Why Wii U failed?

Who's alt is this?

@freedomfreemom: lol, now this is a worthwhile troll-alt account

You troll. Go away

@FreedomFreeLife: how dare you talk to your mother like that!

And for that, despite it being the demands of some people here who think Wii U would be more popular by killing off the Wii U Control Pad, the Wii U's situation is made EVEN WORSE!

No I disagree if the pad is gone the price and performance will improve.

It may have panned out better for them to not go with the tablet, but thats a choice that needed to be made while the console was still in development.

Removing it now would just be shooting themselves in the foot.

@ConanTheStoner: Not really, remember when Sony "redid" the PS1 controller. It's never too late to change a controller, specially if it can help sell the system and make devs want to develop on that system.

I'm not sure how changing the controller would make more devs want to develop for the Wii U. The gamepad is a standard controller. It has all the same buttons and functionality as other standard controllers. It just happens to have a screen. This isn't an issue like the Wii Mote where some games simply wouldn't work.

The only real advantage would be a drop in price and yes that's a good advantage, but then you just have a grossly underpowered console with a major loss of functionality, nothing to set itself apart, and a library of existing games that would be hindered by its removal.

Sonys controller change wasn't a subtraction, but an addition and a necessary one at that.

Obviously there is no way to know for sure, but the pros seem to stack lower than the cons in this case.

I can imagine how titanfall would've played on wii remote controls,

dash to the left by swiping the nunchuk left,

and aiming with the wii remote.

Nintendo fucked up turning its back on wii remote.

ps free-dumb free-tard, you are still stupid and this thread is a joke,

just like your mother.

Nether of which will solve d*** and mean absolutely nothing.

CPU is weak which is stupid and Nintendo's online attitude is out of date, the price is a little too high. But the main problem is Nintendo. The problem with the Wii U is political more than anything else. Sony and MS bend over backwards to make the people they rely on happy, developers and so on, Nintendo is just too proud and rigid to do it. They still have this 'my way or the high way' attitude and they are in no position to do that. It's damaging them so much.

We are calling it the Wii U and we aren't listening.

Online, we aren't listening.

Games, we aren't listening.

3rd party relations, hardware, the list goes on.

Developers said, 'the cpu looks weak', Nintendo said '**** off we want to make it small' (heat factor). Who says that, who has this attitude. Until Nintendo drops the attitude, they deserve it.

78% people think that price is too high for lack of games and for weak hardware, or/and console is too weak for this price.

Keep price, give us powerful console, or keep hardware but lower price to 150 dollars.

Lower price or more powerful system is what Nintendo should do.

I think have a much lower price and improved performance can only help not hurt the wii u's chances. People that said no to the wii u at 300 might say yes at under 200. Devs will have more memory and cpu/gpu power to make games. Also the batter life on the controller will be much improved.

At this point if I was Nintendo I would try anything I could.

Weak hardware & a really expensive gamepad that's barely used...weak hardware that can only support maximum of 2 really expensive gamepads. The gamepad is so expensive Nintendo won't even sell it at retail. They can pretty shave off another $100 without gamepad. The expensive non game changer gamepad is costing the system. Yea devs would have an easier time porting/making games with a more uniform pro controllers..& Wii U can support 4x pro controllers.

It should be Nintendo games that differentiate the systems..much like Halo -MS, & Killzone - Sony :p

UNLIKE the PlayStation controller however, the Wii U would have to go through drastic measures. Drastic enough that their audiences would be alienated to hell.

Again, none of that means d***.

Changing the console now would be stupid,just like you.

To who you ??

Obviously going by your name you like things as they are and don't care about how it sells. News flash the wii u is in big trouble and unless Nintendo does something drastic fast it is lights out. Personally I don't care I have gone Sony this gen. So what can Nintendo do to improve the wii u.

Lower the price that would be great and getting rid of the pad would do that. It's a gimmick and it's not a very good one that just inflates the price of the wii u to almost ps4 level. Obviously the ps4 is 5x stronger with many more features massive 3rd party support and better online gaming. So you need to get away from price range of the ps4 asap.

To any normal person buying a console you see the wii u at 300 and the ps4 at 400 the ps4 is a no brainer. The wii u at 200 now you can get 2 wii u's for the price of a ps4. That should have been the price in 2013 before the ps4 hit. However nintendo was selling the wii u at 350. They thought mario,zelda,smash combo was enough to justify the price.

Clearly they were very mistaken. If you take off the fanboy goggles you will see that the pad was a bad move by nintendo.

Nintendo said that Gamepad costs around 140-150 dollars. This means if they get rid of the pad then they could easily sell Wii U at 99 us dollars and earn profit by every sold console and even more profit from games.

@freedomfreemom: Yeah, no.

They mean nothing because changing the Wii U is a s***storm waiting to happen. Due to it releasing already, it's too late to change it in any major ground. People already bought it and whatever audience it has (whether it's waiting on the likes of Smash, Mario Kart, etc or more than that is up to you to find out) goes straight to hell.

"Oh, buh... buh... killing off the Wii U gamepad would make the Wii U more powerful, attract more third parties and make the system cheaper."

It will NOT attract more third parties, because by this point they are too damned attached to PS4/ONE to even care that Nintendo pulled your definition of a "smart move". Nor will making it cheaper make it sell more. By that point, it would make killing off the gamepad make any consumer confidence in the Wii U (or hell, Nintendo in general) go down causing a bigger controversy than the Bayonetta 2 fiasco.

I'm not saying this because I have "fanboy goggles".

Weak hardware

Nintendo don't care I remember back in the n64 days the ram pack. Some games didn't run without it and others were gimped. This was needed on top of the already high cart prices. So dont tell me about major changes after nintendo released a console lmao.

