perfectchaos007
Member
I would love for a GTA game to be ported to a Nintendo home console, but I'm afraid Hell would freeze over.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Wii U's power should have never been excuse for developer's to not develop for it
- Thread starter bman94
- Start date
Why didn't developers develop for it?
- Poor marketing by Nintendo about Wii U, setting up a sales disaster
- Poor developer relations by Nintendo for the system (troubleshooting and whatnot)
- Archaic hardware with little documentation
Why didn't gamers buy third party ports at launch?
- Third Party Games ran like shit on it, thus setting the notion that you wouldn't get decent third party support on the system
- Poor marketing by Nintendo about Wii U, setting up a sales disaster
- Poor developer relations by Nintendo for the system (troubleshooting and whatnot)
- Archaic hardware with little documentation
Why didn't gamers buy third party ports at launch?
- Third Party Games ran like shit on it, thus setting the notion that you wouldn't get decent third party support on the system
Petrae
Member
As we'll see with the NX, third-party publishers don't bother with Nintendo because Nintendo isn't relevant to their success. Why waste time and money on projects for Nintendo platforms when console owners don't buy them? It's like burning money.
The "power" argument is a convenient excuse, but not really the driving force behind third-party publishers staying away. There's not enough ROI.
The "power" argument is a convenient excuse, but not really the driving force behind third-party publishers staying away. There's not enough ROI.
No, you are wrong.
The hardware was a problem.
The engines that be didn't feel like supporting something "unique" and had no relevance to other markets. Take a guess how much Sony and Microsoft has spent to play nice with engine developers and then take a guess how much Nintendo didn't bother until it was to late.
The hardware was a problem.
The engines that be didn't feel like supporting something "unique" and had no relevance to other markets. Take a guess how much Sony and Microsoft has spent to play nice with engine developers and then take a guess how much Nintendo didn't bother until it was to late.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Sure. And historically, Nintendo only had themselves to blame.
But if there was a good userbase developed, some third parties would have show up for a piece of that pie.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Well, consoles like the XB1 and PS4 had no userbase before they launched (obviously), but had great third party support right out of the gate.
It's about potential userbase, really. Nintendo was unable to sell publishers on the idea that Wii U would eventually become a viable platform for their software.
And yes, this is true. But it makes much more sense for a platform holder to get third parties on board before something like this has to happen to get them interested.
The Wii U got its ports. It got Call of Duty. It got Assassin's Creed. Then, as the current generation of consoles were announced and about to be released it rapidly lost relevance, but it got a fair shake.
It wasn't powerful enough to make even a last-gen port trivial, and the install base was paltry, and so it lost its ports.
It wasn't powerful enough to make even a last-gen port trivial, and the install base was paltry, and so it lost its ports.
Triggerhappytel
Member
It's a chicken and egg scenario though. I'm sure these games would run on the platform if they had the opportunity, but publishers wouldn't release them as third party games don't sell well on Nintendo platforms, and people don't play third party games on Nintendo systems because they don't happen very often, and when they do happen it's half-hearted shit like Mass Effect 3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
SerTapTap
Member
Ease of ports was more the issue than "power" but power is a major factor in ease of ports. It's a low power, weird architecture system that basically made it like developing for a third last gen system without the massive user base that (briefly) justified making last gen games in 2013-2014.
There are certainly more factors, but third parties didn't just stop because they hated nintendo's guts, a wide variety of factors simply did not make the Wii U a good venture for them. If you're going to make it extra hard to develop for your system you're going to have to provide more sales. If you're going to provide less sales, you're going to have to make it easy to develop for your system. You can't have a badly selling hard to develop for device.
could be wrong, but I think if all you're doing is mirroring the gamepad is no extra overhead. Granted early on it seemed like doing something on the gamepad was expected or possibly required. But I think Star Fox is fairly unique in actually rendering more or less the same game twice at different angles, aside from minigames and such.
There are certainly more factors, but third parties didn't just stop because they hated nintendo's guts, a wide variety of factors simply did not make the Wii U a good venture for them. If you're going to make it extra hard to develop for your system you're going to have to provide more sales. If you're going to provide less sales, you're going to have to make it easy to develop for your system. You can't have a badly selling hard to develop for device.
could be wrong, but I think if all you're doing is mirroring the gamepad is no extra overhead. Granted early on it seemed like doing something on the gamepad was expected or possibly required. But I think Star Fox is fairly unique in actually rendering more or less the same game twice at different angles, aside from minigames and such.
