Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

So how does Nintendo dumping the Wii U and pushing out a new system change this? You still haven't explained how early adopters of Nintendo hardware are going to buy into a new system after Nintendo jettisons the old one. And you still haven't explained how gamers are better off for having fewer games in exchange for better corporate bottom lines. That, to me, sounds like the gaming equivalent of trickle down economics. If I were an investor, maybe I could see your point. As a gamer, I don't see how I'm worse off for having Zelda U, Xenoblade and other games to eventually play.

I haven't explained it because you clearly are not understanding my point. I will state this for the third time: I am not suggesting that the Wii U be completely abandoned, and that Nintendo make zero new games for it. I am suggesting they invest just enough to keep current owners happy, without investing more in to trying to gain marketshare. Let the system ride out its life as the Gamecube did.

Let's say Nintendo's next system launches in late 2016. Well, Nintendo has limited resources. Any and all employees invested in continuing to push the Wii U are by definition not working to set Nintendo up for a better situation next time around. Figuring out what went wrong with the Wii U and how to avoid failures of this magnitude in the future is not an easy task, and getting it all sorted out will take a huge portion of Nintendo's resources.

For instance, if Nintendo wants to set up a network infrastructure for the Wii 3 console that not just competes with but bests PSN and XBL, they need a large quantity of employees dedicated to that process right now.

 

[Opiate]

But you are saying the lack of success warrants immediate and silly action.

Immediate action yes, but (obviously in my opinion) not silly. The sunk cost fallacy is a powerfully persuasive effect, and it prevents companies and people from moving on in situations where they probably should have.

I will repeat for a fourth time: "moving on" in this case does not mean "make no more games for Wii U at all." It means pushing a significant portion of their financial and human resources towards the future, because the present is lost and investing any more than is necessary in to the present is not prudent. They should devote a significantly larger share of their financial and human resources to future development than they should with, say, the original DS. Obviously they had to plan for the 3DS, but the DS was so successful that keeping it alive and thriving was a profitable endeavor in a way that keeping the Wii U alive is not.

 

[borghe]

Tell you what I'll pick it up at 200 if it has a pack game I care about.

fwiw, if you are in America, you can snag a $200 Wii U from Nintendo (refurb with NintendoLand), and MK8 on Amazon right now for $50 which when registered before July 31st will then get you one of four downloads for free (Pikmin 3, NSMBU, Zelda Wind Waker, or Wii U Party). So for $250 you can get the system and three games, two of which among the best the system has to offer.

 

[StoopKid]

The next post...



At any rate, it's silly to nag about a rise in desirability. They're doing what they can, and, I think, are showing a great effort at making the system attractive.

Gamers who skip it for whatever reason will mostly just be missing out on some great games. Some of those gamers will be skipping it for the right reasons: i.e. they just legitimately don't enjoy those types of games. Other gamers will be skipping it for silly reasons and thus missing out on some great games. Of such things is the world made.

I clearly said the majority.

people are on budgets. I think people would rather invest in a console with more third party support.

 

[Seik]

It all depends on what you mean by 'save'.

I mean, it can have better sales numbers than ever, sure. Though if you mean 'save' like racing against the X1 and PS4...won't happen.

As far as I'm concerned, the Wii U would be saved if it ends up selling more than the Gamecube in the end of it's life cycle.

 

[LaserHawk]

The WiiU only needs "saved" in the eyes of people who keep track of sales numbers and argue about it online. If you've got a WiiU and any one additional console, you're gonna do fine. You may be waiting a bit for that next excellent Nintendo title, but you can play games on the Sony/Microsoft consoles in the meantine. And you'll have to be fine with that, because that Nintendo game isn't coming to another system.

The WiiU is only in trouble of not being the be-all end-all system. When you come to terms with that, there's really not a lot to panic about. We're still getting our Nintendo games.... and good ones, from the looks of it.

 

[Vlade]

Immediate action yes, but (obviously in my opinion) not silly. The sunk cost fallacy is a powerfully persuasive effect, and it prevents companies and people from moving on in situations where they probably should have.

