[hellotomyrars]

Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.

The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console.

And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.

[hellotomyrars]

To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain.

That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality.

I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.

[hellotomyrars]

Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125)

The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible.

I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

What started all of this is the observation that they've been successful over the last 3 console generations by not trying to compete directly with Sony and MS but instead to try and innovate and make great games people want to play (game console vs entertainment center).

This doesn't stop being true because you want to label the Wii U as a failure. Many will tell you the Wii itself was a failure. Many don't consider the Wii U a failure.

Who cares, my point stands.

[hellotomyrars]

I can’t argue with your personal feelings. My point that the hardware is underpowered compared to MS\Sony is an agreement that they aren’t trying to compete with them directly, instead making a product that has meaningful differences in form factor/function rather than technical. It is a part of how they execute that strategy.

The WiiU doesn’t reflect that trend. It was sold at a loss. It was initially sold as a machine that would have strong third-party support, unlike the Wii. Ubisoft and EA were presented front-and-center as supporting it. That only lasted for a year because the WiiU was able to compete with 360/PS3 on power, but the investment was no longer worth it for third parties to do multi-platform releases once new consoles were out. Nintendo did incorporate Xbox One-like TV control mechanisms into the WiiU.

Ultimately the issue of whether or not it was a failure is again something you can take a personal feeling about but statements made by Nintendos leadership in their official capacity are hardly shy about how much it did not meet their own expectations in the marketplace. They wanted to sell at least as many units as the Wii and sold more like 1/8th as many units.

I agree Nintendo has done well by not competing to be the third horse in a two horse race. I don’t agree that the Wii U reflected a good execution of that strategy.