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

[Acidwell]

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.

Yep but it's been turned into an artform by wii deveopers which is why the wii is famous for that kind of games and neither of the others are.

 

[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?

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.

Sega isn't out of business and they still make software, Sega's failure in the hardware market hasn't stopped them from spamming all the other consoles and the PC with their software. Anyway, we are talking about consoles here. Software and hardware are two different products.

I don't care anymore, we see things from different perspectives. I just know that I never think about how much Panasonic made from selling Blu-Ray players, I just don't care and I'll bet that outside of video games, you don't care about bottom lines either.

 

[Jumwa]

On that note, why do people laud the Gamecube and N64 over Nintendo's head as failures? The Gamecube sold as well as the original Xbox and the N64 outsold the Genesis; Sega's most successful console. Nintendo made money on both consoles, and both had games that are still held up as some of the greatest of all time (N64 much more so than the Cube). By most measures they were successful, if not on the level of the Wii or SNES.

Because all the people talking out of their butts on this aren't businesspeople, they're gamers or designers, who see things as "The Console Wars" and not just business. They think that if you're not number one then you're the loser, because it's something like an Olympic race.

It's utter nonsense, of course, the Gamecube and N64 were both home to more than their fair share of the top rated games of all time--just check Metacritic to confirm--and not only were they critical successes, they sold relatively well and turned a profit.

And on more than the business side of things, the fact of the matter is: not everyone likes the same thing. There are even people, tiny minorities of people, who like odd things different from the rest and businesses do spring up to cater to their tastes and succeed while making a profit. This zero-sum game that gamers wish to see the marketplace as just doesn't reflect reality on multiple fronts.

Besides, regardless of what you think of Nintendo, more competition in the marketplace is just better for consumers.

 

[Deacon Cole]

If they wanted this Wii U thing to work, they should have not released the 3DS and made the controllers for the Wii U their new handheld as well. That way it combines gaming on the go with big people console gaming and maybe other things, too. But, they didn't see it that way. So now there's an extra screen on the controller that few developers will ever use for more than just eye candy.

 

[Epona]

On that note, why do people laud the Gamecube and N64 over Nintendo's head as failures? The Gamecube sold as well as the original Xbox and the N64 outsold the Genesis; Sega's most successful console. Nintendo made money on both consoles, and both had games that are still held up as some of the greatest of all time (N64 much more so than the Cube). By most measures they were successful, if not on the level of the Wii or SNES.

Because all the people talking out of their butts on this aren't businesspeople, they're gamers or designers, who see things as "The Console Wars" and not just business. They think that if you're not number one then you're the loser, because it's something like an Olympic race.

It's utter nonsense, of course, the Gamecube and N64 were both home to more than their fair share of the top rated games of all time--just check Metacritic to confirm--and not only were they critical successes, they sold relatively well and turned a profit.

And on more than the business side of things, the fact of the matter is: not everyone likes the same thing. There are even people, tiny minorities of people, who like odd things different from the rest and businesses do spring up to cater to their tastes and succeed while making a profit. This zero-sum game that gamers wish to see the marketplace as just doesn't reflect reality on multiple fronts.

Besides, regardless of what you think of Nintendo, more competition in the marketplace is just better for consumers.

So only business people get to decide if a product is a success or a failure?

There is always more than one way to look at things. For example, the Wii won the console war this gen and probably made the most money but on some level, it's still a failure. The Wii probably collects dust more than any other console in the average gamers home. It is most likely to be the most regretted purchase and that's pretty sad considering the Red Ring of Death hanging over the 360's head.

If you run a poll here or on any game forum asking which console people prefer, you will likely find that the Wii comes in last.

No one wants Nintendo to go away. Who said they were against competition in the gaming market?

 

[Jumwa]

So only business people get to decide if a product is a success or a failure?

There is always more than one way to look at things. For example, the Wii won the console war this gen and probably made the most money but on some level, it's still a failure. The Wii probably collects dust more than any other console in the average gamers home. It is most likely to be the most regretted purchase and that's pretty sad considering the Red Ring of Death hanging over the 360's head.