That was a different story. You're asking for something BEYOND risky. Changing a jumper pak is FAR different than killing off a f***ing controller that is part of the system more than others.

Also, funny you mention the expansion pak when even that didn't help the N64 that much in the position it was in.

It didn't fail, once all those great games come it will start selling more. The wii u is actually the last real game console there will ever be.

come on that was gold,

If those freedomfreemom posts get deleted,

than delete this thread.

because freedomfreemoms posts actually took more thought to compose than the entirety of this thread.

plus there is already "wii u failed" threads and on similar to this by the same tc.

1. Didn't double down on the core gamers, the casuals were not going to buy another Wii after they saw the last one get played for a week after Christmas and sit there collecting dust after it. With the Wii U controller it just felt like they had to come up with a gimmick to try and grab the casuals at some point.

2. Game support was a bit of a joke, it could have survived on the ported multiplats like the other two consoles but that leads onto 3.

3. Didn't offer the upgrade required on the last gen. Nobody owned just the Wii and those people wouldn't just drop their 360 or PS3 without a noticeable benefit graphically. It needed an upgrade to the online to make people shift too, you can't sell a console purely on strong single player games any more.

4. Didn't jump on the poor sales fast enough, no one felt reassured there was anything on the way so no one bought it, publishers didn't see the sales so they've now hit the viscous cycle of gamers and publishers looking at each other for a reason to support the Wii U.

We don't need a whole family of freedom free's running around. Don't want a repeat of the Xcousin family.

but still there is a thread by the same poster that is the similar to this,

one of em need the lock put on wouldn't you agree?

In fairness, all of those are third party games that have online on the other platforms, with more robust features and a fuller userbase. And all of them have full, standardized support on those platforms. There's no exceptions of, "except Mario Kart will not support voice chat" nonsense. If a game on Sony or MS's platform has multiplayer, it plugs into a standardized infrastructure that Sony and MS have built into their systems that automatically supplement the game with all necessary tools needed to get online and have fun.

What does Nintendo do? That you say some games have this, and some games have that......."oh wait, except for Mario Kart" strikes me that multiplayer games on the Wii U are taken on a game-by-game basis in terms of online features. So is there a universal multiplayer infrastructure set up, or isn't there? Is the ability through the console able to play with others? Seems to be. But I think the fundamental problem that people seem to allude to (and posters like FFL overly exaggerate) when they say that the U doesn't have MP is that it's not really a full-fledged platform that has been invested in and offers a universal standard that can be counted on for every game that has multiplayer stamped on the back of the box.

My point being: when playing with the Wii U online, can you expect a standard for every game?

This is not to mention the fact that Super Mario 3D World (a game tailor MADE for four players doesn't have online), nor does Pikmin 3, which would be a brilliant multiplayer plant battle royal. Two games that would be amazing to have online support, yet Nintendo refuses to do multi with these titles for whatever asinine reason or from whatever excuse comes up. It's a testament to their belief and dedication to the online playing field.

Does the Wii U have online? Sure. But I'm sick and tired of people attempting to give credit to Nintendo for being up to par with Sony and MS in this area when I see statements exempting X game from features that should be standards, not only on par with competitions, but within Nintendo's own system itself. Doesn't seem like a stable or well thought out platform to me, it seems more hastily thrown together so that whatever games that do wish to utilized multiplayer, that's on the particular designer of the game to choose what to do, and really has nothing to do with Nintendo's online efforts themselves.

number one reason for me is the gamepad but i think the consensus is that its underpowered. hell they dont even have a decent size hdd

Probably one of two (or both) reasons:

1) Nintendo messed up the advertising and marketing for the product, and many people confused it with a Wii peripheral rather than a new platform.

-or-

2) People don't want a proper gaming console anymore and are glad with playing sub-par PC-like games on a sub-par PC-like platform.

Since when does powerful hardware mean a great console? Example: PS2 won over Xbox and Gamecube which both had more powerful hardware.

Software sells hardware EVERY TIME, so your comment means nothing and has no relevance here.

Gamepad battery not an issue with the included long charge cable that can be pulled from the charge cradle, or having the option of the Pro controller.

Hard drive not an issue, it can be expanded either via the SD slot or an external Hard drive up to 2-TB via the USB port........Next so called problem you think, but are mistaken about the Wii-U having.

TC we have done this topic to death over and over. Why bring up the dead horse 6 months after it was killed?

Nintendo being Nintendo

Bad name, hardware was too weak to support modern engines and even more so, too weak to offer an obvious jump over last gen in the eyes of consumers. Those are big issues.

The hardware can influence the kind of support you might get from third party support. Look at the gamecube, even though it wasn't popular with 3rd party devs it still got support for sport games unlike the wiiu.

It's a little bit of everything. The main culprit is value. For what the Wii U is retailing it is simply not worth that price, given how much you don't get. No bang for your buck. They need to drop it below $200 with more storage space. Also, it's not versatile. No great future for media functions.

1. Name is ass
2. Online is handled like ass
3. the amount of third party is ass
4. gamepad is a neat idea....but half-assed
5. power is ass
6. slow ass start

Most sports games have PS3/360 support. The reason WiiU doesn't get sports games is because of the sales. Its about the only genre where its a completely sales oriented thing. The Wii got support for sports games . . . .

That's a lot of "ass"... and it put that Big Sean/Nicki Minaj song in my head.

I think all of those are valid reasons. I picked too weak because POWER seems to be such a talked about issue on this forum in regards to consoles.

Nintendo made it and they suck at making consoles end of story.