Support NeoGAF

[borghe]

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.

it certainly beats your definition of classic where sequel = GTFO lulz

Dynopia never said a sequel can't be a classic.

but it was his insinuation by pointing out that it was the [sic] 10th Mario Kart and offering up no other argument, and then going on and comparing it to only first games in those series.

 

[TitusGroan]

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.

You've not actually said anything yet to back up your claims. You're basically just going "Nuh-uh" over and again, with nothing more to explain your logic. MK8 has been getting rave reviews and great gamer reception. What have you got to counter that it isn't a classic in the making?

 

[RMI]

Dynopia never said a sequel can't be a classic.

just not the 10th game in a series. got it.

no guys.. don't discourage dynopia. I really want to see how far his ridiculous line of thought goes. "GTFO Godfather II. Next time try to be more than just a sequel ffs!!!"

All this time I thought it was Super Metroid that was the classic, but I guess I was wrong.

Why oh why did it have to be the third Metroid game?!?!

 

[Habib Marwan]

also Tropical Freeze is the best 2D platformer I've personally played. that sounds pretty "classic" to me but I think we're using a different dictionary or something

The amount of people that would agree with you could fit into a phone booth.

 

[phanphare]

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.

your points are funny

you should keep making them

assumptions too, keep making those as well

The amount of people that would agree with you could fit into a phone booth.

the amount of fucks I give could fit into a......

 

[Miles X]

Dynopia never said a sequel can't be a classic.

Indeed. MK8 just doesn't offer enough over its predecessors to be called a classic, something that comes out and is just really remembered years later (aka Bioshock, certain Zelda games, Portal and so forth)

Basically listing an entire consoles exclusive library as classic is just sad. Great games? Yes. Classic? no.

 

[Version 3.0]

It's not about them being sequels or successors (they are out there) but MK8 just isn't one, and won't be in years to come. guarantee it.

Aha at people getting bent out of shape over me claiming MK8 isn't a classic.

What a strange thing to say. I can guarantee the opposite, because "classic" isn't determined by any one person, organization, or even a vote. There is no consensus view. I've seen some real shit games be referred to as classics, and MK8 isn't a shit game.

You really should stop, you're completely in the wrong here.

 

[Parch]

it won't turn sales around, but the wiiU is looking like the best failed console ever in terms of software thanks to the 1st party output alone.

This I can agree with. That's also why it's depressing. The software can fix the hardware flaws, and it's just not considered an all-round gaming console with the selection that most gamers want.

Gotta love the 1st party stuff though. That's always been Nintendo's bread and butter.

It's kinda cruel to think that the WiiU should be Dreamcasted and Nintendo should be Sega'd.

 

[borghe]

Indeed. MK8 just doesn't offer enough over its predecessors to be called a classic, something that comes out and is just really remembered years later (aka Bioshock, certain Zelda games, Portal and so forth)

yet you just said you don't follow the series. so what exactly are you basing this thorough assessment on? Almost everyone who HAS played it feels that it is easily the best MK since the most beloved entry in the series, MK64. Which I'm guessing you don't consider a classic either?

 

[Opiate]

Curiously, what would be your definition of success as it relates to the Wii U?

A few reasonable, objective metrics for success:

1) Net profitability.
2) Generation over generation unit sales growth.
3) Sales relative to immediate competitors.
4) Sales relative to more distant competitors.
5) Gen-over-gen\ revenue growth.
6) Astronomically high attach rate

The Wii U is failing all of these: Nintendo is not profitable, the gen-over-gen sales are monumentally down, the Wii U is selling poorly relative to both its immediate (PS4, Xbone) and distant (iOS, Android) competitors; the Wii U does not represent revenue growth; and it does not have particularly strong software sales.

If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.

 

[Valkerionseven]

I feel like there is enough to make a nice secondary console choice but not enough for a primary. Nor is the price at the right point for the alleged content coming.

That feeling of -insertgame- could be the final major release on the console is behind almost all their titles for me personally.