If you run a poll here or on any game forum asking which console people prefer, you will likely find that the Wii comes in last.

No one wants Nintendo to go away. Who said they were against competition in the gaming market?

Everyone is free to define success in whatever bizarre, nonsensical means they wish to. Even when their 'opinion' is just a falsehood, not like I can stop you.

All your remarks about the Wii for example are your opinion or you pulling "facts" from thin air. I have seen no evidence supporting of what you've said, just the oft-spouted opinions of forum posters.

Regardless, like I actually said--as Rhedd and I were talking about Gamecube and N64 in particular and I never did mention the Wii--the Gamecube and N64 were home to a large number of the most highly rated games of all time according to Metacritic. The Wii as well has more than a couple titles at the top since you mention it, making it both a critical success and a financial one as well, despite your claims that people didn't like it.

 

[Epona]

So only business people get to decide if a product is a success or a failure?

There is always more than one way to look at things. For example, the Wii won the console war this gen and probably made the most money but on some level, it's still a failure. The Wii probably collects dust more than any other console in the average gamers home. It is most likely to be the most regretted purchase and that's pretty sad considering the Red Ring of Death hanging over the 360's head.

If you run a poll here or on any game forum asking which console people prefer, you will likely find that the Wii comes in last.

No one wants Nintendo to go away. Who said they were against competition in the gaming market?

Everyone is free to define success in whatever bizarre, nonsensical means they wish to. Even when their 'opinion' is just a falsehood, not like I can stop you.

All your remarks about the Wii for example are your opinion or you pulling "facts" from thin air. I have seen no evidence supporting of what you've said, just the oft-spouted opinions of forum posters.

Regardless, like I actually said--as Rhedd and I were talking about Gamecube and N64 in particular and I never did mention the Wii--the Gamecube and N64 were home to a large number of the most highly rated games of all time according to Metacritic. The Wii as well has more than a couple titles at the top since you mention it, making it both a critical success and a financial one as well, despite your claims that people didn't like it.

I never said my claims about the Wii were "facts", nice strawman. You'll notice, if you read this time, that I used words like "probably" and "likely".

I suppose, that if something make a single penny more than it costed, that makes it a success because it turned a profit?

 

[Jumwa]

I never said my claims about the Wii were "facts", nice strawman. You'll notice, if you read this time, that I used words like "probably" and "likely".

I suppose, that if something make a single penny more than it costed, that makes it a success because it turned a profit?

Nice try, but your caveats were preceded by you objectively declaring the Wii a failure. No caveats there. Then you gave your reasons which you peppered with "probably" and "likely". So it's a failure for the reasons you stated, or it's a failure because of some reason you didn't state? Which is it?

And your hypothetical has nothing to do with the discussion. The N64 and Gamecube didn't eek by with barely a penny in profits.

Though, since you mention it, I'm sure there are people and businesses out there that, after their expenses were paid, their employees and salaries all paid for, that staying above a deficit even by a slim margin would be considered a success.

 

[Epona]

I never said my claims about the Wii were "facts", nice strawman. You'll notice, if you read this time, that I used words like "probably" and "likely".

I suppose, that if something make a single penny more than it costed, that makes it a success because it turned a profit?

Nice try, but your caveats were preceded by you objectively declaring the Wii a failure. No caveats there. Then you gave your reasons which you peppered with "probably" and "likely". So it's a failure for the reasons you stated, or it's a failure because of some reason you didn't state? Which is it?

And your hypothetical has nothing to do with the discussion. The N64 and Gamecube didn't eek by with barely a penny in profits.

Though, since you mention it, I'm sure there are people and businesses out there that, after their expenses were paid, their employees and salaries all paid for, that staying above a deficit even by a slim margin would be considered a success.

Ok, I can see that logic. I said the Wii is a failure on some level and then I talked about the level I was referring to. Obviously you disagree with that. I feel confident that most people on this site alone would vote the Wii their least favorite console this gen. If you disagree,feel free to start a poll to prove me wrong.

