Wii U Won't Sell as Well as Wii, Says God of War Creator

[Epona]

The 3DS isn't doing so well either. It seems the gimmicks have been worn out.

Likely because of the mediocre line up (which will improve), its cost, and the fact that it was launched in the middle of the year (aka not being helped by the holiday rush).

Also, likely because

- the 3D effect causes headaches in some people meaning they can't play it for very long
- the battery life is terrible
- some people can't see the 3D effect so can't justify spending all that money when the main feature is inaccessible to them.
- the price is too high

Nop, sorry. The average person is smart enough to turn 3D off if they're experiencing headaches. The 3D isn't the only reason to buy the system, similar to how people who don't have HDTVs bought Xbox 360s and PS3s (which use HD as a huge selling point).

I agree with the battery life and I already addressed the cost issue.

Here's a better idea. If you can't enjoy the 3D effect, the 3DS is not for you. That's what many people have probably decided. Most won't change their mind in the future.

3D movies are a gimmick and so is 3D gaming. If people don't think it's worth an extra $3 to watch a movie in 3D then they won't think it worth it to pay $250 for a 3D handheld. The 3DS MAY take off in the future when it gets better games like the DS did but unlike the DS it has extra baggage holding it down, 3D. I think of it like the Wii, it's controller ruined some of it's best games. As an example, would NSMBW have been better without the waggle? You bet! How about other games where the waggle was just added to force the Wiimote innovation into games that didn't benefit from it. Same thing will happen with the 3DS. The 3D is exclusive, not inclusive.

You bring about good points but one thing. If Nintendo decides to make games on the 3DS that heavily use the 3D feature, how would they market those games? That's the biggest issue for the 3DS, it's unmarketable for it's games.

Maybe that's why 3D has always failed for Hollywood too, it just can't be marketed because you can't show the effect on a normal television. All they can say is: "In 3D".

 

[enriquetnt]

I think the Wii burned too many bridges for the Wii-U to be as successful as the Wii. Many people who bought the Wii were Nintendo loyalists but no more.

Also, in the power department, Wii-U really isn't any different than the Wii. Only a little more powerful than the XBOX 1 is the Wii, likewise only a little more powerful than the PS3 and 360 is the Wii-U, they will still be behind.

Further, the Wii biggest strength was in it's controller and it's local party games. The Wii-U's biggest strength is also in it's controller but that is significantly weaker given that only one will be supported per game. That strength of getting 4 people together in the same room for a party game is gone because the other 3 people will have to use old controllers and because the new controller functions will be disabled in the name of fairness.

The 3DS isn't doing so well either. It seems the gimmicks have been worn out.

completely agree whit you, i was a nintendo loyalist but no more, apparently the general public is finally starting to wisen up about overpriced gimmicky hardware, and the failure of the 3ds proves that, even Apple is feeling the sting of this trend (they also love to push overpriced bad quality chinese made hardware, lets see how do they next generation fo i-somethings- do)

 

[That Greek Guy]

go to sleep with itchy butt, wake up with smelly finger says a guy with a finger that smells like fresh lemons

 

[RuralGamer]

To be honest I think he has something of a point in there. Who's going to play this? Actually, let's say rather, who isn't going to play this?

1) Well straight away the whole lack of motion controls is going to likely deter a lot of older customers, many of whom bought it for family/party games and fitness.
2) The Wii die-hards; N64 had them and GameCube had them; Wii is unlikely to be any different. Some people just don't like some changes.
3) 'Hardcore' gamers who haven't owned a Nintendo product before/for a long time; unless there is a brilliant line up of 'hardcore' (I just don't like that term) games at launch, I can't see the Xbox 360 or PS3 game sales being hurt much.
4) People who aren't gamers.
5) PC/Specific console elitists

Everyone else though might be fair game and buy a Wii U.
I'd be absolutely stunned if the Wii U flopped, but I'd expect sales to be more than 50% of the Wii, but I doubt it will outdo the Wii in the end.

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip
laud
Snip

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Sorry, just had to point that out.

