It's a vicious cycle. Most gamers already have their console of choice, so buying a new console that is also expensive in this economy isn't gonna happen. And because Wii U isn't selling, not a lot of developers are making games for it. And because no one is making games for it, not a lot of people are buying the console. A price cut would definitely help. It wouldn't fix the issue entirely, but it would jump-start the process.Yopaz said:
It'll be interesting to see what reactions will be like when Sony AND MS pull the same kind of first year the Wii U has been having. It's always fascinating to see people forget about the patterns of history.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
But each Wii unit was a profit for Nintendo. But in Nintendo's newest installment, they are back to the Gamecube -- selling units at a loss. And it won't hit the PS3's numbers (70 million units) within five years.fix-the-spade said:
For having an install base at zero, Sony already owns a huge chip in the game: there are more exclusives and 3rd party games coming out for day 1 console launch than the Wii U has shown in five months. And seeing as how Gamestop already has near a million possible purchases for the PS4 alone [http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/29/gamestop-strong-purchase-intent-for-ps4], I doubt that Sony's third party support will weaken any time soon, and like it certainly has for the Wii U.Aiddon said:
When people are foaming at the mouth in rage about the rumor of always-online console, I think saying people will value online integration more then software is, well, dumb. More likely people just are waiting for better wii u games to come out to justify buying the console in the first place. Unlike the wii itself, its gimmick is also less dramatic and less advertised, so you don't have the casual audience boosting sales. I don't know, but I would say while the Wii u is far from great, counting it out so fully compared to 2 systems not out at all, one of which has been baiting a function NO ONE wants in the thing except the money hungry company behind it... Well, lets see what happens.
Right...Earnest Cavalli said:
Heck, let's go to some of the best-sellers. The DS also had a slow first year but when stuff like Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow and New Super Mario Bros. came (which was TWO years after its launch) it proceeded to STEAMROLL any competition.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Unfortunately, most of those exclusives for the Wii U and the yet to launch PS4 have one thing in common: No release date. And while that's perfectly normal for Sony's upcoming console, it's a little disappointing for Nintendo's flagship "next-gen" hardware; which was marketed as a hardcore gaming device, and that has yet to see any substantial selection. This isn't 2006 (wii), it's 2013, if you brought the fizzled drinks to the party, you're not going to be invited to the next one.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Seriously, i am the only one that only play games with their consoles ?Earnest Cavalli said:
Because they want your console to be the MAIN way to do that. Too bad that's not what is happening. I can understand social media integration, but it's rarely gonna be a selling point for people.cathou said:
Well the Dreamcast itself had a great opening week on it's release and decent software to go with it and yet flopped. By this point most consumers had lost faith in Sega because of previous bad decision making, anyway the point I'm trying to make with this is that a console's first year is hardly indicative of it's future success or failure.Aiddon said:
The PS3 shows that a slow launch can still turn into a profit; that is, if the problems are marginal. You see, the Playstation 3 struggled at the beginning because of organization, marketing and a philosophical approach toward consoles. SONY, however, learned from all of its mistakes, and came back in stride, because it's hardware was still bent toward the future; and the future of gaming is software and inter-connectivity. This is why it was easily solved within two years.Anoni Mus said:
