Thread posted on behalf of Metallix87
I've always considered the story of the Wii one of the most interesting that the games industry has ever produced. Nintendo, having hit a bad spot with the Gamecube's lackluster sales performance, decided to go in a radical new direction with the Nintendo DS and the Wii. The former had a lot of scrutiny early on, especially with the impending release of the PSP, but the Wii was seemingly a super sales hit from the start. Of course, as we now know, things took a turn for the worse later on, with the system seemingly stagnating in a sea of shovelware, and dying early, with little in the way of a successor in sight. When the Wii U finally was unveiled and released, the reception was decidedly lukewarm, as Nintendo failed to prove the value of the new controller, and in fact had caused some confusion with both the system's name and the way it was unveiled. Was the Wii U a successor, or simply a new controller for the outdated Wii? Nintendo managed to botch things so badly that the Wii U would be an abject failure by almost every measurement.
This is the story as we know it, but what I want to discuss in this thread is the way in which Nintendo and third parties had both bungled the potential of the Wii, as well as the concept of the Wii HD, a successor console that people like Michael Pachter and others used to discuss prior to the unveiling of the Wii U.
I always felt that third parties completely read the market wrong with regards to Wii, and a lot of money was left on the table by them as a result. Despite major sales successes like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Red Steel, and Resident Evil 4 on the platform, third parties constantly focused on the marquee software for the system, namely Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play, and, to a lesser extent, Wii Party, when trying to figure out the Wii player base. This is not completely their fault, as Nintendo should've been more proactive in recruiting third parties to work with them to deliver new experiences to the platform. Still, consumers were hungry for content for their system, and the software sold, albeit with seemingly diminishing returns each year. The well was gradually poisoned until the market as a whole was toxic for anyone other than Nintendo. The system was still moving, though, despite this issue, and speculation began about a supposed Wii HD, which would later be the Wii U.
I thought at the reveal that, while the Game Pad was interesting, Nintendo had read their own market wrong. I thought the Wii HD concept as originally suggested by some analysts (a more powerful console capable of HD visuals comparable to the competition while also sporting a more advanced version of the Wii Remote Plus) would be a reasonable follow up, and would easily be pushed onto consumers. It would be a lot easier for the average parent to understand that the Wii HD was a more powerful version of the same hardware concept, because the marketing wouldn't have to be so focused on the new controller design. Sometimes, improving on a design is more worthwhile than throwing away the design and starting from scratch. The Switch, thankfully, manages to marry the concepts of the Wii and the Wii U well, but there was still a chance, I think, for Nintendo to have succeeded with their previous generation console. In fact, I'd argue that despite the Wii U's Game Pad being an interesting design, few (if any) NIntendo games actually capitalized on the potential it really offered.
How do these two topics meet, though? I think that part of the reason Nintendo took so long in releasing a successor system, as well as the reason for the Wii U's departure from the Wii Remote design, was because Nintendo was trying to find some way to avoid the same software mess they had on their hands with the Wii come the following system. That, coupled with the time adjustment to get ready for HD game design and development, caused Nintendo to essentially stumble with the Wii U, resulting in a slower than average stream of releases, and the system never really convincing audiences that the new controller had any real benefit. Nintendo aimed to have a system that was the next big thing, while simultaneously trying to create a new controller that would appeal to core gamers and convince third parties that this was still a serious system for their highest profile titles.
What do you all think? What caused the Wii's failure? Did those circumstances lead to Nintendo changing gears for the Wii U? And would a "Wii HD" have been more successful and, to be direct, more appropriate as a follow up to the Wii?
I've always considered the story of the Wii one of the most interesting that the games industry has ever produced. Nintendo, having hit a bad spot with the Gamecube's lackluster sales performance, decided to go in a radical new direction with the Nintendo DS and the Wii. The former had a lot of scrutiny early on, especially with the impending release of the PSP, but the Wii was seemingly a super sales hit from the start. Of course, as we now know, things took a turn for the worse later on, with the system seemingly stagnating in a sea of shovelware, and dying early, with little in the way of a successor in sight. When the Wii U finally was unveiled and released, the reception was decidedly lukewarm, as Nintendo failed to prove the value of the new controller, and in fact had caused some confusion with both the system's name and the way it was unveiled. Was the Wii U a successor, or simply a new controller for the outdated Wii? Nintendo managed to botch things so badly that the Wii U would be an abject failure by almost every measurement.
This is the story as we know it, but what I want to discuss in this thread is the way in which Nintendo and third parties had both bungled the potential of the Wii, as well as the concept of the Wii HD, a successor console that people like Michael Pachter and others used to discuss prior to the unveiling of the Wii U.
I always felt that third parties completely read the market wrong with regards to Wii, and a lot of money was left on the table by them as a result. Despite major sales successes like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Red Steel, and Resident Evil 4 on the platform, third parties constantly focused on the marquee software for the system, namely Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Play, and, to a lesser extent, Wii Party, when trying to figure out the Wii player base. This is not completely their fault, as Nintendo should've been more proactive in recruiting third parties to work with them to deliver new experiences to the platform. Still, consumers were hungry for content for their system, and the software sold, albeit with seemingly diminishing returns each year. The well was gradually poisoned until the market as a whole was toxic for anyone other than Nintendo. The system was still moving, though, despite this issue, and speculation began about a supposed Wii HD, which would later be the Wii U.
I thought at the reveal that, while the Game Pad was interesting, Nintendo had read their own market wrong. I thought the Wii HD concept as originally suggested by some analysts (a more powerful console capable of HD visuals comparable to the competition while also sporting a more advanced version of the Wii Remote Plus) would be a reasonable follow up, and would easily be pushed onto consumers. It would be a lot easier for the average parent to understand that the Wii HD was a more powerful version of the same hardware concept, because the marketing wouldn't have to be so focused on the new controller design. Sometimes, improving on a design is more worthwhile than throwing away the design and starting from scratch. The Switch, thankfully, manages to marry the concepts of the Wii and the Wii U well, but there was still a chance, I think, for Nintendo to have succeeded with their previous generation console. In fact, I'd argue that despite the Wii U's Game Pad being an interesting design, few (if any) NIntendo games actually capitalized on the potential it really offered.
How do these two topics meet, though? I think that part of the reason Nintendo took so long in releasing a successor system, as well as the reason for the Wii U's departure from the Wii Remote design, was because Nintendo was trying to find some way to avoid the same software mess they had on their hands with the Wii come the following system. That, coupled with the time adjustment to get ready for HD game design and development, caused Nintendo to essentially stumble with the Wii U, resulting in a slower than average stream of releases, and the system never really convincing audiences that the new controller had any real benefit. Nintendo aimed to have a system that was the next big thing, while simultaneously trying to create a new controller that would appeal to core gamers and convince third parties that this was still a serious system for their highest profile titles.
What do you all think? What caused the Wii's failure? Did those circumstances lead to Nintendo changing gears for the Wii U? And would a "Wii HD" have been more successful and, to be direct, more appropriate as a follow up to the Wii?