OT: Of course the Wii U won't be as successful as the Wii was. It would have to fire shurikens and lightning and be adorned with flaming tits to outsell the Wii. On that note, that doesn't mean it won't be successful at all. I'm sure it will sell just fine, there are plenty of Nintendo fanboys/console nuts/casual gamers to pay money for it, no matter what backlash they may or may not get after launch. All other bitter feelings I have about the matter I will keep to myself.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

I dont think Nintendo every wants to really be "King Emperor of the Console Wars"

I think they like to be a bit different.....

Outspoken game designer - Haha coming from a man whose next big feat will be relaunching something he already did...

You didnt even make God of War III

 

[Rhedd]

Snip
laud
Snip

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Sorry, just had to point that out.

Blowed if I know the meaning of half the words that come out of my mouth, lol. Thought it was a British colloquial expression for acting smug about something.

OT: Despite being very disappointed in the Gamecube and Wii's game selection and using my PS2 and 360 way more during each generation, I'm still looking forward to the Wii U the most. Nintendo will make good use of their new controller, and I'm a fan of new experiences.

I'll end up getting a PS4 or XBox720, as well, but unless there's a big surprise neither console is gunna be all that exciting, they'll be the same as the ones that have gone before - only more powerful. Nintendo, on the other hand, might well design a console that shoots shurikens and lightning if they thought it could be used to make new games, lol. Anyway, they may top the Wii, or they may fail miserably, but either way it'll be interesting to watch.

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip
laud
Snip

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Sorry, just had to point that out.

Blowed if I know the meaning of half the words that come out of my mouth, lol. Thought it was a British colloquial expression for acting smug about something.

OT: Despite being very disappointed in the Gamecube and Wii's game selection and using my PS2 and 360 way more during each generation, I'm still looking forward to the Wii U the most. Nintendo will make good use of their new controller, and I'm a fan of new experiences.

I'll end up getting a PS4 or XBox720, as well, but unless there's a big surprise neither console is gunna be all that exciting, they'll be the same as the ones that have gone before - only more powerful. Nintendo, on the other hand, might well design a console that shoots shurikens and lightning if they thought it could be used to make new games, lol. Anyway, they may top the Wii, or they may fail miserably, but either way it'll be interesting to watch.

Actually, it means to praise or acclaim. (There is technically also a meaning relating to religion; Praising of God, etc. but we won't get in to that.)

I will agree that if a company were to create a console that shot shurikens and lightning to play games, it would be Nintendo and that at the very least this console will be interesting to watch, though I certainly don't need to spend money on it while owning an Alienware laptop, Xbox 360, and a PS3.

 

[Baresark]

snip

It's his personal blog, the only reason why it's really news is because the Escapist decided to post some opinions of the guy for whatever reason. And I think he only worked on the first God of War, another guy was director or GoW2 wasn't it?

But on topic, Jaffe does have somewhat of a point. The Wii's success was due to a lot of factors that were aligned just right. Will lightning strike twice again? I dunno, though I doubt I will be getting the WiiU as I have never really been a Nintendo kind of guy and my Wii has ended up gathering dust.

I see, I didn't realize they were turning a guys personal blog into a news item. It's a bit annoying, if I wanted to hear David Jaffe's opinion, I would read his blog myself. And as far as which GoW games he worked on, Wikipedia (the most credible source on the internet?) said it was the first and second.

Also, the perfect storm analogy is a terrible one, if for no other reason that it doesn't happen that way. When someone uses that analogy they believe that a certain perfect set of events leads up to an unusual phenomenon, but it wasn't a perfect set of events that lead to the Wii's success like he, and many others believe. No matter how you spin it, their business model is what enabled that success, and due to the staple of those well loved Nintendo characters.

That being said, there are a lot of people who feel burned by Nintendo due to the Wii, and they will have to work hard to pull people back after that.