I will repeat for a fourth time: "moving on" in this case does not mean "make no more games for Wii U at all." It means pushing a significant portion of their financial and human resources towards the future, because the present is lost and investing any more than is necessary in to the present is not prudent. They should devote a significantly larger share of their financial and human resources to future development than they should with, say, the original DS. Obviously they had to plan for the 3DS, but the DS was so successful that keeping it alive and thriving was a profitable endeavor in a way that keeping the Wii U alive is not.

But the investments in the wii u are extensible to the future. development, nfc toys, brand id, etc.

 

[Parch]

You clearly didn't watch Treehouse.

I watched some of the highlights. I didn't watch it live because there's a lot of Nintendo stuff I'm not interested in and I didn't want to spend hours watching stuff I don't care about. I watched the Xenoblade and Splatoon stuff.

It's not a lot different from what other gaming sites like IGN offer. This idea that Treehouse is this mind-boggling innovative gaming coverage that is going to be Nintendo's saviour is just crazy. Sheesh.

 

[EatinOlives]

It'll eventually start selling more consoles per month, that's for sure, but I doubt it'll be able to compete with the XB1 or PS4 at any point during its life.

However, at the end of the day, if the system is cheap and has a wide library of interesting titles, I'm going to buy it and enjoy them regardless of its performance in the market.

 

[sora87]

With what was announced this E3 and another 1 or 2 strong E3's hopefully to come I could see the Wii U reaching at least 25-30 million LTS, which would probably be a success given how hard it struggled in it's first 2 years

 

[Wynnebeck]

The WiiU only needs "saved" in the eyes of people who keep track of sales numbers and argue about it online. If you've got a WiiU and any one additional console, you're gonna do fine. You may be waiting a bit for that next excellent Nintendo title, but you can play games on the Sony/Microsoft consoles in the meantine. And you'll have to be fine with that, because that Nintendo game isn't coming to another system.

The WiiU is only in trouble of not being the be-all end-all system. When you come to terms with that, there's really not a lot to panic about. We're still getting our Nintendo games.... and good ones, from the looks of it.

The question at hand is whether Nintendo's current and future line-up enough to bring it back into the race with PS4/Xbone, not whether Nintendo fans should be content with what they are already getting. That's the point I feel people (not pointing you out) are not getting especially when Opiate refers to phasing out the Wii U for another system. IMO, I think Nintendo is in plans to do that as soon as it's financially viable and won't cause the most amount of disruption to the company.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

saving the Wii U? lol

I will enjoy its games tho

 

[Drakeon]

It all depends on what you mean by 'save'.

I mean, it can have better sales numbers than ever, sure. Though if you mean 'save' like racing against the X1 and PS4...won't happen.

As far as I'm concerned, the Wii U would be saved if it ends up selling more than the Gamecube in the end of it's life cycle.

That's very very improbable. The GameCube sold really well on comparison. It sold 22 million and the Wii U is on track for maybe 15. It's not going to come close to GCN numbers, it's just not.

I don't understand why everyone thinks the Wii U can match the GameCube. The GameCube had a lot more going for it (significantly cheaper, still receiving third party support, significant third party exclusives). It's a fallacy to think the Wii U breaks 17 million let alone 22 barring some game that catches on fire.

 

[guek]

saving the Wii U? lol

I will enjoy its games tho

Basically my standpoint as well. I've given up hope of it ever achieving much more than gamecube level success but I think it'll be a worthwhile platform. I'm certainly happy with owning one.

Unfortunately, I think Nintendo is going after the "Nintendo market" and is focusing on expanding that demographic. Ms and Sony are going after the gaming market as a whole, and the disparity in wide appeal really shows.

 

[Novan Leon]

Imagine this: a person who owns a decent gaming PC. Maybe even one that is more powerful than PS4. Likes variety of genres and that person is looking to buy a next-gen console. Wouldn't you agree that Wii U is best value out of three then? Exclusive lineup on Wii U is just stellar. Not so on Xbox One and PS4. I think when people make statements like you just did they have a very specific kind of customer in mind. The kind that is a dying breed. Ignoring casuals is too common too.

