A Switch Too Soon?

[Shrikeswind]

Here's another little introspective from me, this time on the Switch. I figure it's worth mention with the Switch in the very near future.

So, if you've been keeping up with my posts this past couple months, you know I've only recently got back into gaming - and into Nintendo in general. I've had my Wii U since...I want to say July?...of 2016 but have only been able to play it since December - kinda tough to hook up a console when you don't have a TV. And...I love it. The Wii U should be an absolute success, and yet...well, obviously it isn't. Consider for a moment Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze. This game is a critical success - pretty much everyone loves it. And what's not to love? It's a Donkey Kong Country game - it's gonna be good. It's the direct sequel to the runaway success DKC Returns, featuring the return of Dixie Kong and Funky Kong and the first playable appearance of everyone's favorite cantankerous old geezer, Cranky Kong. Tropical Freeze is now 3 years old. It has sold 1.61 million copies at its 3 year mark. Its predecessor sold 4.96 million copies in 3 months. This is not because of the great ape. The cold hard reality is, the Wii U is a bomb.

But why? What actually did the Wii U in, and was it ever recoverable? I'm gonna say yes, it was, and if it weren't for the Switch, that it absolutely still would be. The Wii U was released in 2012, and, to quote Wikipedia, "The Wii U was met with a generally positive reception; praising its GamePad controller, improvements to online functionality over the Wii, backwards compatibility with existing Wii software and controllers, affordability in comparison to other eighth-generation consoles, and non-reliance on a subscription for online functionality." But then, 5 years later, production's done and Nintendo's completely...switched. Consider this: The GameCube was released in 2001. It was discontinued in 2007. The Cube had a longer shelf life by an entire year, but discussion of what would replace it was muted. Until the XBox 360, it was easy enough to assume the Cube was here to stay (I mean really, we had reason to assume it wasn't, don't get me wrong. Just, there wasn't this sense that it had a foot in the grave.) The Wii U, on the other hand? It was basically riding out the generation, probably since Iwata passed away but honestly even before that, more or less serving as a stopgap while Nintendo made something else so they could wash their hands of it.

It's a shame, then, that the Wii U is done (even granted the lateness with which I got on board with it.) The Wii U was certainly no gaming revolution like its father, so why do I say could the Wii U have been saved? Well, let's start with marketing: Nintendo kinda shot themselves in the foot with this, by marketing to casual gamers who, when it comes to games, are idiots. To quote H. L. Mencken, "No one in this world, so far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." (Eat it Barnum, it was Mencken.) The Wii was a success, but to get the casual market it could only be followed up by absolute dissociation. "This isn't the Wii, the Wii's old hat. This is Project Cafe, and it's better. MUCH BETTER!" Of course, that being said, anyone who's ever "upgraded" to Windows 8 knows that you can't just force people to relearn everything and expect good results. All that backwards compatibility could have served Nintendo phenomenally with better marketing. And the first step towards that? Don't call it Wii.

For core gamers, of course, there's a lot to be said for the Wii U, and it's not really worth going into detail on all the reasons to buy it to a bunch of core gamers who know damn well how great it is and who love Nintendo for it. All the same, Nintendo did everything right for core gamers even in the early days except for one major thing: Initially emphasizing the casual market. Core gamers might not always support or respect Nintendo, but when they do, they really do, and there's some damn good reason for this: Nintendo is really good at innovating gaming. When Nintendo does something right, it's a game-changer for the other companies in ways that not only other companies but other industries can't do with Nintendo-levels of consistency.

The Wii U...well, it wasn't innovative. It had to sell itself to the core market by a different measure, and that would be games. A weak, casual-heavy launch with little emphasis on the core market did Nintendo few favors with the Wii U, but now it's had 5 years to build up a library and my has it built a library. But...it came too late. Nintendo's management took the Wii U as dead-on-arrival, and said "Alright, keep it on as long as it takes to replace it and do what you can to maintain interest long enough for us to replace it." Nobly, management ate their losses, but...did they need to? And I don't mean "They could have just cut salaries and went on with it," no. I mean that they could have said "Okay, okay. Slow start, but we can get this going. Hard-shift the U's focus to core gamers ASAP. Do not let this die."

And that's why I feel the Switch is coming too soon. It's not that the generation isn't toward the end of its run. It most definitely is. It's that, for the Wii U, it's always been toward the end of its run. The Wii U might be old tech by this point, but it very well could still be interesting for another couple years if it had a better start or more support when it was clear it was on the ropes. Nintendo might have taken a hit, but I have high expectations that they'd have gotten on well enough. All that I have left to say, then, is this: The Switch must be good. Not just because Nintendo needs it to be for their own sake, but because the Wii U needs it to be. It was a good system, despite it all, and it deserves a proper send-off. If the Switch doesn't do what it needs to, it will have come too soon, and its presence dishonors the Wii U's memory (all 2 GB of it). If it does, then the Wii U will have found itself some well-deserved rest.

tl;dr: Wii U was a good system, but not very innovative. Nintendo marketed it poorly then shifted gears too soon. Switch'd better do good for the Wii U's sake. (Read the one on Smash Bros. if you want to know why I'm keeping expectations for the Switch low.)