Snip

But the problem with this business model is that the new console is as expensive or more expensive than the competition. Since it doesnt have a comparable list of features now it will run into the issue of "the old one is better" and people will just go for whichever console offers the best.
Also exclusives? I can tell you the exclusives right now; one of each of the following areas. Zelda, Mario, Metroid and possibly pokemon. That will not convert anyone. It will get the part of the market that bought a wii for the exact same reason, a small part of the people who bought a wii.

Well, it'll probably run as much as the higher end 360 and lower end and PS3. It's still a better gaming console as far as technical details are concerned. Exclusives will be of course the staple Nintendo characters, but also, there are a bunch of games that are not Nintendo brand that have run only on Nintendo consoles that will greatly benefit from an HD makeover. And there is new openness for developers to put their triple A titles on the system. The best possible part is that there will no longer be a stupid and useless need to build games from the ground up based on the hardware limitation of the system, like with the Wii. I think you will see a great success with Wii U, but probably not like the Wii. Also, since their superior business model makes it so, they won't be losing money for every system they sell, they will be making a profit on a per system basis. Which is the strongest point for the console and the company. This also points to games staying at their $50 price tag on games, which is another strong point for the system. This last point is speculative on my part, but the open reasoning that Microsoft and Sony have stated for the increased price tag is the need to make up lost money by more expensive console game licensing. It is this exact same reasoning that EA has started releasing PC titles at $60 per game.

No matter how you spin it, I am looking forward to the Wii U, if for no other reason that I like to see good honest business succeed. I wouldn't purchase it myself unless there is a few games I wanted to play on it, either way. I have also actively avoided the 3DS, though it seems to be pretty successful.

 

[Jumplion]

snip

It's his personal blog, the only reason why it's really news is because the Escapist decided to post some opinions of the guy for whatever reason. And I think he only worked on the first God of War, another guy was director or GoW2 wasn't it?

But on topic, Jaffe does have somewhat of a point. The Wii's success was due to a lot of factors that were aligned just right. Will lightning strike twice again? I dunno, though I doubt I will be getting the WiiU as I have never really been a Nintendo kind of guy and my Wii has ended up gathering dust.

I see, I didn't realize they were turning a guys personal blog into a news item. It's a bit annoying, if I wanted to hear David Jaffe's opinion, I would read his blog myself. And as far as which GoW games he worked on, Wikipedia (the most credible source on the internet?) said it was the first and second.

A lot of Jaffe's news posts are from his blog, and other times where developers or CEOs or whatever open their mouths is because they're being interviewed, they're not badmouthing it because they feel like a douche for today.

 

[Vyress]

The N64 was not in competition against the Genesis, it was competing against the PS1, and it lost. When you say 3 in a row, would that be the Wii, the 3DS and the Wii-U? The 3DS hasn't really sold all that well. If you mean the DS, Wii and Wii-U then why are leaving out the 3DS. The "in a row" part is important here.

It was mearly a sales figure comparison since people repeatedly label the N64 and Cube a failure. N64 marks the first time Nintendo was beaten directly in a generation (soundly by the the PS1), but my point was that it still sold reasonably, and made them a lot of money. If it's a failure, it's the sort I'd like to have more often, lol.

And I guess I omitted 3DS cos I didn't want to muddy up the paragraph with qualifications about the 3DS creating a fourth "lucky strike" should that prove the case, lol. Which I'm not sure it will yet either. We really don't know what's going to happen with the 3DS yet, it's a difficult product to market, coupled with a weak starting lineup, but lets not forget it's been out for less than 3 months in most territories. Again, time will tell.

Depends how define failure I guess. I say all consoles are compared to their competitors, same for handhelds.

Yeah, the 3DS could prove to not be a failure based on how well it does against it's competition. It may still beat out the PS Vita but I don't think it will be as wildly successful as the DS was. The 3D is really only for a certain group of people. They have to both care about 3D enough to spend that kind of money and they have to be capable of using the 3D.