 

[Jumwa]

Ok, I can see that logic. I said the Wii is a failure on some level and then I talked about the level I was referring to. Obviously you disagree with that. I feel confident that most people on this site alone would vote the Wii their least favorite console this gen. If you disagree,feel free to start a poll to prove me wrong.

I have no interest in proving you wrong on that count. The people who post on the Escapist are a tiny minority of outspoken gamers with mostly extreme opinions that don't reflect the gaming community at large. Hence why they so often rage about popular or critically acclaimed games.

I have no real personal investment in the current generation of console gaming, I'm a PC gamer these days and have been since before this generation of consoles began. However, looking at it, the Wii was by far the most successful in units sold and had, last I checked, more titles in the top ranked list on Metacritic than either the PS3 or Xbox 360. That's all I need to not see the Wii as a failure.

 

[Epona]

Ok, I can see that logic. I said the Wii is a failure on some level and then I talked about the level I was referring to. Obviously you disagree with that. I feel confident that most people on this site alone would vote the Wii their least favorite console this gen. If you disagree,feel free to start a poll to prove me wrong.

I have no interest in proving you wrong on that count. The people who post on the Escapist are a tiny minority of outspoken gamers with mostly extreme opinions that don't reflect the gaming community at large. Hence why they so often rage about popular or critically acclaimed games.

I have no real personal investment in the current generation of console gaming, I'm a PC gamer these days and have been since before this generation of consoles began. However, looking at it, the Wii was by far the most successful in units sold and had, last I checked, more titles in the top ranked list on Metacritic than either the PS3 or Xbox 360. That's all I need to not see the Wii as a failure.

I think you'll find that the Wii is the least preferred console for gamers on any game forum, not just this one. It's why I think the Wii-U will sell less than the Wii, the Wii burned many bridges.

Anyway, I think you do agree with me on this point (that the Wii is the least preferred console) and you see no need to prove my point for me (thus no poll). Instead you act as if the people on this site are just "weird" when compared to gamers on other sites. That isn't true at all. Go to other gaming sites like Game Informer, Gamespot, IGN, etc... and read the comments. You won't see much difference in opinion.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

lack of motion controls??? What? You realise the touchscreen controller is motion sensitive right? (Contains an accelerometer and gyroscope. Just like a motionplus equipped remote)

(Not to mention that every other controller usable with the system is existing Wii hardware.)

point 2 is also a little weird, considering the supposed full backwards compatibility with Wii titles. (In the same way, anyone owning a Wii more or less owns a gamecube by default.)
Still, I'm sure there's a few people that feel that way.

Points 3, 4 & 5... Yeah. That's probably true. (especially 5...)

 

[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.

Sega isn't out of business and they still make software, Sega's failure in the hardware market hasn't stopped them from spamming all the other consoles and the PC with their software. Anyway, we are talking about consoles here. Software and hardware are two different products.

I don't care anymore, we see things from different perspectives. I just know that I never think about how much Panasonic made from selling Blu-Ray players, I just don't care and I'll bet that outside of video games, you don't care about bottom lines either.

You've completely missed the point of what I said. You want to just talk console sales without looking at the other factors of how a console succeeds. That's impossible, you have to look at t more than just "did it sell a lot" when determining a success. Just because Sega still makes software doesn't mean they didn't totally fail at consoles. The failure and mismanagement of Sega console took out a decent amount of awesome in-house developers as well as made sure certain companies never work with them again (EA, Capcom, and more). It's a business man. Selling just isn't enough. See, I actually do care about the bottom lines of companies, and I don't even hold shares. It helps me predict which companies I will see longevity from. Let's say a company makes a game that is supposed to be part of a trilogy, pours a massive amount of money into all 3 games before the second game was even being developed and sells only enough to cover the first games cost, what do you call that? A success because it sold? That company just blew a mass amount of money. What if I the consumer wanted to play out the rest of the trilogy. I can't because the companies bottom line can't support it. That's what happened to Shenmue. Sega's bottom line wasn't enough to justify making the 3rd game in the series.It's not a matter of perspective. Success and failure in this business is pre-defined. Your looking at it from a partial veiw, not a different perspective.

