
The Wrong Time And Place: Why Wii Was Nintendo’s Biggest Failure - mxpxpx
http://liisten.com/the-wrong-time-and-place-why-wii-was-nintendos-biggest-failure
======
magoghm
At launch, the Xbox 360 sold about 1.2 million units in November-December 2005
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2005&end_year=2006&console=X360)

At launch, the PS3 sold about 1.2 million units in November-December 2006
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2006&end_year=2007&console=PS3)

At launch, the WiiU sold about 2.3 million units in November-December 2012
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2011&end_year=2013&console=WiiU)

That doesn't look bad at all for the WiiU. Of course, it wasn't as successful
as the Wii, which sold at launch about 2.9 million units in November-December
2006
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2006&end_year=2007&console=Wii)
but I'd say it was still pretty good.

Furthermore, we are still waiting for most of the interesting games announced
for the WiiU to be released (Lego City Undercover, The Wonderful 101,
Bayonetta 2), so I think it is far to early to say that the WiiU is a failure.
If I remember correctly, many critics also were saying some time ago that the
3DS was a failure!

~~~
recoiledsnake
Well, as they say, the trend is their friend and the sales fell off a cliff.

>Nintendo's console sold just 57,000 units in January, managing to up that
number to 64,000 in February.

By comparison, the 7.5 year old XBox 360 sold 302,000 and 281,000 in Jan and
Feb respectively.

~~~
magoghm
Yes, the numbers for the WiiU in January and February were pretty low. But, I
think that it does make sense for a new console with practically no games
available to sell less than a mature console with a catalogue of hundreds of
games. As I said in my previous comment, I think it is still too early to know
if the WiiU will be successful or not.

Also, it seems like the numbers you mention are for North America only, were
the XBox 360 has been most successful. If you look at the global numbers, the
WiiU still sold less than the XBox 360 but no so bad as it looks when looking
only at North America:

XBox 360 January + February: about 850 thousand units
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2012&end_year=2013&console=X360)

WiiU January + February: about 400 thousand units
[http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2011&end_year=2013&console=WiiU)

------
Tiktaalik
"Maybe it's the desire for official Nintendo games to come to iOS and Android
that's coloring my opinions, but _it seems like the writing is on the wall for
some form of mobile gaming to eventually and completely push consoles to the
side._ "

I understand where this "Nintendo must get into mobile" idea comes from. Folks
look around on the subway and see that everyone is on their smart phones, and
many are playing games. It's still very unclear to me however, to what extent
smart phones are affecting Nintendo's business, and how Nintendo should adjust
their business model in response.

Nintendo just announced[1] that Fire Emblem: Awakening for the 3DS smashed
franchise sales records, selling 180k copies in the first month (a month
plagued by shortages[2]) and selling more than a third of those units via
their own digital distribution store. For perspective the lifetime sales of
the previous Fire Emblem title was only 250k.

This game is selling out at $40 and 1/3 of the sales are online sales that
they don't have to share with anyone else (still $40!). One of the main
reasons why I don't think Nintendo should become a software only is company
that I don't see how they can remain as profitable if they had to adjust their
prices for the realities of the iOS market and had to share their profits with
Apple. The most profitable games on mobile stores are free to play titles, and
while I think Nintendo should experiment here and develop their own F2P games
to test that market, I don't see why they couldn't do that on their own
platform.

[1] [http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem-
awakening...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem-awakening-
sells-180k-in-february-more-than-a-third-of-that-through-eshop/)
[2][http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highligh...](http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highlight=fire+emblem+retailers)

~~~
stonemetal
Have you seen Square Enix's pricing in the app store? They charge 20-30
dollars a game. I think Nintendo could get away with a 30 dollar Mario game in
the app store.

~~~
dragontamer
Nintendo currently sells Mario at $40. A move to $30 would be profitable if
Nintendo makes 33% more sales (ignoring costs). Do you really think Mario
would sell 33% better on Android than it does on the 3DS?

Mind you, the majority of Nintendo Fans have a 3DS already.

~~~
Tiktaalik
Another issue that is never addressed when discussing whether Nintendo should
become a software only company and develop for mobile is whether their most
successful products are even all that suitable for mobile devices. Would the
user experience of playing Nintendo games actually improve on a touch screen
smart phone?

~~~
dragontamer
Ironically, Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem, Nintendo's tactical RPG entires,
can go on touchscreen just fine. A few others (such as Elite Beat Agents)
would arguably do better on the Smartphone platform.

