Nintendo signals end for Wii U | Hacker News Reader

Nintendo signals end for Wii U

bbc.com

53 pointsartsandsci86 comments

With first-party games coming to an end, the Wii U's underwhelming run is essentially over. The dynasty of related PowerPC processors starting from the GameCube has come to a close; other consoles switched off of much more custom and high-end PowerPC parts in Wii U's contemporaneous generation, with Xbox One ditching the custom Xenon and PS4 abandoning the Cell for AMD APUs that are closer to off-the-shelf than we've been in years.

With the Switch's Tegra and AMD's chips in the others, for the first time we'll be at a point where all mainstream game consoles will have CPUs designed by and sourced from companies whose primary business is GPUs, which I think is really interesting.

>The dynasty of related PowerPC processors starting from the GameCube has come to a close

More-so than that, the dynasty of Nintendo home consoles is at a close too (though Nintendo PR managed to convince the public otherwise). Switch is a successor to their mobile consoles .

This will be the big showdown between Nintendo's internal worldview (and marketing), vs. the public perception.

Nintendo insists and markets the Switch as a home console, but there is a real danger that people will perceive it as a quasi-portable (as long as you're not too far away from the charger). This is further muddied by the 3DS line, a still-thriving mobile product which, despite having aging innards, has gone through a few facelifts and is still selling copies because its best-in-class library of coveted games.

It remains to be seen whether Nintendo will keep misunderstanding its market, or actually produce a hit this time.

Their exit was inevitable. Graphical performance is a huge aspect of home console and Nintendo is not capable of competing in that area - and their stellar first party lineup isn't enough to bridge that gap.

>It remains to be seen whether Nintendo will keep misunderstanding its market, or actually produce a hit this time.

I think the Switch will be a success and after the Wii-U fiasco, their marketing and branding is spot-on.

Nintendo is not capable of competing in that area

They can surely produce a capable console. After all, they partnered with NVIDIA. The question is whether it makes sense to go into this arms race, especially given that their traditional first party content is not well placed to make use of it.

By 'capable' I mean, they are too poor. Competing in this market means subsidizing the console and Nintendo cannot afford to do that in a way that Sony and Microsoft can.

>especially given that their traditional first party content is not well placed to make use of it.

That makes no sense. Why not? If they released their Wii-U games, unchanged, on the Xbox One or PS4 they would be mega-hits.

It plugs into the TV. It has traditional controllers available. It's a successor to both. That's just a fact.

And I commend Nintendo for convincing so many people of this 'fact'.

AMD's primary business is not GPUs.

Over 50% of their revenue comes from "Embedded and Semi-Custom", which is just about entirely PS4/Xbox sales [0]. Those products certainly contain a GPU occupying the majority of the die space.

[0]https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/232204-amd-reports-a-stro...

"Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom". Conveniently left off the first part there, of which is definitely not all GPU. And even if it was split like you want to imply it is, that would at best make it a minor majority, definitely not dominating revenue like it does with nVidia.

I can confirm with in-the-wild reports that as of last week, there are still people who had no idea that the WiiU was actually a completely separate console from the Wii.

I suspect the WiiU was never terribly destined for success anyhow, with its bizarre hybrid of tablet and TV (compare with what may be a sensible hybrid of tablet and TV in the Switch, stay tuned to find out), but I would love to peer into the alternate universe where the "Wii 2" was released instead just to compare notes.

Nintendo is a really interesting company. They go from wild, raging successes like the Wii to big commercial failures like the Wii U, though their flagships are always consistently high-quality.

One of the things that has always differentiated Nintendo is that they really don't seem to care about what the American market thinks. Sony and Microsoft got first-class online services two generations ago, whereas Nintendo still has people exchange friend codes (finally changing now with the Switch). Nintendo makes decisions that anyone with a passing familiarity in the American market could tell you were doomed from the get-go, like making the GameCube purple by default, and then they persist in those decisions for many years.