 

[Chibz]

You mean the guy who made the game trilogy that has steadily less merit thinks he has the right to an opinion on something? And NOT be ridiculed?

What a dunce.

 

[Balobo]

3D itself is exclusive, not inclusive as an extension so is the 3DS. In the same way a person who can't see 3D or gets headaches from it won't buy a 3DTV, they won't buy a 3DS. I am sure the 3D can be turned off on a 3DTV too but why spend the money when you can't enjoy the main feature.

Because the 3DS will have games that are playable without 3D (all of them). Owners of the current gen HD twins aren't necessarily going to have HDTVs to play them on. Does that mean they shouldn't buy the systems, as they use HD as one of their biggest selling points?

We'll just have to see how it plays out but I think the 3DS is DOA.

That's fine, but I think you're probably wrong. In fact, I would argue that it's not dead on arrival. It's managed to sell decently considering the circumstances.

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.

You market games on the 3DS the same you market games on any other platform (e.g. game play elements). So Sony is going to rely entirely on extra buttons to advertise their system? Also, 3DS has Wi-Fi as well. Almost all systems do.

What makes rehashes from two to three generations worse than rehashes from last generation? In fact, I'd argue that it's better. Also, you only list sequels as titles to get excited for. There is a new Mario Kart, Luigi's Mansion, Super Mario, and the inevitable localization of Professor Layton and the Mask of Miracles on the 3DS. All sequels, like the Vita. Same problem here, Sony's not doing any better than Nintendo.

 

[RuralGamer]

snip

That thing is not a practical for a motion controller and as a few people have mentioned in the past it looks like an over-fancy etcher-sketch. But I genuinely didn't know it was backwards compatible with the Wii's previous hardware, so thanks for enlightening me.

I fully expect there to be Wii die-hards, but I doubt they'll really make much (if any) impact on the Wii U's sales.

As I said originally though; people are waaaaay over-exaggerating how badly the Wii U is apparently going to do; I doubt it will do quite as well as the Wii, but I'm still expecting it to produce enough profits for Nintendo to buy themselves a small island nation in the Pacific.

 

[CrystalShadow]

snip

That thing is not a practical for a motion controller and as a few people have mentioned in the past it looks like an over-fancy etcher-sketch. But I genuinely didn't know it was backwards compatible with the Wii's previous hardware, so thanks for enlightening me.

I fully expect there to be Wii die-hards, but I doubt they'll really make much (if any) impact on the Wii U's sales.

As I said originally though; people are waaaaay over-exaggerating how badly the Wii U is apparently going to do; I doubt it will do quite as well as the Wii, but I'm still expecting it to produce enough profits for Nintendo to buy themselves a small island nation in the Pacific.

Well, it's obvious the new controller has a few problems being used for 'motion control' in the way that Wii remotes are. - I mean, you can't hold it very easily.

But, the 3DS also has 'motion sensitive' hardware, and games have demonstrated using those in some odd ways.

Not to mention videos of the WiiU controller show it being mounted onto something that resembles a gun.

If you mount the screen on top of something like that, suddenly you can do things with it that make a lot more sense of the motion control abilities, like turning the whole thing in a different direction and having the picture on the display match the direction you're pointing it in.

Think of the scope on a rifle for instance... (demonstrated in the video in the stupidest way possible with Mii's and shooting at balloons)
Where the image on the TV screen shows a wide view, the view on the controller shows a closeup 'scope' view, which tracks the movement of the controller.
A key point being that not only can you 'zoom in' on stuff shown on the TV, but since it's a physically independent screen, you can in principle also point it at stuff that's in a completely different direction from the screen.

Anyway, there's no knowing what will end up being done with it, but the fact that the WiiU controller can sense motion isn't useless.
It's just not usable for the same things as a Wii remote is because you can't really hold it in the same way.