Exactly so even if NX will have better support there no guarantee it will continue past year 1.
It's a valid excuse if it's going to hamper the experience. What baffles me is that rather than pointing the finger at 3rd parties why don't you point it at Nintendo, they put out horribly specd hardware rather than conceding to expectations of gamers. Theyve been pretty good at not listening to what the market wants or expects. Why do they put a short timestamp on thier library when the industry is moving on? Look at new Zelda, looks great for the limited hardware, still one can only imagine how much better Itd look and play if the hardware was up to standard.
GhostTrick
Banned
Partially agree here. Nintendo made terrible mistakes. Some 3rd parties also did. Let's not pretend that when EA release Mass Effect 3 for 70 euros on Wii U, without all DLCs and 1 week before release Mass Effect Trilogy everywhere else, for 60, that they did everything to sell their game.
Abstrusity
Member
Your market research indicates that the Wii U wasn't selling much, so it's a bad investment. And because there aren't as many video games on the system, people won't buy it, and because people won't buy it, you're not going to waste money on developing for it.
Simple as that.
Simple as that.
i'd argue it wasn't the power that was the issue (at least until the new gen started). it was the lower userbase (why bother) a manufacturer that was barely supporting it themselves early doors and a gimmick that needed supporting but was extra effort to do so.
they made an unappealing console to both buy as a consumer and developer for as a publisher.
they made an unappealing console to both buy as a consumer and developer for as a publisher.
Fox Mulder
Member
Third parties are for the most part, publicly traded companies in it for profit. They aren't holding decades long grudges or vendettas against Nintendo. Nintendo just intentionally releases hardware against the grain that turns third parties off on the investment.
Blame Nintendo.
Blame Nintendo.
Well that's because, PS4Bone were the next generation in tech, can't compare it to a console that is roughly on par with PS360 when it comes to multiplayer games because for multiplat games specifically the console offers nothing over PS360 except for a controller gimmick which is probably not going to get used to full potential in multiplayer tittles anyway.
An install base that in four years was still smaller then the PS4 after one year was the problem. Third parties aren't going to support a console without a big enough user base to sell games to. Most publishers took a flyer on the Wii U for good reason and the market bore out their caution. No one wanted this system except for Nintendo's die hards.
GhostTrick
Banned
I don't believe in the "grudge or vendetta". I don't believe though that because companies are thinking of profit first that all their decisions makes sense financially wise. Then again, some 3rd parties made terrible management with some of their releases on Wii U. Even though, you could also argue they were right since I don't believe that they'd have succeeded in building an audience which never existed in the first place.
DINGDINGDING
The problem is more with the Nintendo fanbase than it is with third parties.
Seriously. Nintendo fans should demand more from them, first step is to blame them not everyone else. I do feel they share a large part of the poor decisions Nintendo make.
If that were the case, it'd still would've sold more. Nintendo hardcores got most of what they wanted on 3DS and didn't need a Wii U because most of it was just the fucking same. Not to mention Nintendo's software variety on Wii U was absolutely terrible.
deriks
4-Time GIF/Meme God
The problem with the Wii U was the bad marketing. Nintendo did so wrong since the start with it.
You see, the Wii U was like the PSX in comparison with the N64 and Dreamcast. Both are the less powerfull console, but still the PSX has a ton of good third party games. But why? Well, marketing was strong and Sony was thinking on the games in first place.
Nintendo was thinking that the sucess of the Wii will lead flawless to the Wii U. They showed the GamePad more than everything, no awesome new Mario neither a highly appraised franchise... and they showed as a multimedia device that will have gimmick games. Not everyone got that there's a new console, and that's because they don't really showed up. Was kinda a mix with the same mistake that Sony did with the pricy PS3 and with Microsoft showing Xbox One as a "new box" to the TV and forgeting about games.
You see, the Wii U was like the PSX in comparison with the N64 and Dreamcast. Both are the less powerfull console, but still the PSX has a ton of good third party games. But why? Well, marketing was strong and Sony was thinking on the games in first place.