The Wii U is a great console. My whole family loves it, and there are a lot of excellent games on it. It's sad to see it go, but definitely not unexpected. I hope the Switch lives up to that high standard of quality.

> making the GameCube purple by default

I don't understand why this is an automatic market failure in the US?

Purple is a "fad" color, or a "kid" color in consumer devices. There is a reason that most consumer electronics stick to greys, blacks, and whites (NES/SNES/N64/Walkman/Discman), and devices aimed at children are far more colorful.

This was only one of the faults of the Gamecube, aesthetically. The target demographic for the machine was 10-16yo male gamers. The plastic chosen was of a soft, playskool-like texture. A big black handle on the back of the device was added, so kids could carry the console to a friend's house (stated at Nintendo Spaceworld GC reveal).

At the time, the other two game companies were catering to the "core gamer" demographic, both offering black consoles with a more adult styling. American teenagers have an aversion to be treated like children, which naturally resulted in less gamecube sales.

The successor to the n64 should have been a blockbuster. Due to the decisions they made, they ruined any of that advantage.

The GameCube was also late to the market in North America: it was the last console to release, a year after PS2 (which had a fully-functional DVD player to boot, though it wasn't as dominant of a coup as the PS3's Blu-ray) and a few days after the Xbox, the latter of which had Halo as a launch title -- half of all Xboxes were bought concurrently with Halo for the first few months [1]. Meanwhile on the GameCube side, a toyish purple cube, with an bland array of launch titles, half of which were already out for other platforms [2].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142548/http://www.wired....

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_console_lau...

I guess. I don't really dispute your reasoning - it all seems logical. To me though, the color and shape of a console is almost totally irrelevant. Who cares what it looks like? In the end it's just a box full of circuits that you drop next to your TV and only look at when you need to hit the power button or change the disc. You can throw a towel over it or put it in a drawer if it really offends your sense of style. (Ok, that might cause overheating issues, but you get the point)

Maybe it would have sold a little better if it looked more "adult", but I think it had a whole lot more to do with the relatively underpowered hardware, weak third party software support, and timing.

>Who cares what it looks like?

The teenagers that made up the huge majority of the video game market at the time. Teenagers are highly sensitive to suggestions that they're children. They do not want to be carrying around a little purple cube.

As someone who was a teenager when the GameCube came out, I can offer a relevant anecdote. The GameCube was frequently mocked by my peers because it was "too kiddie". The cool kids had large black Xboxes and PlayStations with scary-shootery games like Grand Theft Auto, not a cute little purple cube with a heavily kawaii-ized Zelda game and a funny plumber who washes away colorful paint and saves smiling stars to bring sunshine back to an island of little mushroom people.

This was the overall perception, and it was a legitimate issue. The professional reviews in the gaming press frequently referenced the GameCube "kiddie" image problem, and would often weigh whether a new piece of news made the GC seem more or less "kiddie". [0]

The appearance matters a great deal. It's a piece of furniture, a piece of decor. It says something about you to yourself and everyone who enters the room. Teenagers don't want that message to be "I like playing kid games".

[0] http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/03/17/interview-resident-ev... ; example where the issue of the GameCube's kiddie perception is referenced by the producer of Resident Evil 4, and he's asked about whether Nintendo gave him any guff over his intention to release a violent game on a console targeted toward "younger audiences".

Case in point, Nintendo of America's comments at the Switch reveal were last, after Japan and Europe talked.

When Iwata and Fils-Aime were succeeding with the Wii, Nintendo of America was front-and-center in every reveal. Now that the Wii U flopped, and Iwata died, Nintendo is hip-deep in Japanese patriotism, just shy of outright xenophobia.

The overarching impression I got from the reveal was one of "The Americans are no longer ruining our Japanese company. We're back at the helm now".

You're right, the US should be first in everything and focusing on your home country (Japan) first is wrong.