You're right. A Wii U is an excellent complimentary console to go with a PC or even a PS4/XBO, IF you have the spare cash to spend and you love Nintendo's first-party games. This just isn't a sustainable business model though. The Wii U isn't going to thrive by being the overpriced secondary console for people with extra cash. To succeed, the Wii U needs to provide significant value on it's own merits.

I would personally never recommend the console to anyone except a die-hard Nintendo fan or parent who needs the occasional child-friendly game to play with their kids.

As another note: why isn't buying a refurb acceptable? I don't understand.

It's great for Nintendo fans looking for a WiiU on the cheap but it just isn't an acceptible business model for Nintendo. The average consumer probably isn't even aware that getting a refurbished console is an option, if enough people learn about it the refurb stock will eventually run out, and if there IS a large enough refurb stock to keep up with demand, this indicates a larger issue with the console hardware which is a greater issue for Nintendo.

 

[SegaShack]

For hardcore gamers, yes. For the general public, no. Too late. 3DS they saved by bombarding software in 2011 and 2012.

 

[Evilmaus]

I like to think so.

I think their showing at E3 this year will definitely boost sales. If they can keep it up and have another strong presentation next year, then I think it'll definitely gain traction. That being said, the sales numbers won't be anywhere near the levels of the PS4 and XBone.

In my mind, the Wii U isn't competing against them anyway. I didn't buy my Wii U for third party exclusives and such. I bought it because I fucking love Nintendo and want to play all the new Nintendo games that come out. I bought it for games like Smash, Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, Mario. All that good stuff that you're very unlikely to get anywhere else.

I like to think that it'll only die if Nintendo let it. They've got enough money to keep pumping out games for it for years to come. After a few more years, most people will have already made the transition to PS4 and XBone, so they'll be more inclined to invest in the Wii U when they're looking for something new, which by that point will have a substantial library.

Maybe I'm being too much of an optimist, and looking at this whole thing through rose-tinted glasses, but Nintendo was such a big part of my childhood, and has been such a big part of my life in general, that the idea of one of their consoles completely failing just seems too implausible to me.

I guess time will tell!

 

[phanphare]

saving the Wii U? lol

I will enjoy its games tho

pretty much this

 

[Kelsey]

It doesnt need to be saved. Nintendo isn't going to kill it. It needs to be rescued though, and the only people that can rescue it from being the giant disaster that it is are third parties, and I think we can all agree the third parties are gone for good.

 

[Bloodrage]

No, but I appreciate Nintendo's efforts. I will buy one at some point to play Zelda.

 

[TitusGroan]

I haven't explained it because you clearly are not understanding my point. I will state this for the third time: I am not suggesting that the Wii U be completely abandoned, and that Nintendo make zero new games for it. I am suggesting they invest just enough to keep current owners happy, without investing more in to trying to gain marketshare. Let the system ride out its life as the Gamecube did.

Let's say Nintendo's next system launches in late 2016. Well, Nintendo has limited resources. Any and all employees invested in continuing to push the Wii U are by definition not working to set Nintendo up for a better situation next time around. Figuring out what went wrong with the Wii U and how to avoid failures of this magnitude in the future is not an easy task, and getting it all sorted out will take a huge portion of Nintendo's resources.

For instance, if Nintendo wants to set up a network infrastructure for the Wii 3 console that not just competes with but bests PSN and XBL, they need a large quantity of employees dedicated to that process right now.

But you're assuming that any and all investment into the system has to be lost, and precluding the idea that software can still be profitable. MK8 just showed that its possible for Wii U software to be succesful and, if their dev budgets are in line with the industry, profitable. They've got a near franchise-high opening for the game, and the promise of sales legs going on.

Yes, they could start moving resources onto their next project now. Or they could keep investing in software that wins attention, and sells enough to break into profitability. Invest in the next platform when they've stabilized this one. At the very least, supporting a platform in the long term earns good will from consumers. Its precisely because Sony invested in the PS3 for so long that they got gamer goodwill for the PS4.

