Support NeoGAF

[Aizu_Itsuko]

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

To be fair, in forums we usually just talk about hardware sales but there are plenty of other metrics that can be applied to any previous or future generation (total software sales, average software sales, profits, demographics, etc). We focus on hardware sales out of tradition and simplicity.

For example, the original Xbox sold more than the GC but it was a money pit for MS. Can it be considered more successful? Financially it was a disaster but it also opened the door for the 360. Things aren't that black and white.

That said, it's clear that Wii is the system that will define this generation in the minds of the general public, regardless of all the other things that happened this gen and the impact the other two systems had.

 

[leroidys]

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

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

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

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

I can't really argue any specific points of this, I think you're pretty much right on.

Where I'm drawing the distinction is that the Wii brand was certainly declining during the last year or two of it's life, but I don't equate that at all to tarnishing or killing the brand. I do think that not releasing software in the latter part of the Wii's life was a mistake, and I've argued as much in another thread. I actually think that a large reason for the PS4's current success is the stellar launchpad that PS3 gave it with it's string of great games in 2013.

Back to the Wii U, Nintendo took the "Wii" brand, which stood for family friendly, low price, motion controls, sleek design, snappy and intuitive interface, and pasted it onto a product that was everything the "Wii" brand wasn't. To me, this is a different issue.

Certainly the end of the Wii's life was mismanaged. I wholeheartedly agree. My contention is that the Wii U's failure wasn't a foregone conclusion based on the Wii's success.




And, slightly off-topic, for the record the Wii is my second least favorite Nintendo console, only ahead of the N64. I really don't have much love for the white rectangle. I do, however, think that it unequivocally "won" last gen by almost any metric.

 

[Roto13]

Man, I can't believe what a miserable failure the SNES was, making the N64 sell so poorly.

 

[StevieP]

Man, I can't believe what a miserable failure the SNES was, making the N64 sell so poorly.

Zanzibar

 

[Version 3.0]

Certainly the end of the Wii's life was mismanaged. I wholeheartedly agree. My contention is that the Wii U's failure wasn't a foregone conclusion based on the Wii's success.

Agreed. Had the Wii U been a better product, and also properly targeted at...well, anyone, instead of halfheartedly targeted at no one, it could have revived and benefited from the Wii name at the same time, instead of cementing its irrelevance.

And, slightly off-topic, for the record the Wii is my second least favorite Nintendo console, only ahead of the N64. I really don't have much love for the white rectangle. I do, however, think that it unequivocally "won" last gen by almost any metric.

There's no question the Wii won. Its success was extremely front-loaded, and it was killed by negligence years early, but in some ways that just underlines how immensely successful it was in that short time.

Personally, I loved the Wii for the first couple of years while it was delivering a decent library and still had potential as well. If you dig back through GAF to those days, I made a post in one of the old NPD threads, refuting the idea that any "hardcore gamer" would choose the Wii over the 360 or PS3 if they could have only one.

A couple years later, sadly, I would definitely be on the other side of that debate. Now, the Wii is easily last on my list of Nintendo consoles, assuming the Wii U gets a pass due to its youth. Still a great console, but just a shadow of what it might have been.

 

[Roto13]

Zanzibar

Brass Rail

 

[Zeyphersan]

To be fair, in forums we usually just talk about hardware sales but there are plenty of other metrics that can be applied to any previous or future generation (total software sales, average software sales, profits, demographics, etc). We focus on hardware sales out of tradition and simplicity.

For example, the original Xbox sold more than the GC but it was a money pit for MS. Can it be considered more successful? Financially it was a disaster but it also opened the door for the 360. Things aren't that black and white.

That said, it's clear that Wii is the system that will define this generation in the minds of the general public, regardless of all the other things that happened this gen and the impact the other two systems had.

Yet ask most people on a forum like this one, and they'll say that GC came in 3rd place that generation. They use SALES to say that, the one and only metric that has counted before this last generation.

 

[redcrayon]

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

As I said above, I'm sure a lot of things matter to console manufacturers, sales are of course only one metric, and global companies track all kinds of things. But why do you think that manufacturers, retailers, analysts, journalists and forum dwellers all use sales figures and profits as a simple shorthand for success, not just in gaming, but across virtually all industries?

It's because virtually everything else is subjective, with no clear data that can be measured over time. We can either say the metric is pointless without a holistic re-examination of every console generation ever, taking into account a dozen new criteria that can be argued over until the end of time, and saying that just looking at numbers is pointless. Or we can go with the simple approach of raw numbers that is constantly used by the companies themselves as a barometer if success in their press releases, and has served us well over time as they are hard figures rather than soft analysis.

I see what Jado is saying, I really do, but it's not about being childish and just counting numbers- I'm sure Nintendo aren't sitting around going 'we won! Everything's awesome!'. It's that we could say 'it's more complicated than that' to just about everything in business, but somehow it's never an issue unless the Wii's success needs to be debated by people who didn't like the thing. I don't remember Saturn sales or the Mega CD being brought up when debating the SNES vs Megadrive figures, and the PC devs that switched over to console development were just as influential on the last gens AAA development as those which mainly inhabited the PS2. Either of those points would get a huge thread on their own, but sales allows us to have a quick-to-hand metric without having to go through a dozen muddied arguments about the impact and influence of each product every time. Is it flawless? Hell no. Is it taken as the only metric of success by manufacturers? No. Is it constantly used as a broad indicator of a particular machine's success by the industry at large? Yes.

Of course the Wii hasn't 'won' by the huge margin that the PS2 did, nor have its competitors stopped selling, but it seems odd to say that somehow, if we ignore the raw data that we apply to every previous generation, that 100m sales isn't a great success. If it helps, I'll gladly concede that ' Nintendo themselves failed to capitalise on it's success in all manner of ways, including with the trend of what core gamers, used to decent online and incredible third-party support, would need to buy its successor.' I just don't think any manufacturer looks at the bar charts of console sales, points at the Wii figure and says 'that, my friends, is what a failure looks like.'

 

[Eusis]

Yet ask most people on a forum like this one, and they'll say that GC came in 3rd place that generation. They use SALES to say that, the one and only metric that has counted before this last generation.

Probably fair enough to say Nintendo won in their own way then, but that innately implies they didn't win in a proper sense.

 

[thesolidshark]

I guess it would be kind of devastating that a "hardcore" system didn't win Gen 7, even if it had "hardcore" content to it. People seem to be upset about that fact like I'm upset in how mobile is becoming the bigger market over portable/console gaming, but I can still give mobile credit for making the money it did, despite my fear in where it's taking gaming.

15 pages ago I almost asked those who said they didn't win financially why the Wii shouldn't have or couldn't win, even if I already knew the answer. Some of the answers I've seen have been amusing. The fact that consoles are still being sold and new markets are still opening up is a valid point; the race isn't over. I doubt PS3 or 360 will reach 100mil, but I could be wrong. I'd think Wii reaching 100mil in 4-5 years is a console record to be respected, and possibly never replicated again.

And I'd hope that those unsatisfied with the general Wii line-up check to make sure there was nothing worth your attention. I'm still hearing about games that could've mistook for shovelware that turned out to be gems, doubling the value of the only Gen console currently doing BC.

 

[BGBW]

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

You do realise there is a MASSIVE difference between saying games didn't suit your tastes and saying core gamers were thrown to the wolves right? Oh and the GameCube is a fair system to compare it to because saying they threw "you" (seriously, you are not what equals all core gamers) to the wolves with the Wii would imply their output for the GCN catered to the core. What I'm saying is that those who liked the GCN output should in theory like the Wii output because it was an improvement. And to be less subjective about it, two 3D Mario games plus a 2D one that all feel complete is better output than one 3D Mario game that felt rushed (blue coins padding) and despite loving WW (I even rebought the HD version) you can't deny it too was rushed. Their big names were much more polished despite all having departments making games for other audiences.

 

[SmokyDave]

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

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

Yeah, that's about the top and bottom of it

Regardless of whether the PS3 eventually sells more (and I don't think it will), nothing can take away from the fact that the Wii was a cultural phenomenon and a tremendous success for Nintendo.

 

[BGBW]

Yeah, that's about the top and bottom of it

Regardless of whether the PS3 eventually sells more (and I don't think it will), nothing can take away from the fact that the Wii was a cultural phenomenon and a tremendous success for Nintendo.