Nintendo was thinking that the sucess of the Wii will lead flawless to the Wii U. They showed the GamePad more than everything, no awesome new Mario neither a highly appraised franchise... and they showed as a multimedia device that will have gimmick games. Not everyone got that there's a new console, and that's because they don't really showed up. Was kinda a mix with the same mistake that Sony did with the pricy PS3 and with Microsoft showing Xbox One as a "new box" to the TV and forgeting about games.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no conspiracy against Nintendo, you need to take a step back and breathe a little..
TC, there is a difference between not being playable at all and requiring much more effort to make playable than what Nintendo's competition requires. Requiring more resources for an amount of sales that won't come close to covering the cost of porting is never a situation platform holder should put third parties in. Add the lack of support for some third party tools to that equation and the math is even worse. The solution to those problems begin and end with Nintendo.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
I blame the third parties for not giving Nintendo all of their games. They owe their lives to Nintendo. Wheres the loyalty?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Architecture matters too. x86 to x86 to x86 is a lot easier currently than the old way of consoles which Nintendo has doggedly pursued again seemingly.
JigglesBunny
Banned
It wasn't only a power thing, it was maily about the lack of a solid install base that would support those titles.
If it takes $10 to do something and you only get $3 in return, you don't bother. It's all about profit, and there was little to no profit to be made on the Wii U.
If it takes $10 to do something and you only get $3 in return, you don't bother. It's all about profit, and there was little to no profit to be made on the Wii U.
Heavy_D206
Member
It didn't help that all the third party games were ports that ran like garbage.
Taking a PC game and going to Xone or PS4 is easy, but putting it on Wii U? Not so easy.
Developers need the tools to make things move faster and more streamlined, but Nintendo really didn't provide any of those tools.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Hardware isn't just raw topline horsepower. The Wii U also has fairly weak engine support--or did when those games were being developed. For in-house engines, ease of porting played a role. That Frostbite ran on PS3/360 does not mean it was easy to get running on Wii U. Most of the 2013 games were done and in the can before Wii U launched. Several of the games in the OP feature business models that it's not clear if the Wii U has support for (microtransaction based online multiplayer; episodic downloads with season passes). A fair few of the games in the OP actually do not run on PS3/Xbox 360--they're PS4-generation games through and through that have "on paper" cheapie ports to PS3/360 that run like garbage and that no one would ever want to buy. The idea that it is plausible to put something on Wii U that has the same name as some of these games is not something people should be aspiring to.
... and absolutely none of this even touches on the marketshare and demographics reality. Or the available developer support options. Or the fact that Nintendo remains a Japanese-focused company in an increasingly global marketplace.
... or the fact that no one "owes" Nintendo anything. If you make hardware, it is your job to convince people to develop it, not their job to ensure you are successful. You know which company is angry about Wii U's catastrophic failure? Nintendo, not the publishers you mention which are largely enjoying financial success and satisfaction with the hardware they're developing on. The sour grapes about fucking Rayman Legends three years later is bonkers. And Mass Effect Trilogy? Really?! Let's trot out the Secret EA Origin Conspiracy again, see how many people fall for it this time.
Sorry you got burnt buying a Wii U. However you rationalize it in your head, even if it is a conspiracy of publishers undermining based Nintendo's beast mode Cafe processor, maybe apply this logic when it comes to future hardware purchasing decisions and you will probably have more reasonable expectations going forward.
... and absolutely none of this even touches on the marketshare and demographics reality. Or the available developer support options. Or the fact that Nintendo remains a Japanese-focused company in an increasingly global marketplace.
... or the fact that no one "owes" Nintendo anything. If you make hardware, it is your job to convince people to develop it, not their job to ensure you are successful. You know which company is angry about Wii U's catastrophic failure? Nintendo, not the publishers you mention which are largely enjoying financial success and satisfaction with the hardware they're developing on. The sour grapes about fucking Rayman Legends three years later is bonkers. And Mass Effect Trilogy? Really?! Let's trot out the Secret EA Origin Conspiracy again, see how many people fall for it this time.
Sorry you got burnt buying a Wii U. However you rationalize it in your head, even if it is a conspiracy of publishers undermining based Nintendo's beast mode Cafe processor, maybe apply this logic when it comes to future hardware purchasing decisions and you will probably have more reasonable expectations going forward.