Continued investment in the Wii U now doesnt just offer Nintendo the chance to earn money back through software, it instills confidencr in the communitu knowing that they stand by their products. Confidence that can then be transferred over.

Sega stands as a testament to what happens when you don't instill that confidence.

 

[darkistheway]

I think all Nintendo did - and I believe that this is their only goal with the Wii U - was demonstrate that the system will live through 2015. There is no way to save the console.

E3 2015 will probably see Nintendo reveal a new handheld and their QOL thingy and the Wii U will be scheduled for irrelevance.

I fully expect a new console in 2016

Spoiler

with Metroid!

 

[Coolwhip]

pretty much this

With: "It will become profitable for Nintendo" added.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

Key words. In 5 years time people will not remember Donkey Kong TF as a classic. Your definition of classic = a good game. Like I said, easily impressed.

I know I'm addressing a banned user, but you can't say a particular work will be a classic years into the future. Opinions change over time.

My example is that, in 1942, How Green Was My Valley won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Nowadays, it is only remembered as the film that snubbed Citizen Kane.

 

[xaszatm]

Immediate action yes, but (obviously in my opinion) not silly. The sunk cost fallacy is a powerfully persuasive effect, and it prevents companies and people from moving on in situations where they probably should have.

I will repeat for a fourth time: "moving on" in this case does not mean "make no more games for Wii U at all." It means pushing a significant portion of their financial and human resources towards the future, because the present is lost and investing any more than is necessary in to the present is not prudent. They should devote a significantly larger share of their financial and human resources to future development than they should with, say, the original DS. Obviously they had to plan for the 3DS, but the DS was so successful that keeping it alive and thriving was a profitable endeavor in a way that keeping the Wii U alive is not.

And I will repeat that the sunk cost fallacy only works in retrospect. The Xbox was a sunk cost for Microsoft and yet they still went for the Xbox 360 anyways. The PS3 could have been considered a sunk cost halfway throughout its life cycle (or do we forget the PS3 has no game meme?) yet Sony went for a hard marketing push on the console anyways. Hell, Nintendo was considered a dead company in consoles after the Gamecube yet instead of bowing out chased an unknown market. Yet each pulled success out from certain failure because they realized that economic thinking must be applied to more than simple cash.

I still do not see, from either a business standpoint, a financial standpoint, or a gamer's standpoint, the benefit of Nintendo moving on. Just explain it. At the very least, more people will understand your reasoning.

 

[Terrell]

I haven't explained it because you clearly are not understanding my point. I will state this for the third time: I am not suggesting that the Wii U be completely abandoned, and that Nintendo make zero new games for it. I am suggesting they invest just enough to keep current owners happy, without investing more in to trying to gain marketshare. Let the system ride out its life as the Gamecube did.

Let's say Nintendo's next system launches in late 2016. Well, Nintendo has limited resources. Any and all employees invested in continuing to push the Wii U are by definition not working to set Nintendo up for a better situation next time around. Figuring out what went wrong with the Wii U and how to avoid failures of this magnitude in the future is not an easy task, and getting it all sorted out will take a huge portion of Nintendo's resources.

For instance, if Nintendo wants to set up a network infrastructure for the Wii 3 console that not just competes with but bests PSN and XBL, they need a large quantity of employees dedicated to that process right now.

So you're suggesting starving the platform because of a bad first year.
Imagine if Sony did that with PS3 for a moment. That will tell you how viable the strategy is.
Hell, you can see how good it works in actuality: check what it is doing to Vita.

 

[EatinOlives]

I haven't explained it because you clearly are not understanding my point. I will state this for the third time: I am not suggesting that the Wii U be completely abandoned, and that Nintendo make zero new games for it. I am suggesting they invest just enough to keep current owners happy, without investing more in to trying to gain marketshare. Let the system ride out its life as the Gamecube did.