Let's analyze the strawman you've brought up.

We have a history of Satoru Iwata teaming up with Nintendo of America, to the point of letting them influence design decisions on the hardware they release (look at Prototype Nintendo DS systems at E3 vs. Release). The name "Wii" was a play on the english word "We". Reggie Fils-Aime had his fingerprint on every product marketed between the DS and the 3DS, evident especially in the embrace of "Blue Ocean" strategies from hardware, to software, to marketing (which is why they hired him from Viacom).

The US was first in everything, A time that had the highest sales since the original Famicom/NES. It is merely sticking one's head in the sand to not notice and acknowledge the change in direction this new console is leading.

I don't deny changes. I do think Nintendo is well within their right to focus on their home country first and I believe they had their reasons for doing it.

Hmm, I'm not sure that I would say NOA got a bum deal in the Switch presentation. Miyamoto and Aonuma were both present with Reggie in New York.

That they'd send their two biggest internal figures there does say that Nintendo does care somewhat about the US market, just not enough to redesign their devices to sell well in it. Insomuch as that happens, it seems to be accidental. ;)

As a owner and a lover of my WiiU, I simply refer to it as a Nintendo Wii. Otherwise it just confuses everyone, and I have to explain to people that they in fact did release another console.

I don't think calling it a Wii 2 would have made it a runaway success, but Nintendo did themselves no favors with the branding.

I'm pretty bummed about the Wii U's outcome as a whole. It has fantastic games that really didn't have a chance at reaching a broader audience. My hope is that many of the Wii U's games will be ported over to the Switch for another go, and expanded upon by the Switch's unique abilities.

Hyrule Warriors: 8 players with their own screen would be amazing on the Switch. Especially without the multiplayer hiccups caused by the Wii U's anemic CPU/GPU. I would buy it again in a heartbeat just for that.

Perhaps Nintendo needs to start treating their hardware more like a single platform, rather than 2 independent ones that exist just fine without the other. For example, Zelda on the Switch could have a few mini-games/side quests available for the more portable and cheaper 3DS via a companion app - Yes I know they toyed around with this idea before, but never in a substantial way that created value between the two systems.

Ouch, 102 million Wiis sold, vs 13 million Wii-U.

The Wii was nothing more than a collective delusion. People were buying into that, for no reason other than everyone else was. Majority of those machines sat collecting dust, after the arm flailing novelty wore off. After that episode, the next Wii launches, and people knew better than to just jump on the hype train. The Switch will perform at least as poorly.

Mine didn't. We played group Wii Sports sessions for years.

Really getting into those sorts of games in a way that made them uniquely fun quickly led to RSI pain for me, in ways that playing the same sports for real would not.

Plus the person making subtle wrist-flicks while sitting on the couch would usually destroy the one standing up playing "for real". Between those two things it killed my enthusiasm for waggle controls pretty quickly. May as well have used buttons.

Best console ever for rail and light-gun shooters, though. Surprised it didn't get more than it did, especially ports of older ones.

My mother bought a Wii because she loved Wii Sports so much. She could have come to my house and played mine for free, but she instead bought her own.

There were other games, too, but those came after she had made the decision to buy it and none of them would have convinced her to buy it.

It wasn't anything close to a "delusion" to her and many others who simply loved the Wii Sports game.

Sometimes I think people forget we are talking about toys.

I didn't know people that played with toys could be "delusional". My daughter just got old enough to discover and dust off the WiiU. She's playing the copy of Kart 8 that my older son abandoned. She's having a blast.

So an entire console for a free game that was included? How much time did she spend on it after the first month?

If the fun people had with Wii Sports was worth $200 to them (or whatever the Wii cost), then who cares if they only bought the console for that one game?

I disagree. I was in college during the Wii's run, and it was the only console my friends and I played together (though several of us had other consoles). Games like Smash Bros, Super Mario Strikers, and even Wii Tennis were at least weekly events.

Edit to add: I was at a party a month ago, and the hosts had their Wii available. People were playing then, too. I think maybe WiiU didn't offer what people wanted. At least among my experiences, multiplayer was vital.

Same here, I was just finishing university at that time, and it seemed like every student house had a Wii for party games, and for casual gaming while drinking and getting ready for a night out. Aside from that, I remember guitar hero being popular.

As for the Wii U, I think most people my age just moved on to a different step in our lives, we get together less often, and there just isn't the same interest or opportunities available for casual gaming with friends. I don't know what's happening with the younger generations, and what they're doing in university now.

Same here, but I actually have a WiiU. I think the big reason it's not as popular is because the main draw (casual gaming with friends at/before parties) is something the Wii does almost as well and everyone already has a Wii. So why bother with a WiiU?

Smash 4 and Nintendo Land are basically perfect party games. But the similar offerings on the Wii are so close to perfect you really don't need to switch up.

I have the same experience. My friends had weekly weekend game nights where we played Wii Sports until the early hours of the next morning. I had my own Wiimote that I took with me and I didn't even own a Wii at the time.

We're now like a good 1.5 console generations away from the Wii and counting fast. Isn't it time to put away the console fanboyism for that generation, when we've got hot-and-fresh Switch vs. PS4 Pro vs. XBox One S action to get fanboying about?

Besides, every totally knows the Genesis does what Nintendon't and the SuperNES, like, sucks to the extreme, dude.

There isn't any console fanboyism, I have a PS4 because it's good blu-ray player, and covers a few exclusives that PC will never get. If they were all on PC, then I wouldn't bother with any underpowered/overpriced console.

Insulting people who buy a thing you don't like because it was a "collective delusion", for bad motives you impugn to them, because of your personal value judgment that it was "flailing novelty" and a "hype train"... for the best selling console ever... is being a fanboy, not making a real argument. Fanboyism for, as I said, a console generation now a generation and a half gone, which drains away whatever topical interest it may once have had and just leaves you insulting about a hundred million people for no particular reason.

I wasn't aware collective delusion, and hype train were insults, so I apologize.

Nah it's just the casual gaming market moved to mobile phones.

I still have friends who use the Wii occasionally -- living room dancing games in particular still seem popular. So I'm not sure how accurate this is.

The bottom line is that the Wii differentiated itself in a way that people cared about at the time and the Wii U differentiated itself in a way that nobody really cared about. Also, keep in mind that even the Wii U lineup from Nintendo was a bit disappointing. It had Mario games, sure, but nothing that felt like a successor to Super Mario Galaxy. And it's only getting Zelda now that their next console is launching.

I'm not at all convinced the Switch will suffer the same fate. If Nintendo effectively makes the Switch the successor to both the 3DS and the Wii U and merges their home console and portable console products and divisions, the result could end up being pretty unique and desirable. It's already got Zelda, and it will have Mario by the end of the year. Throw in full-console Pokemon, Monster Hunter, and Pikmin games -- many of which would have previously been made only for the 3DS in stripped-down mobile versions -- and I can see it really taking off.

I for one skipped out on the Wii U but have already placed a preorder for the Switch. I primarily play games on my PC and the PS4 and Xbox One feel redundant and underpowered in comparison. The Switch though feels like a much more compelling package for me.

It's already got two Zelda games, and soon the new one.

Yes, they're remakes, but so is MarioKart for Switch.

Remakes/remasters weren't enough to get people to buy it, and saying that it's got the new Zelda after the console has effectively been discontinued doesn't really mean much.

What should it mean except the plain meaning?

The new Zelda is coming out for Wii U. That's certain.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The Wii U is dead, and nothing coming out for it now can save it. It's great for existing owners that it's getting the new Zelda, but the console isn't going to suddenly become a success after it's been discontinued.