But this is definitely the minority of the games that Nintendo makes. The
thought of playing something moderately fast-pace like "Mario Tennis" on a
touch screen scares me. There isn't enough precision, and no touch screen is
as responsive as a controller yet.

The major brands: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong require speed
and precision beyond that of the touchscreen. Let alone the issue of blocking
the screen as you play the game.

------
lolcraft
_A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables
and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market._

So, mindlessly following the fad du jour is what passes for bold nowadays?
Bullshit. Let's think it through. Imagine we suddenly decided to give up
control over Nintendo's whole product. Instead, we put our ass on a plate for
Apple and Samsung, primadonnas _par excellance_. All that for the privilege of
becoming suppliers for a market of undiscriminating, volatile buyers, very
reticent to part ways with their money. Of course, we would give Apple &
Samsung at the very least a 15% cut, and completely alienate a devote user
base that has very deep pockets. Not to mention our first-rate talent [1], who
would either be pissed off and go to Sony/Microsoft, or just be easily
acquired by any other insipid mobile development gaming startup with deep
pockets. Add to that your product being trivial to copy, now.

Sounds familiar? This is just the Wii, recasting Apple/Samsung in the role of
Nintendo, and Nintendo in the role of those shitty third-party developers no-
one gives a fuck for today, desperately begging for a Rovio-style massive luck
out. Congratulations, we just made millions for our competitors, while
simultaneously blowing the fucking Mariana's Trench on our feet. Even Emperor
Hiro Hito would think it too much kamikaze.

[1] This would be the finisher. Like Sony shitting over Square-Enix. Lose
Miyamoto, Kondo, Aonuma... and you're done.

------
binaryorganic
I don't see how any of that calls into question whether or not the Wii was
successful (as a product, it succeeded by every measure). The Wii U failing on
it's own merit certainly opens up Nintendo to criticism about the choices they
made, but calling the Wii a failure by way of pointing fingers at it's
ancestors doesn't seem to fit for me.

------
dragontamer
This article is stupid in stupid ways. Nintendo has the largest share of the
portable handheld market with its handhelds, and is also the only profitable
arm of the company right now.

Partnering with Samsung / Apple would be resigning their position, and then
forcing their games to be sold at the $5 / game level to compete in Samsung /
Apple's marketplace.

Nintendo continues to make a profit selling $40 games on their handheld
system. Why should they give up the revenue advantage on their custom
platform?

~~~
macspoofing
Depends how you define the portable handheld market. If you mean to say that
they are beating Sony, then yes, if you add tablets and phones to the mix,
then no, not at all. There is reason for them to worry, even if 3DS will have
games that mobile devices won't. Here at the office, most of coworkers' kids
are perfectly fine with playing on the iPad, while the DS sits in the corner,
that's not good. And tablets don't need to take the entire portable gaming
market, they just need to take a chunk to really hurt Nintendo.

~~~
dragontamer
Same way as every game console: PCs and Macs have always been excluded from
"game console" markets, despite the fact that multi-million dollar games are
PC-exclusive (ie: SimCity, Starcraft).

I can't even think of a single multi-million dollar title for handhelds,
outside of Bejeweled (which existed long before the smartphone era). Tablets /
Phones need games on them for sure, and the market is there... but I'm not
really seeing anyone get to the revenue levels of Nintendo games.

~~~
macspoofing
That was the traditional way of looking at the mobile gaming market. You miss
the elephant in the room if you _just_ consider 'consoles'. Reality is that
iPads and iPhones already took a chunk of what was traditionally a Nintendo
market segment. This is a trend that will probably continue (tablets and
smart-phones will be more pervasive). There will be people (I know some
already) who would ordinarily have bought a Nintendo gaming system but won't
because the tablet is good enough.

~~~
dragontamer
Then they aren't gamers.

Gamers require precision in their controls first of all, and they also require
that their fingers don't cover half the screen while playing. There are no
good fighting games on tablets / smartphones. There are no platformers. The
FPS experience absolutely blows in comparison to anything else.

No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad
for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience. No one picks the Galaxy Note 2 to
get a leg up in "Draw Something".

As I stated before, yes, Tablets / Smartphones eat a bit into the Nintendo
handheld market. But so did dumb Cell phones in the past with Bejeweled.
Indeed: Bejeweled was a paid app with 75 million purchases and 150+ million
downloads... its success far exceeds even Angry Birds of today.

But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones
should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles". They are a
different market. People don't buy Tablets or Smartphones to "game". Tablets
and Smartphones are useful devices yes, but they satisfy a different market.

