Topic: "A single game saved the GB (Pokemon), it could save the Wii U too” Iwata said

[BranDonk Kong]

I don't think (and I certainly hope it's not the case) that Iwata was saying Pokémon could save the Wii U, I think he's just saying that "one game" (not a specific game) could save the Wii U like Pokémon "saved" the GameBoy.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I thought I made that clear in the post with the quote (i guess not... although I did address it), but the thread titles only allow so many characters. Words must be chosen carefully, and then clarified in the post itself.

[Ian Sane]

Iwata's Game Boy comparison isn't ideal because the Game Boy already was a successful platform and Pokemon just gave it a few more years.  I wonder if Nintendo's plan was for the Virtual Boy to effectively be the Game Boy successor and when that bombed Pokemon reviving the Game Boy bought them time to get a new successor ready (remember that in Japan Pokemon came out only a year after the VB).  Pokemon is more like if a new big hit for the Wii came out and revived that platform.

[ThePerm]

So Nintendo will finally make that mmo pokémon game that will sell like crack in the ghetto?

The title of this thread was also once "mergers and acquisitions are on the table"
which, would have us drool over sega, but from a long term plan if i were Nintendo i would force sega into exclusivity agreenments, buy xbox and then when that makes my stock jump buy sega. If you think about it, you really don't want another company buying Microsoft. its best to eliminate that problem earlier on in the game. Also buying xbox would create some oppertunities to save both xbox one and wii u. You would just have to run the same platform operating system on the two hardwares. That way any software released on xbox could just be scaled down for wii u. Their hardware is after all related. Also games on the wii u could be redesigned for xbox one and they could use a version of the gamepad for xbox one.

essentially they would become different models of the same product.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Yeah and when they merge the hardware they can call it Wii One.

It will forever be a reminder.

[BranDonk Kong]

It's just the "it" in the title that makes it seem like it's Pokémon ("it could save the Wii U too").

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

As usual a killer app like that can work on a hand held because they are cheaper and less of a dedication for most people, a console is a dedicated entertainment machine a hand held is a distraction when you are on a boring road trip or stuck on a plane/bus or visiting grandma. Most people don't sit and play their handhelds otherwise I know there are those who do but consoles are different. Most people invest in one console and pick up the others when price allows.

Right now Wii U isn't a killer app console that one game will turn around because despite all the good things it does the negative stigma and all the flaws are too apparent and too ingrained in gaming culture now. A single killer app works when the consoles are nearly indistinguishable and a game alone is the selling point but with the new consoles features are the distinguishing selling points and the features that make Wii U unique just aren't that interesting to the masses. In order for a game to be a system seller on Wii U it has to appeal to more than just the typical Nintendo crowd and the casual gamers, it has to have mass gamer appeal, Nintendo is not the company to pull that off in their current state, although I would love it if they could.

I think a hot game that ignites the dormant, on the fence, undecided and lapsed Nintendo gamers might get the ball rolling but most of those gamers are just waiting for the right game and price combination to jump in, the rest of the gamers will get Wii U as a second console when it hits second console price or has that must own Zelda game they will want eventually anyways.


Wii U might be able to steal some thunder away from Xbox One with a real killer app but that is going to be a hard sell because most people disappointed with Xbox have already settled on PS4 so it's going to be one hell of a game and current Nintendo might not be up to that challenge without some outside input.

[the asylum]

Let's be honest with ourselves here, there's currently no console-saving killer app on the plate for the Wii U.

"BOO!!! BOO AND HISS!!!" you say, "There's Smash Bros! Hyrule Warriors! and Bayonetta 2!"

Smash Bros is Smash Bros. Yes, it will definitely get a few million units moving. But enough to "save" the Wii U? I wouldn't put any money on it. It's a massive gap between what the Wii U should have been selling at this point and what it actually is selling at this point. Let's also take into account the people who bought a Wii U just for eventual Smash Bros, like me. For the most part, Smash 4 is just preaching to the choir.

Bayonetta 2? Let's take this into perspective. The first Bayonetta was one of those core games that were very elusive on the Wii, published on both the 360 and PS3, and the hype train behind it was on full steam. Pretty much since it's announcement it was hyped by EVERYONE as the hottest **** to ever be shat. And it only did 2 mil across both platforms. And even after all the gushing glowing reviews it still struggled to sell. I don't have high hopes for Bayonetta 2 being the Wii U's shining savior.

Hyrule Warriors, hm. It's Zelda, we've already seen this before. If we could have a near-unanimous praise for Mario 3D World from every professional review site (and GameSpot) and have it make minimal impact on sales, I don't think Warriors is going to be the miracle pill either.