I agree with you that the Wii U is now dead, but the point I was replying to was the claim that the Wii U just now gets its first Zelda game, as though Nintendo had neglected to bring this popular series to its flagship console.

This is so much like the "Apple is only so successful because Apple fanbois are delusional and don't know any better!" argument. It's malarkey. The Wii was a pretty phenomenal product. I also played mine for many years, and continue to play Mario Party and Smash Brothers with friends occasionally.

Five years ago, I read (and saved) a series of fascinating interviews about the development of the Wii. Some of them were on the Nintendo corporate sites (1) while others were from Japanese magazines that a colleague translated. It was really a remarkable tale — Iwata was a CEO who loved to work with his engineers and designers, and in the case of the Wii, they created something that was truly innovative, and not just in an engineering sense. They were targeting a different audience -- moms who controlled purchasing in Japanese households as well as nontraditional gamers.

The following excerpt discusses the creation of the Wii remote/nunchuck:

Iwata: I still remember the first time I saw the pointer demo in one of the conference rooms. From the moment I picked it up, it just felt right. I had handled other pointer devices before, but they are not normally responsive and leave you feeling more frustrated than relaxed. The pointer idea itself was also good, but in this case it was the sense of control, the finish of the product, that was particularly good. I suppose that was the result of the technology brought in by Mr Takeda.

Ashida: Well, it was because the main controller was just a rod. (laughs) It clearly couldn't be used to control existing games. Since Wii is compatible with GameCube games, and we also had the concept of the Virtual Console, we had to make it possible to play games from the NES days, too. On top of that, we also had to consider FPS (first person shooter) games for the overseas market. These factors ultimately gave birth to the idea of combining various controllers to the main controller with an extension connector.

Miyamoto: The idea of connecting controllers spread very quickly, but the Nunchuk, which had such a strong impact when it was announced, was done much later.

Ashida: I first heard about the idea for the Nunchuk from

Takeda-san. He said, “can you try to make something like this?” There were also requests from the development teams for Metroid and other software titles asking for a new kind of controller that uses both hands, that can offer a new type of gameplay. And so, yet again, we started out by moulding another clay model. (laughs)

Takeda: This idea originally came from one of the young developers involved in the project I mentioned earlier, the one aimed at selling packaged peripherals with GameCube games. Iwata: I can still vividly recall the look of anxiety on Mr Ashida's face when he showed me the Nunchuk. What was running through your mind at that time?

Ashida: Well, I thought it wouldn't fit well with the streamlined designs of the console and controller. At first, I also considered a design similar to that of the remote. But since it was so obvious that the right and left hands are used differently, I realized that making the designs similar would just make it harder to control. When I asked for Mr Takeda's advice, he reassured me that it was fine for them to be different since they would be used separately.

Ikeda: we used to call the Wii Remote the Core Controller, or alternatively the Core Unit, because peripherals were attached to its extension connecter.

Miyamoto: Oh, that's right, we called it the Core, didn't we? But the term Core Unit doesn't sound very accessible, even though that's what we were aiming for all along! (laughs) It was Mr Iwata who insisted that the main controller be called a remote, wasn't it?

Iwata: Yes, that was something that I was unusually stubborn about. The TV remote is something always sits within reach and is picked up and used by everyone all the time. Since I wanted the controller to be used in the same way, and since it ended up looking like one in the end, I strongly believed that it should be called a remote. And also because one of the most fundamental questions behind Wii's development was why some people use the TV remote all the time, but hesitate to pick up a game controller. So I really insisted that it be called a remote.

Ikeda: In the early stages of development we ran into a number of problems that we hadn't anticipated, like the fact that the controller would react to fluorescent light, for example. Creating a mechanism that prevents the controller from responding to fluorescent light and sunlight may not sound overly difficult, but it still caused us a good deal of trouble.