Chrono, your understanding of success and failure don't make any sense at all to me. So if something does worse than its competitor it's considered a failure, huh?
So - by your logic - PSP with its 70 million units sold is a failure because it sold less than the DS... sure... no, wait. o.o

What Rhedd says is absolutely reasonable. If they made profit of something it's a success. Can't get simpler than that, right? Just because something else did better doesn't make it a failure. If it made them money, it's a success. Just look at Pepsi. o.o

 

[Epona]

The N64 was not in competition against the Genesis, it was competing against the PS1, and it lost. When you say 3 in a row, would that be the Wii, the 3DS and the Wii-U? The 3DS hasn't really sold all that well. If you mean the DS, Wii and Wii-U then why are leaving out the 3DS. The "in a row" part is important here.

It was mearly a sales figure comparison since people repeatedly label the N64 and Cube a failure. N64 marks the first time Nintendo was beaten directly in a generation (soundly by the the PS1), but my point was that it still sold reasonably, and made them a lot of money. If it's a failure, it's the sort I'd like to have more often, lol.

And I guess I omitted 3DS cos I didn't want to muddy up the paragraph with qualifications about the 3DS creating a fourth "lucky strike" should that prove the case, lol. Which I'm not sure it will yet either. We really don't know what's going to happen with the 3DS yet, it's a difficult product to market, coupled with a weak starting lineup, but lets not forget it's been out for less than 3 months in most territories. Again, time will tell.

Depends how define failure I guess. I say all consoles are compared to their competitors, same for handhelds.

Yeah, the 3DS could prove to not be a failure based on how well it does against it's competition. It may still beat out the PS Vita but I don't think it will be as wildly successful as the DS was. The 3D is really only for a certain group of people. They have to both care about 3D enough to spend that kind of money and they have to be capable of using the 3D.

Chrono, your understanding of success and failure don't make any sense at all to me. So if something does worse than its competitor it's considered a failure, huh?
So - by your logic - PSP with its 70 million units sold is a failure because it sold less than the DS... sure... no, wait. o.o

What Rhedd says is absolutely reasonable. If they made profit of something it's a success. Can't get simpler than that, right? Just because something else did better doesn't make it a failure. If it made them money, it's a success. Just look at Pepsi. o.o

Let me put it this way. If Sony lost money on every PS3 they sold but still outsold their competitors, would you consider that a success or failure? I would consider it a success because it outsold it's competitors.

 

[PureChaos]

Sony and Microsoft battered Nintendo for their motion control. it sold amazingly well, then both companies made their own variations of it. what's to say this won't be any different?

 

[Balobo]

True but third parties for wii tend to develop really bad knock offs of other games. But you never know somebody might pull something out.

None of the consoles are immune to this problem.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The 3DS isn't doing so well either. It seems the gimmicks have been worn out.

Likely because of the mediocre line up (which will improve), its cost, and the fact that it was launched in the middle of the year (aka not being helped by the holiday rush).

Also, likely because

- the 3D effect causes headaches in some people meaning they can't play it for very long
- the battery life is terrible
- some people can't see the 3D effect so can't justify spending all that money when the main feature is inaccessible to them.
- the price is too high

Nop, sorry. The average person is smart enough to turn 3D off if they're experiencing headaches. The 3D isn't the only reason to buy the system, similar to how people who don't have HDTVs bought Xbox 360s and PS3s (which use HD as a huge selling point).

I agree with the battery life and I already addressed the cost issue.

Here's a better idea. If you can't enjoy the 3D effect, the 3DS is not for you. That's what many people have probably decided. Most won't change their mind in the future.

3D movies are a gimmick and so is 3D gaming. If people don't think it's worth an extra $3 to watch a movie in 3D then they won't think it worth it to pay $250 for a 3D handheld. The 3DS MAY take off in the future when it gets better games like the DS did but unlike the DS it has extra baggage holding it down, 3D. I think of it like the Wii, it's controller ruined some of it's best games. As an example, would NSMBW have been better without the waggle? You bet! How about other games where the waggle was just added to force the Wiimote innovation into games that didn't benefit from it. Same thing will happen with the 3DS. The 3D is exclusive, not inclusive.