That's what I was trying to say in this please everyone post

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

But I forget you can't please everyone and this thread will keep going like a Duracell bunny.

 

[Mackins]

You do realise there is a MASSIVE difference between saying games didn't suit your tastes and saying core gamers were thrown to the wolves right? Oh and the GameCube is a fair system to compare it to because saying they threw "you" (seriously, you are not what equals all core gamers) to the wolves with the Wii would imply their output for the GCN catered to the core. What I'm saying is that those who liked the GCN output should in theory like the Wii output because it was an improvement. And to be less subjective about it, two 3D Mario games plus a 2D one that all feel complete is better output than one 3D Mario game that felt rushed (blue coins padding) and despite loving WW (I even rebought the HD version) you can't deny it too was rushed. Their big names were much more polished despite all having departments making games for other audiences.

No, I don't think there is a massive difference, Nintendo went for the casuals and the new bloods and to my eyes did not cater for the core gamers, hence throwing us to the wolves. Maybe that is a bit of a harsh analogy but the fact still remains about how I felt.

The GameCube also wasn't a strong console, it had a few good games but it wasn't even a shadow of the PS2 in depth or quality, still, comparisons with it are pointless, the Wii should be judged against its gen, not the gen before.

I think my tastes in gaming makes up the vast majority of gamers, as all the games I like are the best sellers every time they're released, if I'm not part of what makes up the core gamers, then please enlighten me as to who is?

I don't like any of the Mario games so for me, that is a non issue. As for the Wii games compared to previous Nintendo titles, me and others think they were dumbed down to cater to the new audience they were aimed at so a step in the wrong direction.

Wind Waker had great graphics and was OK, but it is the worst 3D Zelda of the bunch for me. I had a lot of gripes with it, but the sailing is one thing that sticks in my mind, it was so annoying having to change the wind direction constantly. It is by no means a bad game, just the worst of an excellent series.

My order of favourites are Ocarina Of Time, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword then Wind Waker is bringing up the rear, I have never played Majora's Mask though so I don't know how that fits in.

Nintendo's last great console was the Super Nintendo, they've been going downhill ever since, but I think the Wii U was a step in the right direction despite its identity crisis, it's half aiming at core and half at casual and in doing so gets neither quite right.

All completely subjective, it's just what I think went wrong, you don't have to agree or disagree, but there is absolutely nothing you can say that will change my mind on the subject, I've felt the same for years, had hundreds of discussions and thought about it all a hell of a lot, but I am interested in what you think on the subject and where you think they went wrong and what they did right.

 

[thesolidshark]

No, I don't think there is a massive difference, Nintendo went for the casuals and the new bloods and to my eyes did not cater for the core gamers, hence throwing us to the wolves. Maybe that is a bit of a harsh analogy but the fact still remains about how I felt.

The GameCube also wasn't a strong console, it had a few good games but it wasn't even a shadow of the PS2 in depth or quality, still, comparisons with it are pointless, the Wii should be judged against its gen, not the gen before.

I think my tastes in gaming makes up the vast majority of gamers, as all the games I like are the best sellers every time they're released, if I'm not part of what makes up the core gamers, then please enlighten me as to who is?

I don't like any of the Mario games so for me, that is a non issue. As for the Wii games compared to previous Nintendo titles, me and others think they were dumbed down to cater to the new audience they were aimed at so a step in the wrong direction.

Wind Waker had great graphics and was OK, but it is the worst 3D Zelda of the bunch for me. I had a lot of gripes with it, but the sailing is one thing that sticks in my mind, it was so annoying having to change the wind direction constantly. It is by no means a bad game, just the worst of an excellent series.

My order of favourites are Ocarina Of Time, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword then Wind Waker is bringing up the rear, I have never played Majora's Mask though so I don't know how that fits in.

Nintendo's last great console was the Super Nintendo, they've been going downhill ever since, but I think the Wii U was a step in the right direction despite its identity crisis, it's half aiming at core and half at casual and in doing so gets neither quite right.

All completely subjective, it's just what I think went wrong, you don't have to agree or disagree, but there is absolutely nothing you can say that will change my mind on the subject, I've felt the same for years, had hundreds of discussions and thought about it all a hell of a lot, but I am interested in what you think on the subject and where you think they went wrong and what they did right.