Iwata: So, that's how the specifications of the Wii controller were decided. However, it wasn't until the Tokyo Game Show last year that it was unveiled to the general public. I was up on stage at that event, and I still vividly remember the silence that followed the video that introduced the controller. It felt like time was standing still... It was as though the audience didn't know how to react. Given that you'd all worked so hard on the controller, what did you think of that reaction?

Miyamoto: Like Mr Takeda, I too was very much on edge. I was certain that they wouldn't understand Wii unless they actually tried it out for themselves, and so I was unsure how convincing the presentation alone would be. Everyone was clapping, but I couldn't help but wonder whether our message had gotten across, or whether people thought it was too unconventional. However, looking at the other unveilings at the Tokyo Game Show that day, I was very much relieved by the fact that Nintendo was the only one doing something new. Everyone else seemed to be just polishing up something that everyone had already seen before.

Ashida, when asked about reax from developers: For the most part, their feedback was very positive, which was a great relief. Needless to say, there were a few cries of dissent, but most people were left with a favourable impression.

Ikeda: I was often left in charge of explaining the controller's functions, but it was only when they actually got their hands on the controller that their faces would light up. Seeing this, I really felt as though we'd scored a hit. And then, immediately after they had a go on Wii, they started coming up with ideas. Right there and then they were already discussing what they could do and how they could do it! I was amazed by the speed of this.

Iwata: Producers are more likely to pick up the controller and start thinking about its limitations. Creators, on the other hand, are more likely to look at what is possible, come up with ideas and ask a lot of questions. They'll go home with smiles on their faces, won't they?

Iwata: In bringing Wii to the world, we've filled up countless boxes with mock-ups, prototypes, trial software, and so on. But I truly feel that none of our efforts were wasted. These concepts came and went at a remarkable pace, until we came across those special technologies that solved all of our problems at once. Nowadays, nobody has any doubts about the "d-pad with two main buttons" interface. But twenty years ago many people wondered whether such a controller could really be used to play games. So, if we continue to do what we know has to be done, our controller, which now appears quite unusual, may very well become the new standard. As someone who has made it their life’s work to make innovative products, I feel very lucky to have had the chance to witness this story from beginning to end. Everyone, thank you very much.

Japanese companies are sometimes portrayed as being too conservative. However, I have found that there is a creative/innovative streak in certain firms that can lead to truly innovative products that push the engineering and creative envelopes, open up new markets, and force everyone to realize new possibilities. That's what happened with the Wii. Its success, however, was not duplicated with the WiiU.

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100612175931/http://wii.ninten...

> [...] it wasn't until the Tokyo Game Show last year that it was unveiled to the general public. I was up on stage at that event, and I still vividly remember the silence that followed the video that introduced the controller.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPK3WxUH8Qg

There's a lot of this kind of content here:

http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/

The motion control hype was crazy huge during its initial launch. Most wii owners weren't "gamers" and didn't actually buy games for the thing. The list of its top selling games is kinda of a joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video...

That's even more depressing than I realized, and further proves my point.

What's your definition of "games" and "gamer"? Based on "what I like", presumably?

Within this context is going to have to be where you play games rather than only wii sports.

What's crazy is that they managed to sell 8 million copies of Mario Kart 8 to that tiny install base and it's not even a launch title.

It's because Mario Kart 8 is the best Mario Kart.

That includes bundles, right? I know when I bought my Wii U, my only option was one bundled with Mario Kart.

>That includes bundles, right?

I would guess so. I didn't see a fine-grained breakdown though so maybe not.

While it would have been nice to match the Wii's success again on a console, it's the only time they've managed it, and IMO a lot of that success was viral and based on Wii Sports.

NES (1983) - console - 62 million

SNES (1990) - console - 49 million

N64 (1996) - console - 33 million

GameCube (2001) - console - 22 million

Wii U (2012) - console - 13 million

The rest of these show that the Wii U is still pretty weak, but now the 10:1 that it looks like if you just compare it with the previous one. In fact, the Wii is the odd one that bucks the trend set by all the others.