Let's say Nintendo's next system launches in late 2016. Well, Nintendo has limited resources. Any and all employees invested in continuing to push the Wii U are by definition not working to set Nintendo up for a better situation next time around. Figuring out what went wrong with the Wii U and how to avoid failures of this magnitude in the future is not an easy task, and getting it all sorted out will take a huge portion of Nintendo's resources.

For instance, if Nintendo wants to set up a network infrastructure for the Wii 3 console that not just competes with but bests PSN and XBL, they need a large quantity of employees dedicated to that process right now.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Seeing Nintendo's video presser I got the distinct notion from the games shown, the dev interviews, and the overall tone of the presentation that Nintendo isn't interested in pushing the WiiU as a "market leader" anymore. I don't really mean that in a bad way, though. Though they're not pushing "trendy" new angles, they're instead focusing on providing the existing and future WiiU base on games that they're expected to make. I mean, rather than making weirdass experiments like Wii Music or pushing the Vitality Sensor, they're instead doing their own take on the shooter formula, they're doubling down on their strongest IPs with a well-realized Zelda concept, finally giving people the Mario Editor game/program they've always wanted, that kind of thing. I think they realize this will probably not launch the WiiU's sales into the stratosphere, but honestly I'd rather have that than see Nintendo chase "the next big trend" and continue to see them spiraling into irrelevancy on both fronts.

I mean, I'm comparing this E3 to, say, E3 2008. "Biggest games" were Chinatown Wars for the DS and Animal Crossing City Folk. The rest was Wii Music, chasing after the Wii Play craze and just an utterly bizarre experiment that really went nowhere, doing another Wii Sports because give me more console sales pls, Shawn White doing snowboarding on the Balance Board because he's a trending athlete, Wii Fit was a trending game, and the Balance Board was a trending peripheral. People attending the conference just sat there baffled, and Nintendo didn't even mention Pikmin 3 or Skyward Sword until they were practically begged for anything at all that wasn't trendy and was actually reflective of Nintendo's past pedigree.

Two very distinct tones. E3 '08 was "we struck gold with Wii Sports! Quick, try and catch another lighting in a bottle! Traditional Nintendo games? Oh yeah yeah yeah, that's later, go away". E3 '14 was "OK, the WiiU failed to make a splash, but here's a big range of Nintendo games in their classic style of different sizes and scope, a new IP, classic Zelda, a spinoff title, that Mario Editor you've always wanted, etc. etc."

 

[joeposh]

Not enough to save the Wii U from being a disappointment sales-wise, but there's more than enough to get the system a pretty incredible lineup but the time its all said and done.

I agree, and would like to add what I think the underlying objective for Nintendo is at this point: bunker down and survive for the next round.

They know there's almost no way to win with the Wii U, but they can mitigate damage, curry favor with their current base and experiment with ideas and franchises that could inform their next console. They can make up some of their losses, reward loyalty and maintain trust, while setting the stage for the next round (positive buzz about their closing notes on the Wii U) without having to rush R&D or be painted as desperate.

If they can avoid making the jump to a new system until Holiday of 2016, I would say they've done a pretty solid job considering the current circumstances.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

fwiw, if you are in America, you can snag a $200 Wii U from Nintendo (refurb with NintendoLand), and MK8 on Amazon right now for $50 which when registered before July 31st will then get you one of four downloads for free (Pikmin 3, NSMBU, Zelda Wind Waker, or Wii U Party). So for $250 you can get the system and three games, two of which among the best the system has to offer.

Shiiiiiit. I was waiting for a smash bundle but this might just win me over. I might end up buying it before then and do this. July 31st for sure?

I can't pass up free Wind Waker hd.

 

[Blues1990]

I would like to know why everyone is getting worked up about this. As long as the console continues to offer a wide selection of solid games, that's all that matters to me. I'm looking forward to Splatoon & Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker when they come out, for instance.

 

[Mojojo]

I could see it saved for this Holiday season if amiibo catches on. Good marketing and Xmas frenzy can make wonders, but it would be a one time fluke imo.
Their continued support for this ailing console makes me think that the route they 'll choose next will be so different, it was pointless to cancel the ongoing WiiU projects, and it will be the last time before long we'll see their classic titles in HD on a big tv again.