Outside of those three, what else is there? Well I guess there's X, but as good as it looks it doesn't scream system seller to me. For the most part, JRPGs don't exactly appeal to the unwashed North American masses.

So what could save the Wii U? If big guns like Smash and Mario don't do the trick, I don't think anything will. And let's face it, the U is NEVER getting something on the scale of Titanfall or Last of Us. It's almost all in Nintendo's hands at this point. They had a whole year to wow people before the PS4 and Xbone showed up, and they just cruised along like nothing could possibly go wrong. "Big developers thumbing their noses at underpowered hardware? Pfffft, no problem! We've got Mario Party! The casuals will eat that **** up without hesitation! What're these new "smartphone" things, anyway?"

I'm a huge mark for 90s pro wrasslin, and to me, the whole Wii U situation just SCREAMS "nWo" to me. WCW struggled for years to compete with the WWF. Even after bringing in big WWF stars like Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage, they barely made a dent in McMahon's pocketbook. Then all of a sudden, Bischoff came out with the nWo stable, and for the next year and a half, they absolutely slaughtered the WWF. They were pulling in money like nobody's business- Starrcade 1997 made a 1.7 million gate. The profits were pouring in, completely blinding the growing problem underneath: the undercard matches were fantastic, but the main draws, the promotion's heavy hitters, put on horrible, horrible matches, and they got worse with each passing PPV. The big problem was, WCW looked the same in 1999 as it did in 1996. And once the WWF lucked out on Austin and Rock, WCW took a freefall. The nWo was pushed and bloated, splintered and reformed, ended and reborn, hundreds of times, and people just stopped giving a ****. The real talent had already jumped ship for the WWF, and WCW was left with nothing but a slow, painful death.

TL;DR- One trick ponies like the Wii and the nWo are just that- one trick ponies. Money has a tendency to cause blindness.

[Luigi Dude]

Smash Bros is Smash Bros. Yes, it will definitely get a few million units moving. But enough to "save" the Wii U? I wouldn't put any money on it. It's a massive gap between what the Wii U should have been selling at this point and what it actually is selling at this point. Let's also take into account the people who bought a Wii U just for eventual Smash Bros, like me. For the most part, Smash 4 is just preaching to the choir.

If those few million units put the system in a position it's making a profit then yes, that would be considered saving the Wii U.  Once again some people don't seem to understand that saving the Wii U, doesn't mean outselling the PS4/One.  All Nintendo wants to do with the Wii U is have it eventually be in a position where it's making a profit for them instead of losing money like it currently has been.  They don't need to sell over 100 million systems to do that.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

Smash Bros is Smash Bros. Yes, it will definitely get a few million units moving. But enough to "save" the Wii U? I wouldn't put any money on it. It's a massive gap between what the Wii U should have been selling at this point and what it actually is selling at this point. Let's also take into account the people who bought a Wii U just for eventual Smash Bros, like me. For the most part, Smash 4 is just preaching to the choir.

If those few million units put the system in a position it's making a profit then yes, that would be considered saving the Wii U.  Once again some people don't seem to understand that saving the Wii U, doesn't mean outselling the PS4/One.  All Nintendo wants to do with the Wii U is have it eventually be in a position where it's making a profit for them instead of losing money like it currently has been.  They don't need to sell over 100 million systems to do that.

I think it is Iawata who said saving the Wii U so the discussion was going based on his comments, he said Pokemon "saved" the Game Boy and a single game could also "save" the Wii U, his words. I am not an expert on Game Boy sales but did it really need saving?

[Stratos]

It gave the system a few extra years of life. And maybe Nintendo was considering pulling the plug on handhelds in general.

[Phil]

I think the original Game Boy Pokemon could save the Wii U too.
I agree with Mr. Iwata.


(I totally know that's not what the statement meant. )

[pokepal148]

but technically Pokemon was two games, see Iwata is wrong. #impeachiwata

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

I was just curious because I wasn't into hand helds at that time. I got my first Game Boy when they released the Pocket, I had a Super Game Boy on SNES but I used that just add value to my SNES not as a hand held. I vaguely remember Sega Game Gear and Game Boy going head to head but I always figured Game Boy trounced Sega from the get go or is that revisionist history written by fanboys?

I guess I do remember having friends who had both, not both each but I had friends with one and friends with the other same with Sega/Super so I suppose I always figured they were just about equal. I always thought Sega and Nintendo were like neck and neck until Sega started going all whacky with add ons around 94-95 and they fell apart from there. I guess if VB came out in 95 that would be the right time frame for them to start wanting to replace Game Boy but I just assumed sales were good but looking back on it they might not have been given all the revisions, the Pocket first then all the colors then the GBC all in like a three year span.

[Ceric]

It's not Revisionist history.  The Game Boy has always done better then its competitors at least in the United States.