As a non-nintendo fan I'm indifferent to Mario and Zelda, their games do not make me want a system, I need those third party titles to sell me which we of course know are basically non-existent. As it stands for me personally, I am now noticing the Wii U, I think it would be a nice purchase when the price is a lower. Even if the PS4 is not where I need it to be either before buying it, it has that potential that Nintendo just is not showing to make me think its worth investing in.

 

[Guevara]

Nintendo announced some good games, maybe enough to give them a few more million in hardware sales, but we're still talking about selling worse than the GameCube territory.

 

[Always-honest]

Not really, but it has plenty enough for me.

This.
Happy camper.

 

[guek]

Dynopia would probably claim MkWii or MkDS aren't classics by simply drawing from his own apathy for the franchise. He's arguing from a place of complete and utter ignorance and it shows.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

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.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Your arguments are getting pretty ridiculous.

 

[Miles X]

What a strange thing to say. I can guarantee the opposite, because "classic" isn't determined by any one person, organization, or even a vote. There is no consensus view. I've seen some real shit games be referred to as classics, and MK8 isn't a shit game.

You really should stop, you're completely in the wrong here.

There is though, unofficially those games really stand out and you know they're well regarded in the industry.

There is no need for me to stop just because you and others are offended I don't think Mario Kart 8 is a classic, by the fact you're all so defensive over it tells me enough.

In 20 years time Bioshock (and dozens and dozens of others) will far out shine Mario Kart 8 and Tropical Freeze, lawd.

Dynopia would probably claim MkWii or MkDS aren't classics by simply drawing from his own apathy for the franchise. He's arguing from a place of complete and utter ignorance and it shows.

There are clearly classic games in the Mario Kart franchise (ones that broke new ground and made the series what it is).

Who ever said I disliked it? I like it as much as any other Nintendo game/franchise and I can spot, again, dozens of classic and iconic games within Nintendos catalog.

 

[evilromero]

Nintendo really needed a flagship game like Mario Kart 8 last fall or at launch. Now the intial hype as moved on and the console will continue to struggle despite the incoming wave of software.

I also thought it was odd that Nintendo is downplaying Wii Sports Club so much. That was a missed opportunity early on. But I do think Smash Bros. is the right game to help sustain whatever momentum they're getting right now with Mario Kart. It's just not going to be anything like what the other systems will see.

They really needed a Mario 64, Smash Melee or Wii Sports-level title at launch.

 

[z1ggy]

I think with the right marketing, Wii U could get closer to GameCube numbers in the middle term. Maybe a re-design at low cost with a suffix in the name could help a bit.

 

[seventynine]

Having looked at the new announcements, I've gone from complete and total apathy towards WiiU to probably going to buy one early next year. Which is quite the turnaround.

By turn the Xbox presser left me cold and PlayStation one solidified my opinion that it was the one to buy.

 

[Currygan]

man, Dynopia's reasoning might be the wrongest I've seen in a long time. it's almost sad

and you easily dismissing TF with lulz and lawls is absolutely ridiculous. But please go on, o great expert

 

[phanphare]

man, Dynopia's reasoning might be the wrongest I've seen in a long time. it's almost sad

and you easily dismissing TF with lulz and lawls is absolutely ridiculous. But please go on, o great expert

it sure is entertaining though

I'm curious to see how far down the rabbit hole we can go

 

[thestopsign]

Well you're wrong. You may personally think they're classics, good for you. But at the end of a generation not many games are remembered as classics. Certainly not pretty much every exclusive game that comes out for the system ....

Second part, as are you claiming Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze is a classic, term reserved for the very best in gaming. You're very easily to please seemingly.

Tropical Freeze was very divisive. I haven't played it personally, but I know the sound track is the best in the business and that Retro can design loops around most other developers. Some people could definitely consider it a classic (I know I've heard some people say it is the best 2d Platformer ever).

Even so, I think he may have overstepped by saying "classics". I think Nintendo has created a nice library of timeless games. Games that will not be made obsolete by the next wave of games, that stand their own as well designed efforts. No one is going to look back and say "oh, you can skip that game, this game does it much better", it is going to be "pick that game up, it is quality through and through and unique in its own right".

 

[borghe]

There is no need for me to stop just because you and others are offended I don't think Mario Kart 8 is a classic, by the fact you're all so defensive over it tells me enough.

nobody is defensive. we are actually just pointing out your highly flawed largely personal reasoning behind why YOU think a game is or isn't a classic. Then backing it up with an abstract and baseless "in 20 years blah blah blah"

your list of "classic" and "not classic" is just as subjective and arbitrary as anyone saying MK8 is indeed a classic. despite your implied authority, it's nothing more than an (very unpopular) opinion.

 

[Panda Rin]

Nintendo appealed to their existing fanbase with their conference. Didn't do much of anything outside of that.

I think this was the best option though. All it needed were games, and that's plenty enough to keep Wii U owners happy.

 

[120v]

if zelda U is truly planned for Wii U then obviously nintendo sees enough life in it to make gamble. that game does not look cheap to develop

honestly I'm pretty surprised by the lineup this E3. it may not be enough to save it but it definitely won't get dreamcasted

 

[Ninja Scooter]

There is though, unofficially those games really stand out and you know they're well regarded in the industry.

There is no need for me to stop just because you and others are offended I don't think Mario Kart 8 is a classic, by the fact you're all so defensive over it tells me enough.

In 20 years time Bioshock (and dozens and dozens of others) will far out shine Mario Kart 8 and Tropical Freeze, lawd.



There are clearly classic games in the Mario Kart franchise (ones that broke new ground and made the series what it is).

Who ever said I disliked it? I like it as much as any other Nintendo game/franchise and I can spot, again, dozens of classic and iconic games within Nintendos catalog.

What someone thinks is a "classic" is completely subjective. It doesn't mean anything. If someone thinks Mario kart 8 is a classic and bio shock isn't they aren't "wrong". It's such a silly thing to be so adamant about.

 

[LocalE]

Nope.

I get the feeling the majority of people hyped for there e3 announcements already own the wii u.

The next post...

There may not be enough in the pipeline to save the Wii U, but the upcoming games got me to go out and purchase a Wii U yesterday and now I'm enjoying MK8 with free Wind Waker HD. They sold me a Wii U based on the promise of what they showed this E3.

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.

 

[guek]

There is though, unofficially those games really stand out and you know they're well regarded in the industry.

There is no need for me to stop just because you and others are offended I don't think Mario Kart 8 is a classic, by the fact you're all so defensive over it tells me enough.

In 20 years time Bioshock (and dozens and dozens of others) will far out shine Mario Kart 8 and Tropical Freeze, lawd.



There are clearly classic games in the Mario Kart franchise (ones that broke new ground and made the series what it is).

Who ever said I disliked it? I like it as much as any other Nintendo game/franchise and I can spot, again, dozens of classic and iconic games within Nintendos catalog.

Look, it's not that you don't have some semblance of reasoning but you're mixing it with sheer and utter stupidity out of stubbornness. This exact same argument was applied by MKWii haters and it's one of the most played and enjoyed entries in the franchise. Your judgement call on Mk8 is based off of your own petty assumptions and notions that you've convinced yourself are correct regardless of facts. Is it guaranteed to become a classic in the hearts of gamers? No, there's no assurance that there will be a lasting impression on the psyche of the gaming zeitgeist for any title but it's selling exceptionally well and getting tons of praise so that's a good start. As for tropical freeze, you have a better case, but realize your condescension turns you into a jackass with a biased opinion, not someone with a reasonable argument. And even if you're right about TF, which you likely are, time may see fit to make it a cult classic much like the first Donkey Kong Returns was.

 

[borghe]

Nintendo appealed to their existing fanbase with their conference. Didn't do much of anything outside of that.

I don't disagree with this in the slightest.

and with that being said, there is clearly a huge chunk of their fanbase (heck even from the GCN era) that has not moved on to Wii U.

Also the "Nintendo fanbase" argument is somewhere disingenuous. Sales go up and down. Halo 2 sold more than Halo. Halo 4 sold more than Halo 3, etc. The "Nintendo fanbase" as you put it isn't a fixed number of gamers. I have a friend who hasn't really been a "nintendo" gamer since the SNES.. and he's picking up a Wii U largely because of a) the current-gen drought and b) because (his exact words) "eh.. I haven't played a Mario or Zelda game in probably a decade or more. Might be refreshing to see what's up."