You bring about good points but one thing. If Nintendo decides to make games on the 3DS that heavily use the 3D feature, how would they market those games? That's the biggest issue for the 3DS, it's unmarketable for it's games.

Maybe that's why 3D has always failed for Hollywood too, it just can't be marketed because you can't show the effect on a normal television. All they can say is: "In 3D".

Nah, 3D failed in Hollywood because no one wanted to take the time to utilize it like James Cameron did for Avatar. While not the best plot you knew that movie was the best looking one that year. No one else made a movie worth the ticket price rise. That and you can advertise movie 3-D. In other 3D movies. 3DTV commercials, and the general masses already knows what movie 3D looks like. The 3DS` glasses free 3D may not be used the same for every game, and thus cannot be marketed well by Nintendo themselves or by 3rd Party devs who make games for it.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The N64 was not in competition against the Genesis, it was competing against the PS1, and it lost. When you say 3 in a row, would that be the Wii, the 3DS and the Wii-U? The 3DS hasn't really sold all that well. If you mean the DS, Wii and Wii-U then why are leaving out the 3DS. The "in a row" part is important here.

It was mearly a sales figure comparison since people repeatedly label the N64 and Cube a failure. N64 marks the first time Nintendo was beaten directly in a generation (soundly by the the PS1), but my point was that it still sold reasonably, and made them a lot of money. If it's a failure, it's the sort I'd like to have more often, lol.

And I guess I omitted 3DS cos I didn't want to muddy up the paragraph with qualifications about the 3DS creating a fourth "lucky strike" should that prove the case, lol. Which I'm not sure it will yet either. We really don't know what's going to happen with the 3DS yet, it's a difficult product to market, coupled with a weak starting lineup, but lets not forget it's been out for less than 3 months in most territories. Again, time will tell.

Depends how define failure I guess. I say all consoles are compared to their competitors, same for handhelds.

Yeah, the 3DS could prove to not be a failure based on how well it does against it's competition. It may still beat out the PS Vita but I don't think it will be as wildly successful as the DS was. The 3D is really only for a certain group of people. They have to both care about 3D enough to spend that kind of money and they have to be capable of using the 3D.

Chrono, your understanding of success and failure don't make any sense at all to me. So if something does worse than its competitor it's considered a failure, huh?
So - by your logic - PSP with its 70 million units sold is a failure because it sold less than the DS... sure... no, wait. o.o

What Rhedd says is absolutely reasonable. If they made profit of something it's a success. Can't get simpler than that, right? Just because something else did better doesn't make it a failure. If it made them money, it's a success. Just look at Pepsi. o.o

Let me put it this way. If Sony lost money on every PS3 they sold but still outsold their competitors, would you consider that a success or failure? I would consider it a success because it outsold it's competitors.

That's a horrible way of looking at it. A success isn't measured by units sold for a company if the company losses money. You can sell as many consoles as you want but if your losses caused a bankruptcy then it's a flop. If you can't show a profit, you lose. End of story. MS lost 4 billion dollars on the original Xbox and it sold more than the Gamecube. That's a massive financial failure. Why do you think they put the 360 out a year before everyone else?

 

[Epona]

The N64 was not in competition against the Genesis, it was competing against the PS1, and it lost. When you say 3 in a row, would that be the Wii, the 3DS and the Wii-U? The 3DS hasn't really sold all that well. If you mean the DS, Wii and Wii-U then why are leaving out the 3DS. The "in a row" part is important here.

It was mearly a sales figure comparison since people repeatedly label the N64 and Cube a failure. N64 marks the first time Nintendo was beaten directly in a generation (soundly by the the PS1), but my point was that it still sold reasonably, and made them a lot of money. If it's a failure, it's the sort I'd like to have more often, lol.

And I guess I omitted 3DS cos I didn't want to muddy up the paragraph with qualifications about the 3DS creating a fourth "lucky strike" should that prove the case, lol. Which I'm not sure it will yet either. We really don't know what's going to happen with the 3DS yet, it's a difficult product to market, coupled with a weak starting lineup, but lets not forget it's been out for less than 3 months in most territories. Again, time will tell.