Though if memory serves it never reached NES or SNES levels of penetration.  While the Game Gear was really cool.  The cost, battery life, and Size at the time made less then desirable.  It was much easier to convince someone to buy a GB.

Now I got my GB buy it happening to be hidden in a Used Truck that we bought with Bo Jackson Hit and Run.  Then my parents got a second one so we wouldn't fight over it and one for my Grandpa to play Tetris.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Didn't the Gamegear require 8 AA Batteries that only lasted for about 4-5 hours of play time?

[Ceric]

Didn't the Gamegear require 8 AA Batteries that only lasted for about 4-5 hours of play time?

It was something like that.  Yeah, the battery time was short.  I really wanted one with the TV adapter when I was young.

[lolmonade]

Didn't the Gamegear require 8 AA Batteries that only lasted for about 4-5 hours of play time?

Even worse was the Sega Nomad, but dammit did I want one when I was kid.  The idea of playing Sega Genesis games on the go was so damn alluring for 10 year old me.

[nickmitch]

Didn't the Gamegear require 8 AA Batteries that only lasted for about 4-5 hours of play time?

It was 6, and that was an awkward number since batteries are (almost entirely) sold in multiples of 4.  And yeah, the battery life was miserable.  The Gameboy needing only (LOL) four batteries and lasting so long (to me) is what made it win out in the end.

I'm sure Pokemon was great at driving sales because of the anime and the rest of the craze.  But, encouraging others to buy Gameboys to battle and trade made the games better.  I can't think of a console game where that has the same effect (i.e., "if you buy this console and this game, then we will both have more fun").

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

Didn't the Gamegear require 8 AA Batteries that only lasted for about 4-5 hours of play time?

It was 6, and that was an awkward number since batteries are (almost entirely) sold in multiples of 4.  And yeah, the battery life was miserable.  The Gameboy needing only (LOL) four batteries and lasting so long (to me) is what made it win out in the end.

I'm sure Pokemon was great at driving sales because of the anime and the rest of the craze.  But, encouraging others to buy Gameboys to battle and trade made the games better.  I can't think of a console game where that has the same effect (i.e., "if you buy this console and this game, then we will both have more fun").

Maybe that is what they will do with those figures, if you can trade them with friends that is.

[BlackNMild2k1]

You gotta talk your friend into buying a Wii U, and that game, and then you need to coordinate on which figures you want to own in order for the two of you to "trade" your collection through NFC.

I would assume there would have to be another way to "trade" figures or collect figures you don't own over the internet or through continued gameplay.

Either way, without causing a Pokemon-like craze, I don't see it "saving" the Wii U, unless by "saving" the Wii U, we mean making it stay viable (respectable amount of monthly sales) till the next system can finally come in and put it out of it's misery.

[marvel_moviefan_2012]

When you explain it like that, doesn't it sound just like the company who made four player games on a Game Cube that supported four controllers that still required four GBA machines plus four special cables?

[BlackNMild2k1]

And those games failed as far as I know.

[Insert Penny arcade comic here]

[nickmitch]

Yeah, those GBA/GC games didn't work.  They were a classic example of the economic principal of "doing too much".  Pokemon worked on the GB because how easy it was to get someone involved.  All you needed was for one person to have a link cable.  With the GBA/GC link games, you needed even more hardware and had to be at someone's house.  The figurines are similar in that few people are going to buy a thing, so they could buy more things to trade and play with.

[Ian Sane]

Even if one game "saves" the Wii U, what can it really do?  The Wii had Wii Sports and sold like hotcakes for the first half of its life and then was an irrelevent wasteland for the second half.  It seemed like once Wii's could consistently be found in stores Wii-mania was over.  The prolonged success was probably more about the supply failing to meet the demand.  Once the demand was met and people had their fill of Wii Sports it was all over.

The Wii has terrible third party support.  I remember for years the argument was made that third parties were merely caught off guard by the console's success and would naturally shift development to it as it became the market leader.  That never happened.  It didn't happen because third parties wanted to make multiplatform games and could not include the Wii in that development because its hardware was not on par.  The Wii U has that same limitation.

So let's say Nintendo does manage to somehow bust out a late killer app that starts moving Wii U's.  Then what?  The third party support won't return because of the hardware limitations.  The best we could hope for is the gimmicky shovelware exclusives like we got on the Wii.  Early in the Wii U's life there was talk about PS360 multiplatform releases but by the time the Wii U gets its act together those games won't be made anymore.  And with no one but Nintendo making any decent games where do things go from there?  It'll be like the Wii where the interest disappears.  The Wii U could get better sales and Nintendo could beef up their development and release games more frequently but the console itself is too restrictive for things to really improve to an acceptable level.  It will always have game droughts and poor third party support.