Your feelings toward Nintendo games and systems are understood, but I hope you haven't missed out on some games you might've loved just because of them, or because of lack of exposure.

 

[LegendofLex]

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

No, it was inevitably the combination of the economy tanking, the lack of release of games, and probably just as much the abandonment of the types of games that made Wii successful so Nintendo could re-try their failed "creative" and "3D" directions with games like Other M, Galaxy 2, and Skyward Sword (none of which drove system sales), that killed the system. I still don't know why they didn't seize the grand return of classic franchises in classic form by the balls and just start cranking out legitimate sequels like the good ol' days. Nope, instead it's pump out a new version on each console, then go back to making GameCube games.

Wii hardware sales by fiscal year
FY2007: 5.84m
FY2008: 18.61m
FY2009: 25.95m
FY2010: 20.53m
FY2011: 15.08m
FY2012: 9.84m
FY2013: 3.98m

Wii software sales by fiscal year
FY2007: 28.84m
FY2008: 119.6m
FY2009: 204.58m
FY2010: 191.81m
FY2011: 171.26m
FY2012: 102.37m
FY2013: 50.61m

(Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1312.pdf)

Wii titles released by fiscal year (Japan/Americas/Other)
FY2007: 38/47/45
FY2008: 115/194/184
FY2009: 118/268/253
FY2010: 88/292/301
FY2011: 56/245/237
FY2012: 32/129/137
FY2013: 11/47/56

(Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/number_of_titles_e1312.pdf)

 

[Stumpokapow]

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

The PS2 sold significant numbers after the PS3 launched on the backs of developing territories (ME/A, Latin America, BRI). Your argument against this is that iQue is successful. First, it's true that iQue represents non-zero sales and Nintendo were first to crack the Chinese market by partnering with a domestic firm. However, it does not represent significant sales and it's moot on a go-forward basis because import restrictions have been relaxed. In the mean time, Nintendo does not have presence in most of those other developing or emerging countries--a weakness they have stated and admitted and argued that they plan to change going forward as part of their recent investors conference.

There are things that Nintendo is good at that Sony is not. Their global distribution network is not one of them. You know this. This is not people refusing to accept a Nintendo victory--I have no idea if the PS3 will have long legs in those territories. I suspect its cost profile will render it impossible to get quite the same success out of those territories, but then again they do have a 12GB flash version of the PS3 so maybe they have cost-reduced enough to make it happen.

I'd also add that in Nintendo's case, they also have pretty weak distribution in mainland Europe as they go through external firms who pretty roundly suck. You know this, and Nintendo has admitted it, and you see that by taking over distribution in Austria they are taking steps to change this.

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

They're not overpriced because companies are hosing them, they're overpriced because of punitive import tariffs designed to encourage local manufacturing. The Wii costing $49 upfront or whatever won't save it from many of the taxes that render it priced out of the market's range in Brazil. That's why the Megadrive had a 15+ year life span there, because it was manufactured locally.

 

[LegendofLex]

The PS2 sold significant numbers after the PS3 launched on the backs of developing territories (ME/A, Latin America, BRI). Nintendo does not have presence in most of those countries--a weakness they have stated and admitted and argued that they plan to change going forward as part of their recent investors conference.

Absolutely agreed. While we can, of course, applaud Sony for being more astute about going after new markets in the global sense, it doesn't really tell us which console is "more popular" (ergo, winner) in the end. After all, selling in markets where your competitor isn't even competing to make up the difference in sales would seem to suggest that you had a popularity shortage in other markets.

So while it is absolutely true that globally, Xbox never really caught on, it's also absolutely true that Xbox completely trashed PlayStation in the United States. It's also true that, while Wii was ahead of Xbox for most of the generation, Minecraft pushed Xbox ahead of Wii in the United States (of course, it took them longer and more $$$ to get there, so it's hard to say how much of a victory that is).

The metrics we need to look at to be objective are, IMO:

- How much product was sold (software/hardware sell)?
- What resources did it take to sell the product (how many game releases, with what production and marketing expenses, over how much time, across how many markets)?
- How is healthy the ratio between these metrics (i.e. how profitable)?

 

[Mackins]

Your feelings toward Nintendo games and systems are understood, but I hope you haven't missed out on some games you might've loved just because of them, or because of lack of exposure.

I've probably missed out on dozens dude, I'm really gonna miss the future Zelda titles too, I hope Nintendo turn things around.

 

[Metallix87]

Wii hardware sales by fiscal year
FY2007: 5.84m
FY2008: 18.61m
FY2009: 25.95m
FY2010: 20.53m
FY2011: 15.08m
FY2012: 9.84m
FY2013: 3.98m

Wii software sales by fiscal year
FY2007: 28.84m
FY2008: 119.6m
FY2009: 204.58m
FY2010: 191.81m
FY2011: 171.26m
FY2012: 102.37m
FY2013: 50.61m

(Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1312.pdf)

Wow, even I didn't realize how solid Wii hardware and software sales were until the Wii U launch. Man, Nintendo and third parties totally dropped the ball on that one in the end. "Fad" nonsense needs to stop, of course.

 

[LegendofLex]

Wow, even I didn't realize how solid Wii hardware and software sales were until the Wii U launch. Man, Nintendo and third parties totally dropped the ball on that one in the end. "Fad" nonsense needs to stop, of course.

Let's not forget that FY2012 and FY2013 were basically "lol" years for Wii on the first-party front, too. Unless anyone wants to argue that Skyward Sword being the biggest first-party Wii game during that time should be anything BUT "lol"? I mean, I liked it, but it's clear the game did absolutely nothing to push sales.

 

[Jado]

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

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

I addressed this earlier (see below). Boastful claims at industry junkets are not indicative of market's reality. I do agree with your follow-up statement that Nintendo had already damaged the Wii brand by the end of the decade.

No one is talking about company press releases. Apple is the smartphone and tablet market leader with a fraction of total sales. They don't put out PR garbage to make such claims. It's simply accepted as fact. No one outside of gaming forums think that the Nintendo/Wii was a smashing success and a powerful industry leader post-2009. Someone earlier mentioned the Wii being mentioned in his econ(?) book, to which I say that book would need updating to reflect reality of 2010 onward.

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

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

The Wii brand and Nintendo are intertwined. I disagree that the Wii U retroactively damaged the Wii; the latter was thoroughly ran through the ground by Nintendo before its newer console ever saw light. In LegendofLex's post, you can see the Wii's steady decline begin in 2009, followed by 2010, 2011, 2012... whereas its competitors continued gaining steam. I've said it all along. The Wii peaked LONG AGO (late 2008-09) and then slowly faded from the public consciousness. This is in sharp contrast to sustained success of the likes of the PS2 or iPhone.

The Wii U's sales are actually much worse compared to the Gamecube, factoring in that the video game industry is currently MUCH larger than it was in 2001. So, no, you're wrong. Nintendo is not back to pre-Wii levels. It's arguably even worse.

The total U.S. video game industry grew from $6.6 billion in 2000 to $9.4 billion in 2001, breaking 1999's all-time record of $6.9 billion

Research Shows $15.39 Billion Spent On Video Game Content In The US In 2013
Btw, this is actually a bit low too -- 2011 saw sales of $17 billion and 2009 reached $20 billion, underlining my point that the Wii U having early 2000s-like numbers is quite awful.

 

[LegendofLex]

I disagree that the Wii U retroactively damaged the Wii; the latter was thoroughly ran through the ground by Nintendo before its newer console ever saw light. In LegendofLex's post, you can see the Wii's steady decline begin in 2009, followed by 2010, 2011, 2012... whereas its competitors continued gaining steam.

Wii's "steady decline" began when the games stopped. There was definitely a lull after the Wii Music dud of Holiday '08 until about May of 2009 (there were no first-party games released in the U.S. during those few months) that was very damaging to the Wii's momentum. But the momentum shot back up in mid-2009 through Holiday '09 with Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus, and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. People are quick to forget that Wii's best holiday was in 2009, with 11.31m units sold. That's not evidence of a "steady decline."

When did the games stop? They stopped when Nintendo started shifting their major development resources to 3DS and Wii U - in 2010-2011. It's the same pattern of decline we see with all of their post-SNES platforms, not some indicator of decline for Wii specifically.