Depends how define failure I guess. I say all consoles are compared to their competitors, same for handhelds.

Yeah, the 3DS could prove to not be a failure based on how well it does against it's competition. It may still beat out the PS Vita but I don't think it will be as wildly successful as the DS was. The 3D is really only for a certain group of people. They have to both care about 3D enough to spend that kind of money and they have to be capable of using the 3D.

Chrono, your understanding of success and failure don't make any sense at all to me. So if something does worse than its competitor it's considered a failure, huh?
So - by your logic - PSP with its 70 million units sold is a failure because it sold less than the DS... sure... no, wait. o.o

What Rhedd says is absolutely reasonable. If they made profit of something it's a success. Can't get simpler than that, right? Just because something else did better doesn't make it a failure. If it made them money, it's a success. Just look at Pepsi. o.o

Let me put it this way. If Sony lost money on every PS3 they sold but still outsold their competitors, would you consider that a success or failure? I would consider it a success because it outsold it's competitors.

That's a horrible way of looking at it. A success isn't measured by units sold for a company if the company losses money. You can sell as many consoles as you want but if your losses caused a bankruptcy then it's a flop. If you can't show a profit, you lose. End of story. MS lost 4 billion dollars on the original Xbox and it sold more than the Gamecube. That's a massive financial failure. Why do you think they put the 360 out a year before everyone else?

If all you care about is a companies bottom line then I can see your point of view. As a consumer though, why do you care so much about a companies bottom line?

Surely you haven't missed all the competitive spirit on every video game forum? People care about which console sells the most and little thought goes into Nintendo's end of day deposits. The N64 was a failure because the PS1 beat it in sales. The Gamecube was a failure because the XBOX and the PS2 beat it in sales.

It's all about perspective. I can see it from that perspective if I cared to, I don't though because I am not a stockholder. Can you see it from my point of view, as a consumer?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

3D movies are a gimmick and so is 3D gaming. If people don't think it's worth an extra $3 to watch a movie in 3D then they won't think it worth it to pay $250 for a 3D handheld. The 3DS MAY take off in the future when it gets better games like the DS did but unlike the DS it has extra baggage holding it down, 3D. I think of it like the Wii, it's controller ruined some of it's best games. As an example, would NSMBW have been better without the waggle? You bet! How about other games where the waggle was just added to force the Wiimote innovation into games that didn't benefit from it. Same thing will happen with the 3DS. The 3D is exclusive, not inclusive.

Actually, people do think it's worth it to pay an extra three dollars to watch a 3D movie. That's why they do that.

The 3D can be turned off, versus having to use a specific controllers for almost all the games. It's inclusive, not exclusive. If Nintendo was going to force you to use 3D then they would have removed the 3D slider.

Well right now the 3D is the only reason to buy the 3DS. It's called the 3DS... The average person is smart enough to turn off the 3D effect yeah, but that's essentially turning off what you payed $250 to see the device do. There's not even a reputable line up out, or on the horizon for the 3DS anytime soon. The only games that look worth buying a 3DS for are remakes. Why should I spend $250 to play LoZ: Ocarina of Time in 3D? Or StarFox64. And the horrible battery life will ruin MGS3's remake (well so will the fact that it's an M rated game on the 3DS. Look at what happened to GTA Chinatown Wars). And Tales of the Abyss 3DS is the only other game worth mentioning. Games we`ve already played. With a 3D gimmick on it. Sorry but the PS Vita seems to be the handheld worth it`s $250 price tag.

But the only games announced for the Vita are ports/rehashes of PS3 games. Why would you pay 250 dollars for a handheld that has the same games as a console that has been out for much longer? Both handhelds share this problem, it will be corrected over time.