 

[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

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.

I never said that that would be a failure. You said that a product is a failure if it sells less than its competitors to which I replied that it doesn't really apply to business in general. If it makes money it's a success.

Now you say that a product that loses money but outsells its competitors is a success.
In the customers eyes: maybe. (Look at the Wii. :3 You yourself are a good example to refute that actually. It sold most but you dislike it. Well it didn't lose money for Nintendo though... ;3)
For establishing a franchise: yes.
Business wise: no.

I'd rather earn 1 million and be Nr. 2 than spend 1 million and be Nr. 1. o.o
And think about what that would do to future projects. The company that earned money is more likely to release a high quality product than the one that lost money due to the resulting limitations. It's called budget. o.o

So only business people get to decide if a product is a success or a failure?

There is always more than one way to look at things. For example, the Wii won the console war this gen and probably made the most money but on some level, it's still a failure. The Wii probably collects dust more than any other console in the average gamers home. It is most likely to be the most regretted purchase and that's pretty sad considering the Red Ring of Death hanging over the 360's head.

If you run a poll here or on any game forum asking which console people prefer, you will likely find that the Wii comes in last.

No one wants Nintendo to go away. Who said they were against competition in the gaming market?

That is not a matter of success or failure. That's just opinion.
If you believe the Wii is a failure despite the mountains of money it made Nintendo - from day 1 - just because you happen to not like it as much as the other consoles then I have to ask you:
What happened to the bold statement in the first quotation? "I would consider it a success because it outsold its competitors."
I don't see any parameter for continued use of a console there. You say it's a success if it sells most. The Wii sold most. And now you say it's a failure despite that fact?

It's ok if you dislike it.
That's your opinion.
Doesn't make it a failure though.

I didn't like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 as much as 1 and 2.
Was it a failure only because I didn't like it as much? No.
Am I saying it's a failure? No.
It was a success and we all know it. The Wii is a success and we all know it.
The question is what will Nintendo do with the money it made from the Wii.

You're free to dislike a success or like a failure as much as you like. But that doesn't make it the contrary.

 

[The_Emperor]

They should of just made a HD Wii, with a playstation move style Wiimote with megasensors, or they should of made a kinect that worked with a wiimote, that was better than the kinect.

They are probably patented though so..

I just not excited about a pad with a tv in it. I don't care enough about the tiny amount of decent games that are on it. I don't see where they are going with this, it doesn't seem to make any sense, unless they hire hundreds of brilliant 3rd party devs with the money they made on the Wii.

I think they are trying to take advantage of the gap between the new xbox/ps to sell as many as they can but when the new xbox/ps comes out its going to blow them out the water because it will simply be a bigger, faster version of what already works. (i hope)

Nintendo fanboys/ kids/ mothers who don't know any bettter will get it, so it might still sell pretty well.

 

[Jumwa]

I think you'll find that the Wii is the least preferred console for gamers on any game forum, not just this one. It's why I think the Wii-U will sell less than the Wii, the Wii burned many bridges.

Anyway, I think you do agree with me on this point (that the Wii is the least preferred console) and you see no need to prove my point for me (thus no poll). Instead you act as if the people on this site are just "weird" when compared to gamers on other sites. That isn't true at all. Go to other gaming sites like Game Informer, Gamespot, IGN, etc... and read the comments. You won't see much difference in opinion.

No, my point was that ALL gaming forums are not representative of the gaming population at large. Last study I saw on the issue said something like 2% of internet users ever bother to post to a forum more than once. Why? Because the people who inhabit forums tend to be hostile and extreme in their views and repel other people.

If you think the game forum communities across the internet represent the mass of gamers out there you're sorely mistaken.

Besides, asking me to go conduct a poll is absurd, you're the one making the unsupported claims, the burden of proof rests with you, that's how things work in the real world. It's not up to everyone else to disprove every unsupported thing you say.

Tens of millions of gamers voted with their hard earned cash to support Nintendo games and products past buying the console itself, and critics have found it to have a number of the best games out there this generation.