How could Nintendo have made the Wii U successful?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. How could Nintendo have made the Wii U successful?

User Info: Synbios459

6 months ago#1
Do you think had they tweaked a few aspects during development as well as fixed their marketing mistakes it could have done a lot better, or do you think nothing short of totally going back to the drawing board and completely changing the concept of what the Wii U eventually became would have been required?

User Info: Mariominesonic

6 months ago#2
I honestly think the Wii U would have been more of a success if it was more of a proto-switch.
In the early trailers they show them playing a game on the Wii U gamepad alone anyways While it might not have been able to run games like the switch little mini-game like the dreamcast had with the VMU, and virtual console games should have been more than possible with the tech of the time. This and a better marketing campaign could have gone a long way to help it. At the end of the day however, I think the tech was too under powered, and the architecture so outdated that it still wouldn't have gotten the ports it needed to succeed.
Questionmarktarius 6 months ago#3
All it needed to be was Wii HD.

User Info: JCuster

6 months ago#4
^This. And ditch the tablet controller. Gimmicky stuff like that hurt this system more than it helped. The system architecture needed to be just as, if not more, powerful than the 360/ps3.
Only if you say the word "Monkey."

User Info: Skill4Reel

6 months ago#5
Nintendo should have fully embraced online multiplayer gaming from the beginning, and focused their marketing for the console and it's controller around system applications and games that utilized it's features for this purpose.

It was obvious very early on that the Wii U and Nintendoland was not going to be the phenomenon that Wii and Wii Sports was. So Nintendo needed to look at the strengths of the hardware that they created, and make a different strategy around it.

There are still things that the Wii U gamepad second screen home console concept was capable of that no other console can do. I saw the gamepad as an input device that could have made in game text chat in online multiplayer games so accessible with no extra peripherals on consoles. An easy to use touch screen that could have freed up so many of the buttons in a game like Battlefield 1 where one button on the other consoles often has multiple functions. Which is extremely cumbersome.

It just seemed to me that the entire time the Wii U was available, many developers had their priorities about what to do with the hardware in the wrong place. Then the one developer like Ubisoft Singapore that had the best ideas for using the gamepad never turned those into reality with a finished game.

I wish that Nintendo would bring dual screen console gaming back with stronger hardware. There was so much that wasn't done with it.

User Info: Monoculus

6 months ago#6
Really, they needed to do two things:
-Distinguish it from the Wii name
-Take full advantage of it being a stronger Wii.

The two sound like they're opposed, but they're really not. Calling it anything other than the Wii U would've helped a bunch of casual customers realize early on that it wasn't just some new Wii hardware revision. Instead they added it to the Wii family and crippled its actual Wii compatibility. Being that, at a hardware level, it really is an updated Wii (which in itself was an upgraded GameCube), it still has native support for GameCube binaries. Yet the only way to actually play GameCube games on the Wii U is via third-party homebrew. Even when they eventually released a GameCube controller adapter, they made no effort to patch any version of the 'virtual Wii' operating system to allow for Wii/VC games that originally had GC controller support to use the USB adapter as GC ports.

Even just spending a couple extra cents in manufacturing each disc drive for mini-disc support and having a team spend a week or two writing some software for a GameCube mode that could bind the gamepad or Pro controllers as emulated GC gamepads would've given them a huge selling point, but they didn't, and instead modders ended up doing the latter for free.

Of course, the gamepad itself was also supposed to be a selling point, but it needed to go back to the drawing board too. If all the processing is going to be done remotely, there's only so much you can do for range without introducing delays, and as cheap as it feels, the resistive-touch screen is probably better for drawing games. But the battery life is abysmal, there's no way to turn it off while the console is on (even though alternate input methods were available from the start), it relied on an external stand rather than a built-in kickstand, and ultimately ended up being awkward to hold. Naturally, a bunch of games that would've worked fine without it shoehorned in features to force you to use it, and still half-assed them. Why yes, I'd love to be forced to use this clunky-ass tablet as a mobile phone instead of pulling it up on the TV screen, but no, I don't want to be able to use the headphone jack on my only available controller to listen to the game's audio; I'd rather blare this loud J-pop throughout the whole building while I play - thanks for knowing exactly what I wanted, Nintendo/Atlus!
XBL: RandomTag529 | PSN/Steam ID: FEGuy | NNID: JimBobIX
Core i7-6700k | GTX 1070 | 16GB DDR4-2666 | Windows 10 Pro + Arch Linux

User Info: SSjYagami

6 months ago#7
Different name
Stronger system
More & better games
Include standard features
Modernize online infrastructure
Improved marketing

Guaranteed success.
Mods are pathetic SJWs who abuse their administrative abilities and couldn't muster a logical defense for their actions to save their lives. Worthless.

User Info: Gary Stanton

Gary Stanton
6 months ago#8
All this is because back in the 00's Nintendo didn't believe in the advent of high-definition.

In 2012, you've paid $350 for the console (Wii U) you should've had back in 2006.
And in 2006, you've paid $250 for the console (Wii) you've already owned back in 2001 (Gamecube with motion control).
"War as a video game; what better way to raise the ultimate soldier?" - Solid Snake

User Info: Poulet_Spatial

6 months ago#9
Gary Stanton posted...
All this is because back in the 00's Nintendo didn't believe in the advent of high-definition.

In 2012, you've paid $350 for the console (Wii U) you should've had back in 2006.
And in 2006, you've paid $250 for the console (Wii) you've already owned back in 2001 (Gamecube with motion control).


In 2009 we bought the wii motion plus, providing the accuracy we were expecting in the 2006 wiimote.
In 2017 we bought the switch, the HD handled that should have been the wiiU in 2012...

The Dreamcast was a bit too ahead of its time tech wise and Nintendo seems to be cautiously avoiding to do the same ! In the end, Nintendo is alive and SEGA is dead...
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

User Info: Littlefoot

6 months ago#10
They could've put a better CPU in it to start off. It wouldn't have pissed off so many thied-party developers.
Wii U kicks the PS4's and Xbox One's ass
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. How could Nintendo have made the Wii U successful?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived