Nintendo President Says Wii U Sales Are "Not Bad"

[Marshall Honorof]

Nintendo President Says Wii U Sales Are "Not Bad"

Nintendo's new console is selling well, but not as well as the Wii.

Hop on any gaming forum, and it's clear that the Wii U draws in a dizzying variety of opinions, ranging from "messianic device" to "harbinger of the apocalypse." While the newest iteration of the console wars plays out, the system itself seems to be selling just fine according to Nintendo's president. While sales have slowed since its initial seven days [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120986-Nintendo-Sells-425-000-Wii-U-Systems-in-Seven-Days], Satoru Iwata believes that the system's current selling power is well within reason.

Iwata discusses the Wii U's holiday sales in terms of its predecessor, explaining that the new system has not quite reached the level of demand that the Wii commanded. "At the end of the Christmas season, it wasn't as though stores in the U.S. had no Wii U left in stock, as it was when Wii was first sold in that popular boom," he says. "But sales are not bad, and I feel it's selling steadily." Iwata remains hesitant to make any sales predictions, but believes that increasing production of the 32-gig Deluxe model will move a few more units. "Inventory levels for the premium, deluxe package was (sic) unbalanced as many people wanted that version and couldn't find it."

Nintendo still wants to sell 5.5 million Wii Us by April [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120320-Nintendo-Aims-to-Sell-One-Million-Wii-Us-Per-Month]. Consumers won't know just how feasible this goal is until Nintendo releases solid sales figures for the month of December, but in the meantime, Nintendo's head honcho doesn't seem too worried. Either way, the Wii U still has a long way to go before it matches the original Wii's near-100 million sales.

Source: Reuters [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-nintendo-console-sales-idUSBRE90605420130107]

Permalink

 

[Fasckira]

If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

 

[BlueJoneleth]

It's gonna be like the 3DS, slow start but once Nintendo releases some good first party games, sales will increase.

 

[Treblaine]

Google Translate from Executive-ese: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! WE ARE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-"

If I had just released a next-gen console I would be hoping to be able to use descriptions more exciting than "steady" and "not bad" when describing the sales. Still, steady sales make for steady income I guess.

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

To give you an idea of how long ago 2005 was, youtube didn't even exist at the beginning of that year. That's 8 years ago!

 

[Jubbert]

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

If next-gen isn't a descriptor of technology, what's the point of releasing new consoles? We could just use existing technology then.

Also, talking about how the Wii U has better GPU and RAM right after having said that next-gen apparently doesn't need to be earned with high-end technology.

Lolzors!

 

[Doom972]

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

 

[Doom972]

Is what way is it "next gen" when all the games for it look and perform INDISTINGUISHABLY from the Xbox 360 versions that came out in 2005.

Oh for the love of...

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released. The PS3, 360 and Wii were all seventh generation consoles, despite differences in power. Just as the PS2 was as much a sixth generation console, despite being underpowered compared to the Gamecube and Xbox. Or how the PS1 was a fifth generation console despite having about half the power of the N64.

Seriously, stop bandying about this term as if 'next generation' is some sort of title which needs to be earned with high end technology. It's not. It is nothing more than a term used to describe when a console came out. The Wii was Nintendo's seventh gen console. The Wii U is being released ahead of the new consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Therefore, by definition, it is the first console of the eighth generation.

Secondly, the Wii U has a higher end GPU and more RAM than either the 360 or PS3, so is more advanced than them by default. Stop acting as if it's some sort of woefully underpowered machine not even comparable with current gen. Games like Trine 2 and Nano Assault have already started to show what the machine is capable of, and it's only been out a month. The 360 had to wait a year for Gears to come out and actually show off what it could do. Before then, it was derided for being 'Xbox 1.5'

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

/facepalm

No, you are incorrect. The Wii had Sixth Generation graphics, yet it was touted as "Next Generation" or the Seventh Generation of consoles.

Also, fans, especially of Nintendo have much higher standards than normal fans. Look at Metroid: Other M or New Super Mario Bros 2. Both sold exceptionally poorly (hell, the gamestop here had to cease returns on it because they had far too many). Nintendo First-Party titles are not cash-grabs or instant money.

/2x facepalm

So, two wrongs make a right?
Just because the Wii was recognized a 7th gen console, while it used 6th gen level of technology, doesn't mean that it was right, nor does it make calling the Wii U a next-gen console right.

 

[Doom972]

I don't really know where you got those figures, cause as far as I know Nintendo hasn't released sales figures yet,

Apparently VGChartz did a bunch of research to find out.

If next-gen isn't a descriptor of technology, what's the point of releasing new consoles? We could just use existing technology then.

No, because new technology allows developers to do more with games, regarding visuals, AI, phsyics, level design and such. All of which is hugely important, but none of which has anything to do with whether a console is part of the next generation or not.

Also, talking about how the Wii U has better GPU and RAM right after having said that next-gen apparently doesn't need to be earned with high-end technology.

Lolzors!

I was addressing the oft-made claim that technologically the Wii U is no better that current gen consoles, something that is patently untrue given that it has more RAM and a higher end GPU. Once again, that has nothing to do with 'nect gen' and everything to do with countering false information.

That's just not true. A new generation of consoles has always meant better technology than the previous generation. If someone would release a console with 8-bit era technology, I doubt you would call it next-gen. They basically released a slightly better current-gen console right near the generation's end, but I doubt that it would prevent them from cashing in on Mario, Zelda and Metroid games for it.

Compared to the Gamecube and the Xbox, the PS2 was barely a step up from the PS1. It's RAM was pitiful, it had woeful texture support, next to no aliasing, and no native support for online play. That had to be bodged in afterwards. The Gamecube and Xbox were capable of running the likes of Starfox Adventures and Doom 3, visually stunning titles for their time. The PS2, by contrast, was barely able to keep the likes of SOTC running at a stable framerate. And yet it was still the leader of the sixth generation.

And yes, if someone released an 8-bit console, it would be part of the 8th generation of consoles. So it would class as a next-gen system. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

I agree that the PS2 was the weakest of the three, but it was still a major step up from the PS1. The PS1 couldn't run a slightly graphically poorer version of GTA3, could it?

Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

 

[Doom972]

I agree that the PS2 was the weakest of the three, but it was still a major step up from the PS1. The PS1 couldn't run a slightly graphically poorer version of GTA3, could it?

It was a step up from the PS1, but compared to what the Xbox and the Gamecube brought, it was paltry. It didn't even have an integrated hard-drive. The Xbox had over twice the RAM (64mb compared to 32mb), a CPU clocked at 733MHZ compared to the PS2s' 295MHZ, more internal cache, texture compression... fuck it, just read this chart. It compares the specs, and shows just how utterly dwarfed the PS2 was dwarfed by the Xbox, and even the Gamecube.

So yeah, if we're arguing tech-specs as some kind of qualifier for whether something is 'next gen' or not, then the PS2 never even counted as part of the last generation. If you're going to argue that the PS2 was part of the sixth generation, then by the same logic, the Wii U is part of the eighth. It doesn't matter how much more powerful Sony and Microsoft's new consoles are going to be, such things are irrelevant to the discussion.

Also, calling an 8-bit console a next-gen console would be like me tying a leash to a cardboard box and calling it my pet. People would nod in agreement but would probably think that I need some mental treatment. Just because it's not properly defined, it doesn't mean that people don't expect a next-gen console to have next-gen technology.

What are you talking about? That comparison makes no sense at all.

No, next-gen consoles do not have to provide a leap in technology, that is simply a process that has happened to occur in the past. Case in point, the Ouya. In most respects, its specs are quite modest, but its coming out this year as a new challenger in the eighth generation. It is an eighth-generation console, as it is appearing at the end of the current gen, and at the start of the next one. Same for the Gamestick.

Secondly, regarding the Wii U, it does have so-called 'next gen' technology. It's got four times the RAM of current consoles, and has got a GPGPU, that is, a GPU also capable of handling CPU tasks. That in itself is way more advanced than anything inside the 360 or PS3.

Technology is an issue - According to most people's expectations, next gen = better technology. Otherwise, what's the point of having a new generation?
The PS2 was adequate to run all of the games that weren't exclusive to a single console. You might say that those games were made with the PS2 in mind and therefor were able to run it - but note that the Wii didn't get the same treatment in this console generation, and that's because its technology was too inferior to make current-gen games for it, unlike the PS2.

 

[Treblaine]

'Next gen' is not a descriptor of technology, it simply refers to which period in which a console is released.

Not it isn't.

If it was then it would be a worthless descriptor.

We've had this conversation before, I remember vaguely, and it seems you're still making the same argument I refuted months ago.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Aaah, console succes/performance arguments... How I've missed you these past 8 years.