 

[Daschysta]

Pikmin 3
Rayman Legends
ZombiU
MK8
DkCtF
3D World
NFSMW
WWHD
W101
NSMBU/NSLU

Are all good to great games, plus it has great Indie support, including some nice exclusives.

Bayonetta 1/2
Pushmo U
Canvas Curse 2
Smash
Splatoon
Zelda
Yarn Yoshi
Xenoblade Cross
Fatal Frame
Hyrule Warriors

All look like at least good and mostly great games through 2015.

We can safely assume that Metroid, Starfox, SMTxFE will be good too.

Frankly I don't care much about sales when there is this much great exclusive content

 

[Dictator93]

None of the games they announced or have in the pipeline really entice me enough to spend that amount of money on it.

It would be quite expensive just to play it the way I would want to play it (4player local).

If my opinion is anywhere near the normal, then no, the Wii U is still on the "doomed" trajectory.

 

[Jinko]

Well since the Wii U is already profitable for Nintendo then it doesn't really need saving does it?

It may not be the super smash hit that they wanted but if it's not causing them to hemorrhage dollars then they've done their dance just right.

Well in theory you are right, but no business is just happy to stay afloat. (or should be)

 

[BeauRoger]

Not even close to enough. All in all, this will most likely be nintendos worst performing home console yet, software.wise and hardware-wise.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Its enough for the time being, whats coming this year and next was enough to make me buy one. Now I just hope Metroid finally comes sometime, but right now I'm happy. I just wish it was 2015 already. lol

 

[Gorillaz]

So you're suggesting starving the platform because of a bad first year.
Imagine if Sony did that with PS3 for a moment. That will tell you how viable the strategy is.
Hell, you can see how good it works in actuality: check what it is doing to Vita.

People especially 3rd party knew the PS3 would eventually take off despite its rough launch. There was alot invested to make sure it would from everyone. The wii u was considered "dead" mainstream wise about a year ago. Its not really the same thing

 

[terrdactycalsrock]

It'll probably be viewed like every other nintendo platform after the SNES. Meaning people will say that it was good for first party games, but not much else

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't really get what's so hard to understand about what Opiate's posting.
Opiate isn't saying they should cancel all Wii U development, scuttle Zelda Wii U, and never produce any more Wii U software for the rest of the life cycle.

Opiate is saying it is no longer worthwhile investing in new Wii U software development that would entail significant development resources, in terms of both money and human capital, to try and expand the Wii U installed base and recapture market share. By this I would assume the reference is to titles on the scale of Zelda and Smash Bros and MK8. It is no longer worthwhile to try and "save" the Wii U.

A degree of resources should be used to continue to maintain the userbase, certainly. Announcements like Captain Toad and Mario Maker probably serve this purpose well. But given the option of devoting large scale resources to the Wii U to try and turn it around, or towards setting up a future platform for success, the latter is the better option.

(Opiate is free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting him.)

 

[Jinko]

Treehouse IMO saved Nintendo..

Hmm ?

Bit early to assume that, plus I think you are over estimating the impact E3 has on main stream gamers.

 

[Pain]

It could hold on to that #2 spot longer than most thought.

 

[Father_Brain]

Many of those bringing up GC seem to be forgetting that Wii U software costs considerably more than GC software to develop, meaning that MK8 and SSB will need to sell significantly better than their GC counterparts to produce the same levels of profit.

 

[sörine]

From Iwata's comments it seems the Wii U architecture is going to be grandfathered into their future platforms too. I think this is smart since even with low returns then investment into Wii U isn't necessairily a "waste" as technology, assets, software, networking, tools and so on can be transitioned to the next hardware cycle. Sort of like with Gamecube & Wii.

 

[Parch]

A Wii U is an excellent complimentary console to go with a PC or even a PS4/XBO.

It is. Definitely.
I think for console owners it comes down to cost. Do they spend a big part of their gaming budget on Nintendo hardware or do they use that cash to buy more games for the console they already have. A lot of parents are not keen on purchasing a second console.

If the price is tempting enough, WiiU can sell as a secondary console. But it's a small fanbase that is going to use it as a standalone, and trying to survive on second fiddle sales is going to be a struggle.

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

A success to me is the system have a decent library of games I want to play and it already has a good amount. With what they have shown recently only strengthens my outlook on the console in the near future.
As long as N makes great first party games, I'm going to buy their consoles. There are 3 other viable platforms to worry about which AAA over-inflated budget 3rd party type games to play on.

 

[schuelma]

I don't really get what's so hard to understand about what Opiate's posting.
Opiate isn't saying they should cancel all Wii U development, scuttle Zelda Wii U, and never produce any more Wii U software for the rest of the life cycle.

Opiate is saying it is no longer worthwhile investing in new Wii U software development that would entail significant development resources, in terms of both money and human capital, to try and expand the Wii U installed base and recapture market share. By this I would assume the reference is to titles on the scale of Zelda and Smash Bros and MK8. It is no longer worthwhile to try and "save" the Wii U.

A degree of resources should be used to continue to maintain the userbase, certainly. Announcements like Captain Toad and Mario Maker probably serve this purpose well. But given the option of devoting large scale resources to the Wii U to try and turn it around, or towards setting up a future platform for success, the latter is the better option.

(Opiate is free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting him.)

Makes sense, and even with the new E3 announcements I think there is evidence that this is what Nintendo is in fact doing.

What was announced that appears to be using really significant resources?

I would also add that even if you look at this years slate, I count a grand total of FOUR internally developed Nintendo published retail titles. Half of their Nintendo published output from July through the end of the year is being developed outside Nintendo.

I think amiibo is Nintendo's last real attempt to gain some revenue out of the system, but even that is also coming to 3DS and will most likely be built into the Wii U successor as well.

I would bet Zelda is the last truly large scale internally developed Wii U title.

 

[MrJoe]

A success to me is the system have a decent library of games I want to play

A success to nintendo is having a system that doesn't lose them money.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I guess Star Fox could also be considered a large scale resource allocation, but I get the feeling that's something that was greenlit earlier, has been in the works for a while but is just moving glacially, as I think Anihawk suggested earlier.

From Iwata's comments it seems the Wii U architecture is going to be grandfathered into their future platforms too. I think this is smart since even with low returns then investment into Wii U isn't necessairily a "waste" as technology, assets, software, networking, tools and so on can be transitioned to the next hardware cycle. Sort of like with Gamecube & Wii.

Eh... isn't their necessity for backwards compatibility at least a part of what's hamstrung the Wii U in terms of external software development? Does that imply they'll once again be out of sync with the other two hardware vendors architecturally (who will probably end up even more closely aligned in terms of design if they continue to cater to the desires of third parties.)

 

[thefro]

From Iwata's comments it seems the Wii U architecture is going to be grandfathered into their future platforms too. I think this is smart since even with low returns then investment into Wii U isn't necessairily a "waste" as technology, assets, software, networking, tools and so on can be transitioned to the next hardware cycle. Sort of like with Gamecube & Wii.

I think that'll definitely be the case and it'll be cheap/easy for them to get these games in development now running on the next portable and next home console.

Honestly a strong launch for a home console based on a new architecture even in 2017 seems questionable given the development resources they have dedicated to making Wii U games for 2015. 2016 is out of the question.

If those Wii U games can easily be cross-gen games that changes the equation a lot.

 

[barneystuta83]

Define "save"?

It will continue to sell less than the Xbox One and PS4. After the Wii, that may be seen as a failure.

However, I am sure sales will kick up thanks to Mario Kart. Smash Bros will have an impact, although not as significant. The Holiday end of year sales will have a good push too.

I'd say Nintendo are in a recovery, and it is about helping the Wii U avoid a complete failure.

Without the 3rd party support, it just won't have the traction the other consoles will have.