 

[Jado]

Wii's "steady decline" began when the games stopped. ...
When did the games stop? They stopped when Nintendo started shifting their major development resources to 3DS and Wii U - in 2010-2011. It's the same pattern of decline we see with all of their post-SNES platforms, not some indicator of decline for Wii specifically.

Which platforms? N64, Gamecube, Wii in its abysmal latter half, likely Wii U in the future. All relative failures (in the case of Wii; lack of content). As we have seen with Nintendo's competitors, this behavior does not have to be the norm -- I seriously contemplated a PS2 purchase well after the PS3 launched like many did; I did well having a PS1 during the early Dreamcast/PS2 era. It's certainly not fine in the eyes of consumers left holding existing Nintendo hardware with total lack of support. The uniqueness with which Nintendo shits the bed when it comes to adequately supporting its products and doing a clean transition from one gen to the next is not okay just because they've been repeated offenders of this bullshit since the 1990s.

This perfectly exemplifies what Nintendo has meant for YEARS in the eyes of disgruntled customers and fans:

Iwata says Wii will avoid major droughts that plagued GameCube. (March 2007)

“When we launched GameCube, the initial sales were good, and all the hardware we manufactured at that time were sold through. However, after this period, we could not provide the market with strong software titles in a timely fashion. As a result we could not leverage the initial launch time momentum, and sales of GameCube slowed down. To avoid repeating this with Wii, we have been intensifying the software development, both internally at Nintendo and at developers outside the company, in order to prepare aggressive software lineup for Wii at and after the launch.” says Iwata. He then says, ”We believe it is important to provide the market with strong software without a long interval in order to keep the launch time momentum.”​

Source: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/060607qa/02.html

Iwata promises that 3DS will avoid major droughts that plagued Wii and DS. (January 2011)

“It’s important that you be able to supply software with no pause,” said Iwata. “With the DS and Wii, following the titles that were released at launch, the momentum dropped when there was a gap in software releases. We’re making plans so that this type of thing won’t happen.”​

Source: http://www.vg247.com/2011/01/10/iwata-promises-to-avoid-wii-style-gap-in-software-with-3ds/

Iwata promises that Wii U will avoid major droughts that plagued 3DS and Wii. (October 2011)

“ As we learned a bitter lesson with the launch of the Nintendo 3DS, we are trying to take every possible measure so that the Wii U will have a successful launch.”
“The company was unable to launch much-anticipated first-party titles for the Wii nor for the Nintendo 3DS in a timely fashion in the first half of the term. In the game platform business, creating momentum is very important, but the momentum was once lost, and it has had a large negative effect on our sales and profits.”​

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/324133/wii-u-will-learn-from-3ds-bitter-lesson-iwata-vows/

Iwata apologizes for Wii U drought in January and February. (January 2013)

“I apologize to those supporting Wii U about the lack of titles in January and February.”​

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-01-23-iwata-apologizes-for-wii-u-software-drought

BONUS COMBO BREAKER - Reggie promises no drought in 2014 (note: there is a serious drought now in 2014 and for the forseeable future)

“The way we’re going to be different is, we’re gonna certainly have a steadier pace of games – both for Wii U and for 3DS.”
“The marketing activity is going to be constant throughout the entire year. You tease me a little bit that ‘boy the first half [of 2013] was a little quiet,’ and y’know what, you look back and it was. We’re not going to be making that same mistake in 2014.”​

__________________________________________________________
Via Emily Rogers: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/04/02/satoru-iwata-hubris-versus-western-culture/

 

[LegendofLex]

Which platforms? N64, Gamecube, Wii in its abysmal latter half, likely Wii U in the future. All relative failures (in the case of Wii; lack of content). [...] This perfectly exemplifies what Nintendo has meant for YEARS in the eyes of disgruntled customers and fans:

The point wasn't to excuse Nintendo. They're obviously miles behind Sony in terms of global marketing and long-term support for their products.

The point was that the blame for Wii fizzling out was not due to some flaw unique to Wii and its execution. I know you didn't say this explicitly, but I want to make sure that point is clear for others - Wii didn't fizzle out because it was Wii, Wii fizzled out because Nintendo failed to follow through.