So yeah I agree that Nintendo was largely saying "Hey guys, look at all of these new and returning ideas that we have coming up that are based in the same basic ideas and concepts that we've adhered to for 30 years" but I don't think the audience for those ideas are as static as some would say or imply.

 

[Carpe Diem]

A few reasonable, objective metrics for success:

1) Net profitability.
2) Generation over generation unit sales growth.
3) Sales relative to immediate competitors.
4) Sales relative to more distant competitors.
5) Gen-over-gen\ revenue growth.
6) Astronomically high attach rate

The Wii U is failing all of these: Nintendo is not profitable, the gen-over-gen sales are monumentally down, the Wii U is selling poorly relative to both its immediate (PS4, Xbone) and distant (iOS, Android) competitors; the Wii U does not represent revenue growth; and it does not have particularly strong software sales.

If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.

All that you have done is simply stating the obvious and by those standards most electronic devices would be considered failures. Though the topic has strayed a little, but I think the gist of the query was if Nintendo had enough in the pipe line to "save" the Wii U. I read that as being a profitable not necessarily commercial success. The Wii U's fate had already been relegated to 3rd place for this console generation. However, come the end of the generation, I strongly believe Nintendo can make the system profitable. In the wider scheme of things, that is all that matters right...?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Look, it's not that you don't have some semblance of reasoning but you're mixing it with sheer and utter stupidity out of stubbornness. This exact same argument was applied by MKWii haters and it's one of the most played and enjoyed entries in the franchise. Your judgement call on Mk8 is based off of your own petty assumptions and notions that you've convinced yourself are correct regardless of facts. Is it guaranteed to become a classic in the hearts of gamers? No, there's no assurance that there will be a lasting impression on the psyche of the gaming zeitgeist for any title but it's selling exceptionally well and getting tons of praise so that's a good start. As for tropical freeze, you have a better case, but realize your condescension turns you into a jackass with a biased opinion, not someone with a reasonable argument. And even if you're right about TF, which you likely are, time may see fit to make it a cult classic much like the first Donkey Kong Returns was.

I said goddamn.

 

[makingmusic476]

I think the Wii U's potential over the course of the year will depend on whether any more big ps4/XB1 releases get delayed. The Wii U's upcoming line up and the staying power of Mario Kart could enable the Wii U to capture a great deal of attention should the other consoles begin to look comparatively disinteresting going into the Fall.

Though I suppose BF, CoD, and AC alone could be enough to keep the mass market focused on the newer consoles.

 

[Opiate]

All that you have done is simply stating the obvious and by those standards most electronic devices would be considered failures.

First, apparently it is not obvious, because many seem to disagree with me. Second, yes, a large chunk of products (not just electronic products) are failures. But even amongst failures, very few see 80%+ drop offs in marketshare and unit sales.

Though the topic has strayed a little, but I think the gist of the query was if Nintendo had enough in the pipe line to "save" the Wii U. I read that as being a profitable not necessarily commercial success. The Wii U's fate had already been relegated to 3rd place for this console generation. However, come the end of the generation, I strongly believe Nintendo can make the system profitable. In the wider scheme of things, that is all that matters right...?

It's one of the most important considerations, yes. Not the only one, though. This is part of the problem; we may not agree on what the term "saving" means.

 

[phanphare]

Look, it's not that you don't have some semblance of reasoning but you're mixing it with sheer and utter stupidity out of stubbornness. This exact same argument was applied by MKWii haters and it's one of the most played and enjoyed entries in the franchise. Your judgement call on Mk8 is based off of your own petty assumptions and notions that you've convinced yourself are correct regardless of facts. Is it guaranteed to become a classic in the hearts of gamers? No, there's no assurance that there will be a lasting impression on the psyche of the gaming zeitgeist for any title but it's selling exceptionally well and getting tons of praise so that's a good start. As for tropical freeze, you have a better case, but realize your condescension turns you into a jackass with a biased opinion, not someone with a reasonable argument. And even if you're right about TF, which you likely are, time may see fit to make it a cult classic much like the first Donkey Kong Returns was.

thank you!

although I am flattered that my opinion was capable of making him metaphorically shit his pants

 

[borghe]

I think one of the big things that has come up in this thread is that MK8 HAS TO have staying power. SM3DW, as incredible as it was, had meager sales and fell off the cliff quickly. MK8 has to hang on in the sales charts at least through June to make a difference. If it can actually hang in through July? Well then that will play directly to Hyrule Warriors. And while only the 3DS version of Smash is releasing in Oct... that should at least drive awareness that the Wii U version is in fact coming soon after.