It's not that it's not possible, it's that going out of your way to optimize for a console with a significantly different power and (prospective) user base when development costs have skyrocketed in the industry makes little to no sense. Not even AAA devs can rationalize that. One of the endless number of things Nintendo didn't consider in designing the console.
Neospartan
Neo Member
It was all just a vicious cycle that, unlike the 3DS, went unbroken for too long.
Nintendo handled the reveal, the marketing and the launch of the system in a manner so grossly poor it makes me want to vomit. They had a year to change the name of the thing to something the audience would understand is a new console, and they didn't.
Obviously, the system sold poorly. And the few that did buy it were hardcore Nintendo fans that weren't really interested in third-party games, at least on a Nintendo console. Funny thing, EA did make it a lifetime goal to alienate the Nintendo fanbase to the point that any chance of them buying a EA game is close to zero.
Of course, this meant poor sales for the games. Which meant publishers didn't have a reason to put games on the thing. Which meant no games. Which meant no incentive to buy the system. Which meant poor sales for the games.
And all the tactics Nintendo used with the 3DS to make that system rise from the dead? Did they use them with the Wii U? No.
Nintendo handled the reveal, the marketing and the launch of the system in a manner so grossly poor it makes me want to vomit. They had a year to change the name of the thing to something the audience would understand is a new console, and they didn't.
Obviously, the system sold poorly. And the few that did buy it were hardcore Nintendo fans that weren't really interested in third-party games, at least on a Nintendo console. Funny thing, EA did make it a lifetime goal to alienate the Nintendo fanbase to the point that any chance of them buying a EA game is close to zero.
Of course, this meant poor sales for the games. Which meant publishers didn't have a reason to put games on the thing. Which meant no games. Which meant no incentive to buy the system. Which meant poor sales for the games.
And all the tactics Nintendo used with the 3DS to make that system rise from the dead? Did they use them with the Wii U? No.
There is documented support for Unreal Engine, Unity, MT Framework and UbiArt Framework on the WiiU, so i don't think the engine was the problem, since nintendo was also open to help companies port their games into the WiiU, that's why we have Watch Dogs, many Assassin's Creed, Deus Ex HR, Mass Effect 3, among others.
Lack of audience wasn't an excuse when publishers like EA abandoned lots of their promised support before even one console was sold.
The console being treated like a pariah soured it's perception with other 3rd parties, lack of support for online multiplayer functionality at launch also killed the perception of it's online capabilities, and lack of effort made people serious try to act like it was weaker than the older consoles.
The industry practically did a full on hit job on Nintendo for daring to repeat their Wii approach while trying to get back the core gamers. Some 3rd parties probably wanted Nintendo crawling back to them on their hands and knees begging to get support, but since that didn't happen and Nintendo was first out the gate if the new generation, they wanted to make a statement.
It's no secret that the industry, especially in the West, has moved on without Nintendo as far as considering it part of the consoles so it's not a stretch to believe some higher ups want them to leave the console race to not be able to pull what they did with the Wii again since it threatened to subvert the whole way of doing things. They wouldn't care if Nintendo slowly withered and died, many probably want to see that, but the venom for them staying in the console business and not following lock step with the others is palpable.
dragonyeuw
Member
The Wii U's power was only an issue because the system wasn't selling well enough for developers to bother creating a separate wii U version of a game, like they did the Wii in a few cases( like the Wii getting it's own version of Ghostbusters) even though the Wii was also a generation behind the ps360. Bear in mind that Wii U did get stuff like Assassin's Creed III/IV, Need for Speed most wanted, Deux Ex, Injustice, Call of Duty BO2/Ghosts, Batman Arkham Origins, Splinter Cell Blacklist but didn't move enough enough units for follow-up entries or even getting the DLC that the other consoles received. A better selling U would have likely gotten some of the late gen/cross gen stuff.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Right. Nintendo was unable to sell publishers on the system's viability as a profitable platform and part of the reason why (but not the only reason) was due to the looming consoles from their competitors, which, based on history, would be safe bets for large install bases of core gaming consumers.
Thus proving my point. It's about potential userbase more than anything. Power is but a small part of the equation.
I wholeheartedly agree. The same thing happened with Vita.