 

[Nilaul]

The legacy of Wii; will be seen everywhere

Even in 3d modelling:
http://sixense.com/sixensestudios/makevr

Also there will be plugins for various application to enable leapmotion control.

Its a shame that Nintendo didn't decide to ride on with what it has created.

 

[prwxv3]

It won last gen and everyone needs to deal with that just like how Nintendo fanboys need to deal with the fact that the WiiU is bombing now.

 

[MikeXXIeaf]

Nintendo tapped into a larger market than Sony and Microsoft.

 

[entremet]

This goal post shifting is annoying. It won by all objective metrics. Why did we change the criteria because a system we didn't care for won? It's intellectually dishonest.

And the talk of its successor is meaningless. Using a sports analogy, do we change the criteria of winning championships if the team bombs the next year? No, of course not. It won. End of story.

 

[moltonasty]

This goal post shifting is annoying. It won by all objective metrics. Why did we change the criteria because a system we didn't care for won? It's intellectually dishonest.

And the talk of its successor is meaningless. Using a sports analogy, do we change the criteria of winning championships if the team bombs the next year? No, of course not. It won. End of story.

Pretty much this. I really believe a mod should come in and shut this thread down for this very reason. People who can't deal with the fact that a Nintendo console won the last gen will keep shifting the goal post, and this thread will literally go on forever.

 

[Jado]

Pretty much this. I really believe a mod should come in and shut this thread down for this very reason. People who can't deal with the fact that a Nintendo console won the last gen will keep shifting the goal post, and this thread will literally go on forever.

Can't deal? That's laughable. Before backseat modding and dictating which discussions shouldn't be had due to your assumption that this is a fanboy attack against Nintendo, it should be made clear to you that some of the best arguments in this thread are coming from people who like (or once liked) Nintendo and aren't on any "side" of a dumb console war. I posted before:

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

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

The point wasn't to excuse Nintendo. They're obviously miles behind Sony in terms of global marketing and long-term support for their products.

The point was that the blame for Wii fizzling out was not due to some flaw unique to Wii and its execution. I know you didn't say this explicitly, but I want to make sure that point is clear for others - Wii didn't fizzle out because it was Wii, Wii fizzled out because Nintendo failed to follow through.

I think we generally agree then.

 

[moltonasty]

Can't deal? That's laughable. Before backseat modding and dictating which discussions shouldn't be had due to your assumption that this is a fanboy attack against Nintendo, it should be made clear to you that some of the best arguments in this thread are coming from people who like (or once liked) Nintendo and aren't on any "side" of a dumb console war. I posted before:





I think we generally agree then.

Relax dude. I'm not saying anything to you specifically, nor did I mention anything about fanboy attacks. But these are the facts: Wii had the highest hardware sales, and I believe the highest overall software sales as well, of all last gen consoles. Therefore, it "won". The end. I'm not partial to any corporation or console, but when it had the best sales and somehow there is a debate that regardless of being the best seller it still "lost", well yeah, that sounds like changing the definition of "winning" to me.

And why would someone suddenly change the definition of what it means to win? Obviously when they can't accept/deal with a loss. It's called denial.

 

[leroidys]

I addressed this earlier (see below). Boastful claims at industry junkets are not indicative of market's reality. I do agree with your follow-up statement that Nintendo had already damaged the Wii brand by the end of the decade.





The Wii brand and Nintendo are intertwined. I disagree that the Wii U retroactively damaged the Wii; the latter was thoroughly ran through the ground by Nintendo before its newer console ever saw light. In LegendofLex's post, you can see the Wii's steady decline begin in 2009, followed by 2010, 2011, 2012... whereas its competitors continued gaining steam. I've said it all along. The Wii peaked LONG AGO (late 2008-09) and then slowly faded from the public consciousness. This is in sharp contrast to sustained success of the likes of the PS2 or iPhone.

The Wii U's sales are actually much worse compared to the Gamecube, factoring in that the video game industry is currently MUCH larger than it was in 2001. So, no, you're wrong. Nintendo is not back to pre-Wii levels. It's arguably even worse.

