that, for the first time in their history, they should re-use all the branding from the prior system. Same name, same logo, font, and color. Same accessories, almost the same form factor - all from a brand that no longer held any value. If the Wii brand was still strong, and it was the Wii U that hurt it, then the Wii U would've had a strong launch. It didn't. Sure, there were other factors at play, but there was no excitement for the Wii U - not in the industry, not at retailers, not in the gaming community, and most certainly not among Wii owners.

The follow-up to a product that had pre-opening lines and raffles and signs up to inform customers of no stock, for 2+ years after its launch, had the dullest launch night I've ever seen, and I've been lining up for launches since 1995.

 

[Eusis]

Every previous gen, sales equaled winner. When it's Wii sales don't count any more... then we use sales to decide who won between PS3 and 360. C'mon man.

Really to me it's that 1. PS3 and 360 are relatively close sales wise, 2. They are still very much active consoles, and 3. Software sales are an angle worth keeping in mind. That's why I think this is a bit more interesting to examine, and why I'm hesitant to say Nintendo is THE winner after giving it thought. It's fine if it does, but I think ignoring the long tail is unwise, and at a minimum there'd be discrete hardware/software winners if the PS3 and 360 ARE ahead there even individually.

 

[StevieP]

PS3 and 360 weren't replaced by a new generation sooner because their first couple years were dire in multiple ways and both consoles cost their departments in the billions. There's a reason why many of Microsoft's investors want out.

The Wii had an excellent tie ratio, and won by pretty well every measurable metric. It is close to impossible for the ps3 to catch up, especially considering how difficult it is to cost reduce the box further and how it isn't anything like the amazing ps2.

The Wii also had one of the most prolific and to-be-remembered pieces of gaming software in history. Mind share was far above anything else and other subjective goalpost movers don't matter. The Wii won, and I don't think subjective factors can change the objective facts. I didn't like a lot of the software and shovelware on it either, but my opinion has nothing to do with sales/profits/etc. Neither does the failed sequel that will struggle to even sell like the GameCube