That is one nasty downward slide.

Well he took out the Wii numbers, wouldn't have looked so much like a slide if he'd left them in. It's also missing their DS business which is owning.

The NES also is an outlier since it launched in a cold market (video game crash of 1983).

Also, the NES launched slowly across the United States starting with New York. (Contrast to today's international launches)

Plus they had several legal troubles brought on by fear of the Japanese rising in economic importance.

Also there were several cartridge storages during that generation.

> The NES also is an outlier since it launched in a cold market (video game crash of 1983).

It was only cold in the US. The NES launched a few years earlier in Japan where it was very successful.

As Japan didn't have Atari it was also a cold market. But that's not really the point.

The point is that if the NES was launched with the market conditions that we have today there'd have likely been several times a many consoles sold.

I think your analysis isn't totally fair because it ignores the public's varying appetite for console gaming. Maybe it's better to consider each console relative to its generation? If you do that, it becomes clear that Nintendo's performance is usually quite solid.

The big question now is, will the Switch inherit the absolute dominance of Nintendo's portables, or the somewhat weaker performance of its home consoles?

  Atari 2600 (1977) - 30 million

  Atari 5200 (1982) - 1 million
  NES (1983) - 62 million
  ==> WINNER: Nintendo

  Sega Master (1986) - 13 million
  Sega Genesis (1988) - 31 million
  SNES (1990) - 49 million
  ==> WINNER: Nintendo

  Sega Saturn (1994) - 9 million
  Playstation (1994) - 102 million
  N64 (1996) - 33 million
  ==> WINNER: Sony

  Dreamcast (1998) - 9 million
  PS2 (2000) - 155 million
  Gamecube (2001) - 22 million
  Xbox (2001) - 24 million
  ==> WINNER: Sony

  Xbox360 (2005) - 84 million
  Wii (2006) - 102 million
  PS3 (2006) - 84 million
  ==> WINNER: Nintendo

  Wii U (2012) - 13 million
  PS4 (2013) - 53 million
  XB1 (2013) - 20 million
  ==> WINNER: Sony

NES was released in October of 1985. The Famicom was 1983.

Genesis was released in 1989. The Mega Drive was '88.

SNES was 1991. Super Famicom was 1990.

The reason I'm being "pedantic" about this is because you're (unintentionally?) fudging statistics for a narration. For instance,

* Atari had very little market penetration in Japan.

* Your NES sales figure doesn't include Dendy (which had a substantial hold in USSR).

* Xbox sales reflect North American sales, as Japanese sales were dismal.

* Xbox 360 sales reflect only North American/European sales, as Japanese sales were comedic.

In addition, you should probably include portable/handheld console sales in your lists.

I imagine the Wii U was originally internally pitched as a sort of cheap and durable iPad-like that offered a tablet experience in addition to the traditional Nintendo experience. I can understand that Nintendo would think there would be some merit to an idea of adding onto the existing Nintendo experience a sort of cheap iPad alternative for children and a broader mainstream audience that couldn't afford an iPad.

What immediately ruined this idea however was that incredibly cheap Android tablets quickly appeared and undermined the whole concept. The Wii U is actually expensive in relation to many of these devices.

I think the Wii U was simply a "DS for the living room"

Showing that Nintendo was thinking of killing/cannibalizing their console market much earlier than people realized.

Canonical source with more accurate headline: http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/19/14313914/legend-of-zelda-br...

The announcement should surprise no one.

My main hope with the Switch is that they can get a real virtual console off the ground that supports they're entire back catalog. Putting out the new Zelda for Wii U and the Switch gives me hope. But Nintendo's history with online services is pretty abysmal. They're were several Wii U games I wanted to play, but the console had zero appeal for me.

For the first time (starting in the fall), Nintendo will be charging subscription fees for its online multiplayer service. So expectations and pressure will be on more than ever. I want to believe.

Me too. The only thing that concerns me is that we're a little over a month out from launch and they're being pretty cagey about the details.

I mean, if Nintendo was run by competent people, they would include access to the entire NES/SNES Virtual Console catalog as long as you maintained a subscription to their service.

But this is Nintendo we are talking about, so instead we get a month long rental of one single game at a time.

The 3DS can do that. They made an emulator that runs on it and they sell Gameboy games on the store. I know nothing about the pricing though.

Considering the NES Classic is also an ARM chip I think there's a very good chance of this happening.

I feel like I'm the only one who has a Wii U and likes it.

There is definitely a dearth of games, but the first party titles are some of the best games available, for any platform: The various Marios, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Pokemon Tournament, couple of others.

The graphics are a big step up from the Wii and still look great. I don't give a damn about the 'tablet', it's just another controller (and not a bad one at that).

So long dear Wii U ! I'll always play and update you with neat hacks at my place. Seriously though, I don't understand people. For me the Wii U had way better games than the Wii and I would never trade my Wii U for any Playstation or Xbox. Smash Bros is way better, Mario Kart is way way way better (the best Mario Kart ever?)... Just lacked a really good 3D Mario Game.

I was a bit disappointed with Nintendo with the games for the Wii. The initial Wii Sports was not that great (though super cool for a motion controlled game of that time), but it was superseded by the much better Wii Sports Resort (which didn't have the same lineup and missed classics like Tennis). Nintendo could've made an even better successor on that front. The Wii Fit was succeeded by the improved Wii Fit Plus, but it too needed a better successor and a much better user experience for a fitness game. There was so much more that could've been done just in these games, but Nintendo just moved on to Wii U. In the reviews I read on the Wii U games of the same kind, it didn't seem like a vast improvement.

The original Wii had a healthy lifespan. It had quite a few good titles. I don't think it's fair to say Nintendo moves into the Wii U too quickly. The Wii came out ahead of the previous generation of consoles and the Wii U followed suit. If anything the Wii U was a bit delayed. The original Wii was only capable of 480p and everyone was clamoring for an HD console.

The Wii U, on the other hand, was replaced quickly by the Switch because it flopped. People like me who bough a Wii U got burned.

I bought my Wii U in 2015 when Nintendo announced Zelda for it and said it would be out Christmas of 2015. Here we are in 2017 and it is coming out but it is a Switch title and the Wii U version is an afterthought. I feel like the money I spent on the Wii U was squandered. Lesson here being don't trust release dates.

I think 'too quickly' really depends on the target audience. For 'serious' gamers the Wii might be a letdown because it had too few games that they liked. For the 'casual' gamers, however, the Wii might have been well worth buying even for just one or two games (or possibly even just the bundled Wii Sports), and they might not even feel the need now to upgrade to a newer console.

The distinction is perhaps a bit like the difference between a laptop and a tablet. I have a Mac and feel seriously bummed out and somewhat pissed at Apple about the new MacBook Pros, both in price and specs. However, I also have an iPad Mini 2 and felt absolutely no desire or need to update to newer iPads largely because I use it more 'casually', and specs and new features don't matter as much.

I'd say Nintendo's audience for the Wii in particular was the 'casual gamer'. So they optimized for that. Apple has both a professional and casual audience, and I think the whole kerfuffle about the new MacBook Pros is a primarily a consequence of that.

Never bought one, but if Nintendo's 20/20 hindsight claim that the ~Wii U confused consumers~ was the reason for its relative miss, then that's an incredible lesson learned.

I really don't think it was the name. Look at GameCube. Fine name, also very crappy sales. Nintendo first party titles rocks, but overall Sony and Microsoft have been eating them for lunch for years. The first Wii was a lucky break before iPhones became commonplace.

I seem to recall the GameCube sales being solid outside America, where Microsoft was buying its way into he market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com