Difference is the PS Vita actually had more than one feature carrying it. The 3DS essentially relies on it's 3D effect for sales. Otherwise it's just and HD DS. The PSVita has a touchpad, touchscreen, Wi-Fi and the second analog stick everyone wanted. Yeah the line up for it right now is port and rehashes but the 3DS is rehashing games from 2-3 console gens ago. And really I think the PSVita's features alone validate the $250 price tag. I can't see how better games for the 3DS will help it sell more with one major problem. They're still pretty much unmarketable due to the 3DS' effect. Unless it's a port of another game you can't really market anything on the 3DS. And let's be honest the upcoming titles (besides the rehashes) for the 3DS are going to suck. This thing came out in March and has no good games coming this year. At least with the Vita there are new games to get exited about. A New Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone, and Wipeout games are a little more than just rehashes.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The N64 was not in competition against the Genesis, it was competing against the PS1, and it lost. When you say 3 in a row, would that be the Wii, the 3DS and the Wii-U? The 3DS hasn't really sold all that well. If you mean the DS, Wii and Wii-U then why are leaving out the 3DS. The "in a row" part is important here.

It was mearly a sales figure comparison since people repeatedly label the N64 and Cube a failure. N64 marks the first time Nintendo was beaten directly in a generation (soundly by the the PS1), but my point was that it still sold reasonably, and made them a lot of money. If it's a failure, it's the sort I'd like to have more often, lol.

And I guess I omitted 3DS cos I didn't want to muddy up the paragraph with qualifications about the 3DS creating a fourth "lucky strike" should that prove the case, lol. Which I'm not sure it will yet either. We really don't know what's going to happen with the 3DS yet, it's a difficult product to market, coupled with a weak starting lineup, but lets not forget it's been out for less than 3 months in most territories. Again, time will tell.

Depends how define failure I guess. I say all consoles are compared to their competitors, same for handhelds.

Yeah, the 3DS could prove to not be a failure based on how well it does against it's competition. It may still beat out the PS Vita but I don't think it will be as wildly successful as the DS was. The 3D is really only for a certain group of people. They have to both care about 3D enough to spend that kind of money and they have to be capable of using the 3D.

Chrono, your understanding of success and failure don't make any sense at all to me. So if something does worse than its competitor it's considered a failure, huh?
So - by your logic - PSP with its 70 million units sold is a failure because it sold less than the DS... sure... no, wait. o.o

What Rhedd says is absolutely reasonable. If they made profit of something it's a success. Can't get simpler than that, right? Just because something else did better doesn't make it a failure. If it made them money, it's a success. Just look at Pepsi. o.o

Let me put it this way. If Sony lost money on every PS3 they sold but still outsold their competitors, would you consider that a success or failure? I would consider it a success because it outsold it's competitors.

That's a horrible way of looking at it. A success isn't measured by units sold for a company if the company losses money. You can sell as many consoles as you want but if your losses caused a bankruptcy then it's a flop. If you can't show a profit, you lose. End of story. MS lost 4 billion dollars on the original Xbox and it sold more than the Gamecube. That's a massive financial failure. Why do you think they put the 360 out a year before everyone else?

If all you care about is a companies bottom line then I can see your point of view. As a consumer though, why do you care so much about a companies bottom line?

Surely you haven't missed all the competitive spirit on every video game forum? People care about which console sells the most and little thought goes into Nintendo's end of day deposits. The N64 was a failure because the PS1 beat it in sales. The Gamecube was a failure because the XBOX and the PS2 beat it in sales.

It's all about perspective. I can see it from that perspective if I cared to, I don't though because I am not a stockholder. Can you see it from my point of view, as a consumer?

And as a consumer I can tell you that If the company who's games I enjoy constantly fails I'll be a sad consumer when that company no longer has the money to make more games because they failed too many times...

Look at Sega's console history. The failed with the Sega CD, The Sega Saturn, and the Dreamcast back to back to back. Now consumers like myself can't get a Shenmue 3, a PowerStone3, and Jet Set Radio sequel, a next gen Phantasy Star Online, or a sequel to Rival Schools. All because Sega's bottom line couldn't get positive. Look at how many people are pissed because Pandemic closed. That means no hope for Star Wars Battlefront 3. You see the bottom line of a company effects consumers a lot more than you give it credit.