No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with
an internal compass and accelerometer. The fact that the Wii / DS managed to
get a few dozen million "temporary fans" who were wow'd by that sort of thing
is interesting... but that is not the market that will support the gaming
industry in the long term.

~~~
macspoofing
>No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with
an internal compass and accelerometer.

I am making a distinction between mobile consoles (e.g. PSP, DS, Gameboy) and
home consoles like the Xbox, PS3 and Wii. I think the latter group is safe,
for now. There are very good reasons to have home consoles, in addition to
tablets and smartphones. It's the former that's under threat. Anecdotally,
I've seen what friends' and coworkers' kids (ages: 5-14) get excited about.
We've talked about how they seem to be content with the current game library
on the app stores and don't really care about mobile consoles. Furthermore,
I've seen more kids playing on a smart phone, or a tablet, next to their moms
out in public, than I've seen them play on a DS or equivalent. This is bad
news for Nintendo. Again, it isn't necessary for mobile devices to take the
entire market, if they take a chunk, it hurts Nintendo incredibly. The
hardcore mobile console gamer market, isn't nearly as big as you think it is.
Certainly not big enough to sustain the entire industry. Finally, smartphones
and tablets are only going to get more ubiquitous and they are going to get
even better, making it that much harder to justify spending extra money on a
mobile console and that much harder to justify lugging yet another devices
around (in addition to your smartphone and tablet).

>No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad
for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience.

No they don't. They pick-up smartphones and tablets for multitude of other
reasons and get a gaming platform for free. This has the effect of expanding
the gaming market by turning people who would never have purchased a mobile
consoles into mobile gamers (e.g. me), but more importantly I believe it also
cannibalizes existing market in that there is a segment of population that
would ordinarily buy a mobile console, now will not as they are content with
the game selection on their tablet/smart phone.

>But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones
should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles".

I wouldn't do that because realistically they didn't impact sales of mobile
consoles, unlike modern smartphones and tablets. They were also under-powered,
clumsy devices with a tiny low resolution screen and no easy way of loading
any programs onto them, again, completely unlike modern smartphones and
tablets.

~~~
dragontamer
I have a different amount of anecdotal evidence however, where the majority of
my friends have gone out and bought a new 3DS (including multiple co-workers,
my sister, her husband, myself, several little cousins of mine...). We all
have smartphones: some of us have top-end ones. Some of us have tablets as
well. But none of us like the gaming experience of it, and have gone out to
get a 3DS... and some have even gotten a PS Vita.

So our personal experiences differ. What else can we go on? If we look at
historical sales... then the 3DS is selling exceptionally well right now. And
Pokemon White 2 / Black 2 have a combined sales of 7.5 million: consistent
with previous "partial remake titles" like Pokemon Yellow, Crystal, or
Emerald. (remake titles always have fewer sales... but White2 / Black2 came
out in 2012, and are thus a better test of the market today)

It took 5 years for the Gameboy Advance to reach 30 million sales. It only
took 2 years for the 3DS to reach 30 million. The handheld gaming market has
not shrunk. If anything, the 3DS is doing better today than its Gameboy
predecessors.

If the iPhone / Android effected handheld sales... you'd think it have done it
by now. Or at very least, you'd expect it to negatively effect the 3DS's
sales. Why then is the 3DS selling better today than its previous
incarnations?

As an FWI, the 3DS was launched in 2011, well after the iPhone and around the
same time as the 2nd generation iPad.

------
Tycho
I've lost count of the number of opinion pieces I've read about Nintendo's
impending demise or how Nintendo blew their chance etc. etc. I'm talking since
the original PS came on the scene. For a company that's been an independent,
profitable business for over a century, bloggers, armchair economists and
Silicon Valley types don't seem to give them much credit when analyzing their
business decisions.

------
tolmasky
I have also wondered this a lot, but a big thing that's ignored is that a lot
of these console/portable games don't translate that well to a touch device.
For example, there is a reason why there aren't a lot of great racing games on
iOS, and in my opinion it's because tilting the device left and right to steer
just isn't as good of a mechanic as a d-pad. I am convinced that a game like
MarioKart just would not be as fun without the physical buttons. The same
applies to a lot of the classic side scrollers like Mario: without buttons
they get a little frustrating. So far the best solution I've seen for porting
is to put up virtual buttons, which in my opinion don't work well at all. You
need to be looking at the action, not concerned with where your fingers are.

This, along with the focus on casual play, is part of the reason why you have
a different class of games succeeding on iOS, such as endless runners. Since
the controls are harder to get right on a touch device, we see simpler
controls succeeding (such as helicopter style "just touch or don't touch" in
Jetpack Joyride or simple swipe/tilt in Temple Run).