Activision halfassed Call of Duty, Take 2 didn't follow through with the Bioshock Vita promise, and EA basically gave up after their first games. God damnit, is nothing sacred to these publishers?
Why couldn't they help put games on the Vita to make it sell better and foster an audience for the Vita? Maybe it could have lived. We have to figure out why these publishers are abandoning certain devices. We must crack the code to save the future of gaming.
Activision halfassed Call of Duty, Take 2 didn't follow through with the Bioshock Vita promise, and EA basically gave up after their first games. God damnit, is nothing sacred to these publishers?
Why couldn't they help put games on the Vita to make it sell better and foster an audience for the Vita? Maybe it could have lived. We have to figure out why these publishers are abandoning certain devices. We must crack the code to save the future of gaming.
Power shouldn't have mattered with multi-gen games that already had last-gen assests created for PS3 and 360. The actual reason Wii U didn't get any games like MGSV and GTAV is because they didn't want or need to put in the time and effort required to port the games when they just wouldn't sell very many Wii U copies.
dragonyeuw
Member
I amended my post that touches on what you say above:
"Bear in mind that Wii U did get stuff like Assassin's Creed III/IV, Need for Speed most wanted, Deux Ex, Injustice, Call of Duty BO2/Ghosts, Batman Arkham Origins, Splinter Cell Blacklist but didn't move enough enough units for follow-up entries or even getting the DLC that the other consoles received. A better selling U would have likely gotten some of the late gen/cross gen stuff."
So yeah, we're in agreement on that.
geordiemp
Member
Wow, what a way to look at things,
No publisher has to spend money on any system, it is their right to decide where to invest and if they believe its a good return.
Publishers dont have to make an excuse for not spending money developing on WiiU. They dont have to say or do anything. Its just polite PR.
Its up to Sony, MS and Nintendo to attract the right software to their own system..,,,,making good online systems, cultivating an audience for the type of game that 3rd party makes, helping with marketing maybe, making good tools, documentation, support and communication.
Actually, reading the last paragraph, does Nintendo really play ball with any western companies at all ?
DragonGirl
Member
It's a catch 22. Third parties once had flourishing audiences on Nintendo's consoles but let them die in favor of building audiences on other systems. Consumers have thus been trained to look anywhere but Nintendo for those games and buy Nintendo just for Nintendo. To get that third party audience back on Nintendo's consoles, third parties need to invest in building it, which will take work. They need to commit to consistent releases that are not throwaways, trash, late ports, niche versions of popular series, weak ports, or any of that other BS. Initial sales will be weak no matter what because the audience won't be there until they see that third party support is reliable and worth while, so the beginning stage of rebuilding that audience will pretty much require sending games to die on a Nintendo console before the sales start to pick up after that reliability is proven.
Ultimately, why bother when the sales for the established audiences are already elsewhere for those big franchises? Nintendo needs to do something to turn this around and I'm not sure how since funding the odd game, while cool, simply isn't good enough. They can't feed an audience with the occasional bone. They need volume and consistency to get that audience back.
Ultimately, why bother when the sales for the established audiences are already elsewhere for those big franchises? Nintendo needs to do something to turn this around and I'm not sure how since funding the odd game, while cool, simply isn't good enough. They can't feed an audience with the occasional bone. They need volume and consistency to get that audience back.
Neospartan
Neo Member
Because that was Sony's job. And they didn't do it.
Nintendo did it with the 3DS, look how far that got before they got comfortable with it.
They didn't do it with the Wii U.
The design of the system itself was a disaster from its inception. Nothing was going to save it.
Rocket786
Member
OP is new to economics.
Nintendo doesn't invest in creating games for the same audience that Sony and MS are investing.
Nintendo invests in creating Mario, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, etc... Great games, don't get me wrong. But these games bring a certain demographic to the Nintendo consoles.
Sony on PS4 invested in the creation of Uncharted, Killzone, Bloodborne, etc...
Microsoft on XBone invested in the creation of Halo 5, Quantum Break, Gears, etc...
These bring certain demographics to the consoles, and the people that buy the games you listed out, probably buy these exclusives on PS4 and XBone as well. And even if they don't buy those exclusives, Sony and MS have spent years creating a brand image that 3rd parties know will bring this demographic to the console regardless. Not to mention that they play their yearly Madden's and COD's online through a more robust and feature rich platform that Sony and MS provide.