[nocturnal YL]

The Wii U was pretty much dead (in the casual eyes, at least) when it was named Wii U. Even when it was first announced, I thought a replacement console is what would be needed sooner or later.

The Wii U had a meaningful 2015 (at least in Japan), but even during that time, the system itself wasn't particularly widely known. Some people are drawn in by Smash or Splatoon or Mario Maker, but they obviously aren't a lot of people. People who don't care about games continue to not know what a Wii U is, and those who do were reasonably waiting for the inevitable successor that might hopefully have backwards compatibility. It was apparent enough that the damage of the poor marketing was already done. Unlike the 3DS, the eventual availability of a solid library didn't fix the system.

And yes, it is because those games came too late. Nintendo 3DS: released in spring 2011; the "rescue trio" of SM3DL, MK7 and MH3U: late 2011. Wii U: released in late 2012; its games: slowly built with a "worthy" library formed in mid-2014 to late 2015 depending on who you ask.

I do agree that the Switch came too soon, but it did the marketing part right. General gamers who aren't particularly attached to one manufacturer talk about it, which is certainly a good sign. The only thing I find regrettable is that they didn't also make Mario Kart 8 Deluxe a launch game.

The Switch should do better. Its main selling point is reasonably easy to relate to, and by the end of this year when the system is still reasonably fresh, it will have enough games to defend itself in the year-end sales war.

[Evie ❤✿]

I agree with nocturnal YL's logic. I think other points to consider are that the console didn't have many launch titles other than The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and the price of the console is relatively much.

I'm not sure whether it would have been better for Nintendo to wait so they could release Super Mario Odyssey with The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and I personally don't know about competitive systems (were any new systems revealed about the time of the Nintendo Switch?). But I'm leaning towards thinking once the platform is ready it's better to get it out before competitors and apparently the profit for the system so far is good.

I wonder too what we think about titles on multiple platforms? Was releasing The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on the Wii U as well (where Breath of the Wild was [one of] the only 'big' Switch titles at launch) a good thing or a bad thing?

[nocturnal YL]

I think for both Zelda games (Twilight Princess and Breath of the Wild), it's a case of having announced the game for the original system, but development has since shifted to support also the new system. In both cases, it doesn't really hurt for them to do dual releases. Most people have already set their eyes on the new system, so it's not like the old system's version will eat into the new system's sales. I bet most people who casually follow Nintendo news don't even remember there's a Wii U version of BotW by now.

I'd say having a dual release also means if you're one of the few people who actually don't want the new system, you won't feel you're being betrayed and left out; but I think this actually creates its own problems. The slight difference between the versions can make players like me feel forced to choose between them.

[Da Robot]

The biggest problem with the Wii U, was innovation for the sake of innovation. Yeah, the Gamepad/2 screen gaming/Off TV is a nice idea, but unless you get some good marketing it's a hard idea to sell to the (mostly dumb) masses. But just because you come up with something "new" doesn't always mean it's automatically good or will even sell well. Didn't help that tech filled Gamepad drove up the price.

In terms of launch titles, Nintendo thought sales money first instead of innovation by going with New Super Mario U, a game who's only "upgrade" was Off TV play and placing platforms on the touch screen in "Boost Mode. Not a very creative use of the Gamepad right? And you thought DKC R/TF sales comparison was bad? Here's NSB sales.

NSMWii: 30.05M.
NSMU: 5.62M (and this is a launch title)

Probably would have been a better decision to have SM3DW as a launch title, at least 4P 3D Mario would have look more interesting (and prevent visual confusion between NSMWii/U by casuals) and more innovative (not by much though).

One thing I'll say about the Switch, much better marketing, better name, easier to understand concept, and the first year (or 9 months of 2017) of game releases looks MUCH better than the earlier years of the Wii U. If ended the Wii U short allowed them to get into this position, than it was worth it. (it's not like there's any other major 3rd parties supporting the Wii U in 2016/17 still apart from indies).

May 25, 2017 18:31:34 GMT -5 Evie ❤✿ said:

I wonder too what we think about titles on multiple platforms? Was releasing TheLegend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on the Wii U as well (where Breath of the Wild was [one of] the only 'big' Switch titles at launch) a good thing or a bad thing?

www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/04/zelda_breath_of_the_wild_pushes_switch_and_wii_u_sales_3ds_has_multiple_million-sellers
As of April 27th.
Switch: 2.76M (out of 2.74 Switch hardware, yes more copies of Zelda than Switch's).
Wii U: 1.08M

Seems like it was worth it. And as someone who owns the Wii U version, I'm happy I didn't need to upgrade my hardware.