 

[Sendou]

I think the faulty premise that many people seem to have is that Nintendo should make Wii U sell as many units as possible with any means necessary including drastic price cuts (or "saving" Wii U whatever that warped word even means now). This is a poor idea. Big price cuts always have impacts to the far future. I mean people are still kind of expecting to see one on Wii U because they cut GameCube's price ten years ago. Just imagine how people would perceive the next Nintendo platform if they would cut the price drastically now like they did with 3DS. "Oh no need to buy this console now because I will get it for $99 two years after launch like with every Nintendo platform." Especially so if the platform has troubles catching early on. This line of thinking spreads to the less informed customers as well. No need to say that this would be incredibly harmful for Nintendo. As an other point taking big loss per unit sold is never an excellent strategy.

Now Nintendo's primary goal should be making sure that people who bought Wii U's are satisfied with their purchase. I would argue that even with a relatively small install base of 6-7 million those are still valuable customers for Nintendo. Pretty much everyone who owns a Wii U currently is a big Nintendo spender. Those are the folks Nintendo needs to have on board early on when launching a platform. Early adopters. If Nintendo pisses them off so to speak they will have hard time launching a platform ever again. I think keeping the people satisfied is what Nintendo is trying to do. Iwata said as much too.

As for whether the games announced at E3 will "save" Wii U that's hard to say. You would have to define what saving means. I don't think the games announced will turn the console into a product we can look back as a success. Then again I think with these games Wii U owners can feel pretty good so in that sense Wii U is saved for the reasons mentioned before.

 

[Novan Leon]

The WiiU is a great console, it's just not a great console for it's current price ($300-$330).

For $400 you can get a PS4 that will support all the latest and best games at the highest quality, a robust online/digital service, 500GB hard drive, voice chat, sharing, free games for a month via PS+, and much more.

For $300 you get an underpowered WiiU (only slightly more powerful than the $200 PS3 or X360) with virtually non-existent third-party support, a single game, a gimmicky and poorly supported tablet controller, a behind-the-times internet service, no voice chat, no sharing, overpriced virtual console games, and a 32GB hard drive which severely limits digital downloads.

That said, Nintendo first-party games are unparallelled in quality and fun-factor, and would be well worth a $200 price tag alone. Even $250 would be fair, but it's hard to stomach spending $300+ for a console that is arguably a worse value than a $200 console from the previous generation and only $100 less than a next generation console. Relying on refurbs to bring the console down to a reasonable price isn't acceptable.

EDIT: If Nintendo wants to truly turn around their fortunes with the lowest possible effort, they should release a WiiU 2.5 with the same technical specs, full backwards compatibility, get rid of the tablet controller and include a pro controller by default to lower the price, and rename it to Wii 2 or something easily distinguishable. As it is, even if they become profitable, it doubt it will ever sell more than 20+ million units during it's lifetime.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

All that you have done is simply stating the obvious and by those standards most electronic devices would be considered failures. Though the topic has strayed a little, but I think the gist of the query was if Nintendo had enough in the pipe line to "save" the Wii U. I read that as being a profitable not necessarily commercial success. The Wii U's fate had already been relegated to 3rd place for this console generation. However, come the end of the generation, I strongly believe Nintendo can make the system profitable. In the wider scheme of things, that is all that matters right...?

In the strictest of terms, no. "Not losing money" != "success." It is the nature of the world economy that if you made $10 last year, making $1 the next year is a failure. Losing $1 is a larger failure, for sure, but when you make $10, the expectation is that the following year, you'll make $11. All things held equal, that's a realistic expectation and not based the least bit on greed. Yearly growth in income is required.