Why would third parties invest their games like Mass Effect and GTA for the Wii U, when Nintendo does not invest in games that attract the demographics that buy these games? Hell, Nintendo couldn't even deliver Zelda until the console is on it's last leg, and you don't even need to own a Wii U to play it. You can buy a new console and play it on there. So technically, Nintendo doesn't even have an exclusive Zelda for the Wii U. It's simple economics. You go where the demand is as a third party.
Nintendo gets all the Lego games from Warner Bros for a reason. That's the demographic Nintendo has marketed itself to, and Nintendo is well aware of that as well. It's a simple business decision and there's nothing wrong with that. If Nintendo wants the 20+ demographic playing games like COD on it's platform, they need to give them a killer app that brings them to the console in the first place. It's not "If you build it, they will come," in this sense. It's more like "If Nintendo builds it, they will come." I don't believe Nintendo is as interested in catering to that demographic as some would like them to be. Maybe they don't have the expertise, maybe they don't have the resources, or maybe quite frankly, they just don't want to.
Nintendo doesn't invest in creating games for the same audience that Sony and MS are investing.
Nintendo invests in creating Mario, Smash Bros, Mario Kart, etc... Great games, don't get me wrong. But these games bring a certain demographic to the Nintendo consoles.
Sony on PS4 invested in the creation of Uncharted, Killzone, Bloodborne, etc...
Microsoft on XBone invested in the creation of Halo 5, Quantum Break, Gears, etc...
These bring certain demographics to the consoles, and the people that buy the games you listed out, probably buy these exclusives on PS4 and XBone as well. And even if they don't buy those exclusives, Sony and MS have spent years creating a brand image that 3rd parties know will bring this demographic to the console regardless. Not to mention that they play their yearly Madden's and COD's online through a more robust and feature rich platform that Sony and MS provide.
Why would third parties invest their games like Mass Effect and GTA for the Wii U, when Nintendo does not invest in games that attract the demographics that buy these games? Hell, Nintendo couldn't even deliver Zelda until the console is on it's last leg, and you don't even need to own a Wii U to play it. You can buy a new console and play it on there. So technically, Nintendo doesn't even have an exclusive Zelda for the Wii U. It's simple economics. You go where the demand is as a third party.
Nintendo gets all the Lego games from Warner Bros for a reason. That's the demographic Nintendo has marketed itself to, and Nintendo is well aware of that as well. It's a simple business decision and there's nothing wrong with that. If Nintendo wants the 20+ demographic playing games like COD on it's platform, they need to give them a killer app that brings them to the console in the first place. It's not "If you build it, they will come," in this sense. It's more like "If Nintendo builds it, they will come." I don't believe Nintendo is as interested in catering to that demographic as some would like them to be. Maybe they don't have the expertise, maybe they don't have the resources, or maybe quite frankly, they just don't want to.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
It's not the console's power, it's how cross-compatible it is with the other platforms on the market. If developers could plug in their existing code it would've been less of an issue, but my understanding about the Wii U architecture is that porting from the PS3/360 wasn't cheap or easy. The Wii U is apparently just an upgraded Wii, which in itself was just an upgraded Gamecube. Nintendo was asking developers to work within a ten year old architecture that wasn't anything like what they were used to.
Many developers did try to support the Wii U in that first year (ZombiU, Rayman Legends, Mass Effect 3, NFS Most Wanted, Arkham Origins, Injustice, Darksiders 2) and then left for greener pastures when it became obvious the sales weren't there to support what would be required to keep pace.
The Wii U had its opportunity and Nintendo built a console for themselves and no one else, and then were way too slow at making sure it remained relevant. I love my Wii U, but in no way am I going to make excuses for it being stillborn.
Many developers did try to support the Wii U in that first year (ZombiU, Rayman Legends, Mass Effect 3, NFS Most Wanted, Arkham Origins, Injustice, Darksiders 2) and then left for greener pastures when it became obvious the sales weren't there to support what would be required to keep pace.
The Wii U had its opportunity and Nintendo built a console for themselves and no one else, and then were way too slow at making sure it remained relevant. I love my Wii U, but in no way am I going to make excuses for it being stillborn.