Now, that's not to say that:

1\. Nintendo couldn't write all new games using their IP/brands/characters
custom tailored for iOS/Android/touch. In fact, this would probably be the
best approach.

2\. Nintendo couldn't think up a way to fix this for existing games.

However, my only point is that the idea that Nintendo could just dump their
entire libraries into iOS and resell every game they've ever made is a bit
naive. But who knows, maybe they would suck but everyone would buy them
anyways because they're "Nintendo". I don't think that's Nintendo's style
though. I think Nintendo more so than Apple believes in the idea that if you
care about software then you'll make your own hardware, or at least, if you
care about software you will tailor the software to the device it is running
on.

~~~
philwelch
Having played Mario Kart on both Wii (with the steering wheel attachment on
the controller) and GameCube, I have to agree about the driving games.

------
jarjoura
I think Nintendo's failure is way more complex than this article makes it
appear. It has nothing to do with hardware, but a lack of compelling reasons
to buy into the hardware.

If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to
speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at
the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.

The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and
Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were
caught off guard.

Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the
3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the
time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and
create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.

~~~
dragontamer
What? Before the Wii... Nintendo hasn't "dominated" any market since 1995 or
earlier.

The PS1 had 100+ million worldwide sales compared to the N64 ~30 million. The
PS2 also soundly beat the Gamecube in worldwide sales, and the XBox
established itself as a market leader.

The last time Nintendo had dominance in the console wars was the SNES. In
fact... one can argue that the 1995 to 2005 decade was Nintendo's worst
performance in the console market.

------
rachelbythebay
So far, the Wii U has been a $350 New Super Mario Bros. U box. It also gave me
a way to play my Wii games without hearing the disc sounding like a jet engine
(due to something wrong in my original unit's drive).

Where are the games for everyone else? I don't want to kill zombies or take
hill #423, and I don't need any more versions of Angry Birds.

~~~
hudibras
Hang on, let me put my Miyamoto fanboy hat on...there.

A lot of people (including me) are waiting for Pikmin 3 before buying a Wii U.
I think that game will open the floodgates.

~~~
dragontamer
I'm waiting for Pikmin 3 as well before I even consider getting a WiiU. I
might wait a bit longer as well, for the next Super Smash Bros and the next
installment of Pokemon Stadium (yeah... I know...)

------
macspoofing
>> A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables
and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.

It would have been a bold move, but it may have been disastrous. Right now,
the mobile market is owned by Apple, Samsung and Google. They may partner with
Nintendo, but on their terms, and always in control of their respective
platforms. Furthermore, they don't actually need Nintendo, which means there
is only so much concessions Nintendo could gain. So no, there is no guarantee
that this strategy will do anything for Nintendo.

I do think however that Nintendo should have some sort of an app presence on
mobile devices. Not necessarily putting marquee titles on the respective app
stores (although, why not get some exposure and test the waters), but maybe
experimenting with second-screen options for the 3DS or Wii U. For example,
there is no reason why an iPad or an iPhone cannot play the role of the Wii U
GamePad, or why you couldn't play (stream) your NES/SNES games from the Wii
store to your android device. There's potential there, but I think Nintendo is
too stupid, short-sighted and stubborn to see it.

------
jjsz
I remember Sony trying to pull off Playstation Certified phones but it didn't
catch on. They released this services called the PS Mobile and they half assed
it and treated it like an extension of the PSN store. Basically, the PS Mobile
is a mediocre app store with water downed games.

Nobody besides Microsoft, is going to make a high end mobile device, that
updates every year with high end games. Nintendo and Sony are not going to
take the risk of going against Apple, Samsung, HTC, and Motorolla. They're
losing some money now in order to not lose more money in the llong run.
They're investing time to professionally tackling these established mobile
companies.

Think about it: if Nintendo doesn't even release a dumb downed version of
Pokemon games, Donkey, Kirby, Mario, etc. on "certified" mid-end Android
devices that's because they don't want to take a 30% cut on their sales.

The larger demographic is not noticing but we're at that point where it's
about online services in a Steam vs. PSN vs. Xbox LIVE world. Until the larger
demographic notices this they will squeeze all life from consoles until people
move to mobile devices with PC specs capable of running decent games.

You're discrediting the company who took design ideas from flip phones and
created the GameBoy Advanced SP. They're obviously waiting for Linux to evolve
and for Samsung to get their act together on providing enough high-end chips
so their timing is not off. Again, all while losing money but they're not RIM,
they've AT LEAST acknowledged making pokemon games in 3D with Pokemon X/Y,
they'll make the money back in software.