In terms of the Wii U, I don't know what would have been realistic for expectations for it, because the Wii was particularly abnormal. However, whatever the realistic sales and income expectations were, this isn't it, and neither would be eeking out a small profit.

 

[Symbiotx]

I've seen the attitude towards the Wii U go from "wow that's dumb" to "I picked one up and played Mario Kart all weekend". With Super Smash Bros coming out this year, and the beautiful new Zelda in the works, it's gonna be alright.

 

[Exploratory]

hey look guys!!!! it's the ever dropping price that some people people are "supposedly" willing to buy a Wii U at!!!!!

I'm sorry but these "I'll bite at $xxx" posts are nothing but essentially the "safe" way to troll Wii U. Because no matter how much Wii U's price drops, magically these same people still won't buy it until it's $50 cheaper than whatever price it just dropped to. The system's going to drop to $99 and these same posts are going to pop up with "I'll bite when I can get it for $50 with a few games."

/rant

Not sure what "save it" means. Is it enough to bring it up to PS3 numbers? No. Weekly PS4 or even XBONE sales? No. Gamecube lifetime levels? Probably not but at least we are getting closer with this one.

The biggest question is... Is what Nintendo is doing enough to build up goodwill for another (probably one last) console from them? Yeah I'd say so. If Nintendo can keep up this momentum from E3 for the next two years and announce a new console in 2016 they could end up with a console that EASILY outperforms Wii U.

Err nope I'll pick it up at 150. But thanks for overreacting.

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

 

[Chindogg]

There's no silver bullet that will "save" the Wii U, however MK8 followed by E3 are a very solid start for a turn around. It's impossible for them to catch Wii numbers, hell maybe they're stuck in third this whole gen.

However there's still time for them to build a bit of a following and maybe even take second or first in a Japan, which is shrinking in market but still important, which would be more than a win for Nintendo.

Let's also keep in mind that all future handheld and consoles from Nintendo will have Wii U's software architecture so perhaps what's been planned reaches far further than just Wii U's future.

 

[TitusGroan]

A few reasonable, objective metrics for success:

1) Net profitability.
2) Generation over generation unit sales growth.
3) Sales relative to immediate competitors.
4) Sales relative to more distant competitors.
5) Gen-over-gen revenue growth.
6) Astronomically high attach rate

The Wii U is failing all of these: Nintendo is not profitable, the gen-over-gen sales are monumentally down, the Wii U is selling poorly relative to both its immediate (PS4, Xbone) and distant (iOS, Android) competitors; the Wii U does not represent revenue growth; and it does not have particularly strong software sales.

If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.

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.

 

[Wynnebeck]

I've seen the attitude towards the Wii U go from "wow that's dumb" to "I picked one up and played Mario Kart all weekend". With Super Smash Bros coming out this year, and the beautiful new Zelda in the works, it's gonna be alright.

If only Nintendo's shareholders felt the same. "Wii U sales have fallen into the abyss, but hey, that Mario Kart 8 is so much fun to play!"

 

[Sendou]

The WiiU is a great console, it's just not a great console for it's current price ($300-$330).

For $400 you can get a PS4 that will support all the latest and best games at the highest quality, a robust online/digital service, 500GB hard drive, voice chat, sharing, free games for a month via PS+, and much more.

For $300 you get an underpowered WiiU (only slightly more powerful than the $200 PS3 or X360) with virtually non-existent third-party support, a single game, a gimmicky and poorly supported tablet controller, a behind-the-times internet service, no voice chat, no sharing, overpriced virtual console games, and a 32GB hard drive which severely limits digital downloads.

That said, Nintendo first-party games are unparallelled in quality and fun-factor, and would be well worth a $200 price tag alone. Even $250 would be fair, but it's hard to stomach spending $300+ for a console that is arguably a worse value than a $200 console from the previous generation and only $100 less than a next generation console. Relying on refurbs to bring the console down to a reasonable price isn't acceptable.

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.