The total U.S. video game industry grew from $6.6 billion in 2000 to $9.4 billion in 2001, breaking 1999's all-time record of $6.9 billion

Research Shows $15.39 Billion Spent On Video Game Content In The US In 2013
Btw, this is actually a bit low too -- 2011 saw sales of $17 billion and 2009 reached $20 billion, underlining my point that the Wii U having early 2000s-like numbers is quite awful.

I said "within the same scope", as in, a sales disaster relative to the market, not "everything is fine wii u is gamecube GG nintendo cool".

The PS2 and iPhone I guess are comparable products in some ways, but the fact that the Wii didn't have as long a tail as these devices does not equate to an out and out failure or market implosion.

Nothing you posted establishes that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen. If you want to prove that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen you should try to prove that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen.

 

[Jado]

I said "within the same scope", as in, a sales disaster relative to the market, not "everything is fine wii u is gamecube GG nintendo cool".

The PS2 and iPhone I guess are comparable products in some ways, but the fact that the Wii didn't have as long a tail as these devices does not equate to an out and out failure or market implosion.

I didn't say it was a total failure. This is about more than having a long tail. Post-2009 Wii was a dud in steady decline. It failed in the eyes of many. You disagree, but haven't substantiated why.

Nothing you posted establishes that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen. If you want to prove that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen you should try to prove that the Wii damaged the company to the point that they couldn't compete this gen.

Nintendo damaged the Wii brand, which in turn hurt the Wii U's chances as it came out looking like a damn clone. Wii U piggybacked onto a dying brand that built a reputation as cheap, low res, low powered, lacking basic features, fad-ish and out of touch with a changing market. Even so, the Wii U still managed to muck things up further with its own independent faults: the high price, odd tablet, ongoing software drought, limited online features, lack of focus, etc. This post said it best:

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

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

Therefore, it "won". The end. I'm not partial to any corporation or console, but when it had the best sales and somehow there is a debate that regardless of being the best seller it still "lost", well yeah, that sounds like changing the definition of "winning" to me.

And why would someone suddenly change the definition of what it means to win? Obviously when they can't accept/deal with a loss. It's called denial.

To be frank, you seem quite partial. Let's all relax. We're taking a more nuanced look at how the Wii arguably failed well before the generation concluded and that its oft-mentioned, impressive numbers were very "front-heavy" (2007-2009). You really think I'm in denial when Nintendo sells well? Why? Which console loss can I not accept/deal with? If the Wii had a clean, undisputed run with a very solid library through its life like the NES, DS or PS1 and PS2, I wouldn't be involved in this discussion.

In short, maybe I just think post-N64 Nintendo, with few exceptions, is a fuck-up and calling it like it is.

 

[leroidys]

I didn't say it was a total failure. This is about more than having a long tail. Post-2009 Wii was a dud in steady decline. It failed in the eyes of many. You disagree, but haven't substantiated why.



Nintendo damaged the Wii brand, which in turn hurt the Wii U's chances as it came out looking like a damn clone. Wii U piggybacked onto a dying brand that built a reputation as cheap, low res, low powered, lacking basic features, fad-ish and out of touch with a changing market. Even so, the Wii U still managed to muck things up further with its own independent faults: the high price, odd tablet, ongoing software drought, limited online features, lack of focus, etc. This post said it best:

It wasn't a "dud in decline". It was at that point one of the fastest selling consoles of all time. How is that a dud? Its sales finally started declining toward the end of year 4, as any cheap consumer electronic product is wont to do.

You're the one who says that virtually every metric of business success doesn't count when judging the Wii, so the burden of proof falls on you to substantiate your ephemeral judgements with some actual, statistically significant data coupled with a rational analysis.

In short, maybe I just think post-N64 Nintendo, with few exceptions, is a fuck-up and calling it like it is.

I would agree with this in several respects. I don't understand why you are so wedded to the idea that Wii wasn't a win for Nintendo when it's clear that it's not the genesis for so many of the major problems the company has today.

 

[Mackins]

I'm with Jado on this one, I agree with everything he's saying.

 

[thesolidshark]

I'm with Jado on this one, I agree with everything he's saying.

Just as a core gamer, or in-general?

 

[Mackins]

Just as a core gamer, or in-general?

I would say both really.