------
derefr
> A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables
> and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.

Don't judge Nintendo by the Wii and its descendants--consoles are increasingly
irrelevant, and "casual game" consoles doubly so. Multiplayer = internet play,
these days. Nintendo knows that: the Wii U is a definite niche product, aimed
straight at those rare instances when you actually have lots of people in a
living room who want to sit around a TV and play the same video game at the
same time. Playing games with your kids, or at a party; not fragging d00dz on
a leaderboard. It's why the Wii line's online story is so bad: the whole
console is aimed at the multiplayer you do _offline_.

So, as I said, don't judge Nintendo by the Wii. It's not their main business
any more. Instead, judge Nintendo by the _DS_ , and _its_ descendants. It's
increasingly where all of Nintendo's actual "game" games have gone. And its
online story is becoming better and better with each generation--it might
actually become a phone one of these days, who knows. (I could see Nintendo
buying a Japanese phone company, firing all their industrial+UI designers and
putting the DS people in charge, and then building a "Nintendo DS" that
happened to _internally_ be an Android phone.)

~~~
loganfrederick
The problem is that we have to value Nintendo as a business and the Wii is
costing them money. I'm replying from my phone at the moment but Nintendo is
losing money. Hopefully someone else can paste sources. With the wii u
performance, the DS family is also at risk.

------
drcube
Why don't they just put a cell radio in the DS? Then parents can call their
kids home right in the middle of their video game.

I think the idea of "mobile phones" as a thing is going to pass. They're all
just computers that happen to be able to make calls. Put cell radios in
laptops and portable gaming systems and no one needs to choose between
bringing their phone or their DS, or their phone or their tablet. Almost every
computing device should also be a phone, in my opinion.

~~~
dragontamer
Why? Because its not successful. See Neo Geo and Sony Xperia Play.

Every few years, someone tries this exact idea and fails. Plus, I don't want
someone interrupting me when I'm in the middle of a Megaman boss. Thats just
stupid.

~~~
jiggy2011
The Xperia play probably failed due to relatively weak games available
compared to a 3DS. So you have a phone pretending to be a games console, you
might do better by adding phone functionality to an already strong gaming
system.

~~~
ijk
Now I'm seeing the potential for the successor to the 3DS to be the (I assume)
first 3D videophone device.

I think this is unlikely, but I'm charmed by the idea.

------
Moto7451
I think I more or less agree with the article. The Microsoft bit (that they
are new at manufacturing) is a tad off as the author focuses on Surface even
though they've been making peripherals since the 80s and Consoles for over a
decade now.

I think another component is that the Wii was a bit cheaper at its launch and
its closest competition (price wise) was the aging PS2 and the XBox 360 Core
model at $299. The Core model lacked wireless controllers and initially lacked
HD capability and I seem to be unable to remember any of my high school
friends buying one (though I'm sure they sold well enough on their own),
instead opting for the more expensive model.

Today the $299 WiiU has to compete with the still excellent $199 XBox 360 and
$270-$350 PS3 Bundle Packs (Console + Games + extra Controller + additional
Content). This is a lot harder sell especially since a lot of the multi
platform titles are going to look just as good, if not better, on the 360 and
PS3.

------
Maven911
Just so its clear, the Wii was a resounding success. Nearly 100 million sold
vs 75 mil each for the ps3 and xbox 360 No one could have predicted this level
of success, in fact many were complaining that the Wii had low graphics
capabilities and thiz would signify its doom

Yet it was succesful since it launched early, was cheaper (and profitable from
day one) and had something innovative(wii remote) And they tried to use that
same formula this time with the wii u(the new thing is te tablet like
controllers) and their sales have been abysmal, but I wouldnt count them oit
just yet, i wouldnt be suprised they go into a heavy marketing campaign when
the launch of the ps4 is nearer

~~~
nazgulnarsil
Nintendo is like Apple and Pixar, their track record is so phenomenal that
they get held to a ridiculous standard.

------
paul9290
Couldn't agree with you more. Was saying this in a similar way bit ago here
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2901756>. IN that thread I was thinking
they should buy WebOS and create their own i type device, but that was
sometime ago and they invested a ton in the Wii U.

Overall the market has moved to mobile they unfortunately didn't it.

Guess they still could embrace it by making apps for Android and iDevices,
ones that turn those devices into Wii U tablets and Wii remotes. Ha ha though
your kid using your iPhone as a Wii remote, better have a durable case!