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

 

[marc^o^]

A few reasonable, objective metrics for success:

1) Net profitability.
2) Generation over generation unit sales growth.
3) Sales relative to immediate competitors.
4) Sales relative to more distant competitors.
5) Gen-over-gen revenue growth.
6) Astronomically high attach rate

The Wii U is failing all of these: Nintendo is not profitable, the gen-over-gen sales are monumentally down, the Wii U is selling poorly relative to both its immediate (PS4, Xbone) and distant (iOS, Android) competitors; the Wii U does not represent revenue growth; and it does not have particularly strong software sales.

If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.

Most of these reflect a moment in time, already outdated.

Post Mario Kart Wii I sales are likely to be much better. Post E3 momentum, post amiibo, post smash, etc. You have no idea how sales currently compare with Xbox One, nor in the near future.

Other metrics to consider: online distribution margins in a growing digital landscape, customer satisfaction, future business potential of a multi million users social network, reusability of new assets built for future platforms, change of business model with new streams of revenue (amiibo).

It all depends on where you place the cursor: you want to position it way earlier than where Nintendo can afford to achieve their vision and goals.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

I think if Nintendo is able to release games in a steady fashion, like every 6-8 weeks, they'll be fine. Waiting any longer than that between major releases will do more harm than good. They need to establish a solid first-party library quickly.

 

[Carpe Diem]

First, apparently it is not obvious, because many seem to disagree with me. Second, yes, a large chunk of products (not just electronic products) are failures. But even amongst failures, very few see 80%+ drop offs in marketshare and unit sales.

Agreed. Regaining a competetive market share is no longer attainable for the Wii U. Those who disagree.....well bless their souls.

It's one of the most important considerations, yes. Not the only one, though. This is part of the problem; we may not agree on what the term "saving" means.

Whether "saving" a product or ensuring a profitable return on investment, any business is in it to make a profit. This Nintendo can still do with the Wii U.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

The WiiU is a great console, it's just not a great console for it's current price ($300-$330).

For $400 you can get a PS4 that will support all the latest and best games at the highest quality, a robust online/digital service, 500GB hard drive, voice chat, sharing, free games for a month via PS+, and much more.

For $300 you get an underpowered WiiU (only slightly more powerful than the $200 PS3 or X360) with virtually non-existent third-party support, a single game, a gimmicky and poorly supported tablet controller, a behind-the-times internet service, no voice chat, no sharing, overpriced virtual console games, and a 32GB hard drive which severely limits digital downloads.

That said, Nintendo first-party games are unparallelled in quality and fun-factor, and would be well worth a $200 price tag alone. Even $250 would be fair, but it's hard to stomach spending $300+ for a console that is arguably a worse value than a $200 console from the previous generation and only $100 less than a next generation console. Relying on refurbs to bring the console down to a reasonable price isn't acceptable.

EDIT: If Nintendo wants to truly turn around their fortunes with the lowest possible effort, they should release a WiiU 2.5 with the same technical specs, full backwards compatibility, get rid of the tablet controller and include a pro controller by default to lower the price, and rename it to Wii 2 or something easily distinguishable. As it is, even if they become profitable, it doubt it will ever sell more than 20+ million units during it's lifetime.

If you look at things purely in terms of hardware, no, the WiiU probably isn't a great deal at its current price. But the way I look at it, it's $300 for the thing that lets you play games now, and $400 for the thing that won't have a whole lot to show for another year. Value is more complicated than a spec sheet.

 

[Marvie_3]

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.

 

[Vlade]

A few reasonable, objective metrics for success:

1) Net profitability.
2) Generation over generation unit sales growth.
3) Sales relative to immediate competitors.
4) Sales relative to more distant competitors.
5) Gen-over-gen\ revenue growth.
6) Astronomically high attach rate

The Wii U is failing all of these: Nintendo is not profitable, the gen-over-gen sales are monumentally down, the Wii U is selling poorly relative to both its immediate (PS4, Xbone) and distant (iOS, Android) competitors; the Wii U does not represent revenue growth; and it does not have particularly strong software sales.

If you can think of another objective metric, I'm all ears.

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

edit:
im not saying there shouldnt be action, but that action doesnt proclude wii u support, and does not include wii u eol in the next 2 years.

edit2:

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.

you implication this whole time is that support for the wii u indicates a lack of resources being spent on the future of the company. That's not a fair assessment.