Topic: Wii U Logo for E3 2012 Confirms the Name Is Final

[Chozo Ghost]

The only dumb thing about the "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" name was that Nintendo completely abandoned it in favor of the "N64" and later Gamecube and eventually Wii names instead. They could have kept that "Nintendo Entertainment System" brand alive and going.

I also wasn't happy that they abandoned Gameboy for the DS brand either.

[NWR_insanolord]

I'm glad they didn't run that brand name into the ground and instead mixed things up. And dropping the Game Boy brand seemed to work out pretty well for Nintendo, since the DS will likely go down as the best selling game system in history, and the 3DS is doing even better so far.

[Chozo Ghost]

I'm glad they didn't run that brand name into the ground and instead mixed things up. And dropping the Game Boy brand seemed to work out pretty well for Nintendo, since the DS will likely go down as the best selling game system in history, and the 3DS is doing even better so far.

Its worked out fine for them. I just don't like it because I was attached to those brands because that's what I grew up with so to me I value it for nostalgia reasons.

I also don't think it would have made any difference sales wise if Nintendo had kept those brands. People have kept saying the name of a console doesn't matter, well if that's the case it also means there was no reason to adopt the Wii or DS brands in the first place, because after all the name doesn't matter right?

[Luigi Dude]

Well the whole Gameboy and DS name thing was just a result of Nintendo trying keep their options open in case the DS failed.  The DS was called the Nintendo DS instead of Gameboy DS because if the DS failed, Nintendo could have easily dropped it and just released a different successor to the Gameboy Advance with Gameboy in the title and no harm would have been done to the Gameboy brand.

But since the DS end up being more popular and selling better then any of the Gameboys ever did, that just ended up becoming the new name for Nintendo's portable devices because the name DS became the stronger brand.

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, the name change and the whole "third pillar" angle were just there as an escape hatch, because Nintendo didn't have much confidence in their little dual-screened experiment. I'm sure if Iwata were honest and talking off the record he'd tell you he was shocked that it did anywhere near as well as it did. That's probably why Nintendo's playing it a bit safer with the 3DS and Wii U, because they're smart enough to know they're not likely to get that lucky going with a crazy out-of-left-field idea this time around.

[BlackNMild2k1]

My pick for a name would be: Nexus.  It means "connection" so it has that meta connection that they want us to make, but sounds so much better! Nintendo Nexus rolls off the tongue nicely.

I'm pretty sure calling it Nexus would get them sued by Google.

I'm pretty sure calling it Nexus would get them sued by Google.

Or the WWE.

Remember this guys?

[Chozo Ghost]

they're smart enough to know they're not likely to get that lucky going with a crazy out-of-left-field idea this time around.

You never know unless you try.

Anyway, there's also a danger in being too conservative and not changing things enough. That was basically what led to the demise of Atari because each console was only incrementally different than the last, so even though all the consoles bore the name "Atari" which was a well known and popular brand at that time, the NES still kicked their ass because it had far superior graphics and other important innovations like the D-Pad. So my point is being too conservative is actually just as risky (or maybe even more so) than changing things too much. The key is balance.

[thedefalcos]

@insano:  I forgot about Microsoft's Nexus.

@blacknmild:  Holy shnikes!  Somebody actually made that connection before?  Actually, it does show that people think it's a cool name.

[Ceric]

honestly wouldn't mind that Nexus design back.

[MegaByte]

The Nexus line was possibly named for the Nexus-6 from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Blade Runner). Phillip K. Dick's daughter was apparently actually considering legal action when the Nexus One was announced.

[broodwars]

As bad as the name is, if the Wii U fails to sell to Nintendo's expectations I don't think the name will be the major reason why.  I think the single crippling problem with the Wii U is going to be convincing gamers who may currently own a PS3, 360, or PC to buy a console that mainly plays games they can already play on their existing hardware with only minimal improvements.  I don't think the call of Nintendo 1st party titles will be enough, not when Nintendo's 1st party software wasn't enough to keep their interest on the Wii.  And I just don't see casuals buying this console enough to make up for the multiplatform owners that likely won't cross back.

So what would get such gamers to make a Nintendo console their primary console again?  Honestly, I don't know.  Tech on par with the next-generation Sony or Microsoft consoles would help, but the Wii U probably won't have anywhere near that.  3rd party exclusives would help, but 3rd parties have moved away from making platform exclusives over this last generation.  Exclusive DLC content would help, but Nintendo's not the kind of company to shell out the cash for that sort of thing.  A free online service greater than Xbox Live would help, but does anyone really think Nintendo's actually capable of that yet with their low level of experience?

I think the burden of everything really rests on that controller now, and unless that controller is just capable of things we can't even imagine that completely change how we view games (and right now, it doesn't seem so) I just don't know if that'll be enough.

[Chozo Ghost]

The Nexus name could be used for a console, because "Nexus" is a real word in the English language, and while the intellectual property system may be pretty stupid at times, I'm pretty sure an already existing single word can't be copyrighted by anyone.

[Adrock]

I think the single crippling problem with the Wii U is going to be convincing gamers who may currently own a PS3, 360, or PC to buy a console that mainly plays games they can already play on their existing hardware with only minimal improvements.

Nintendo can start with their own fans. Having Wii owners who also bought PS3/360 to ditch those platforms for Wii U is a good start.

I plan on getting the Wii U version of 3rd party titles whenever possible. It would certainly help if Nintendo can convince 3rd parties to announce as many of those titles at E3. Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider are the hold-outs at the top of that list.

[thedefalcos]

Chozo:  I thought of that as well. Like the way Jaguars the car company and the Jacksonville Jaguars can co-exist.

[house3136]

 I think it’s kind of funny that putting glasses-less 3D into a handheld, and a 6 in.+ touchscreen into a controller isn’t considered to be as risky for Nintendo this generation. They want to control the roll of the dice a little more on their second throw. I wonder if Wii U, as we know it, would have ever come to fruition if Wii hadn’t been such a success, and provident for its successor?
 
In terms of the name, Wii U seems fine to me. Most electronic devices have close approximations in names between product lineups, and that doesn’t seem to be a substantial detractor to the sales success of those products. Once Nintendo finally shows real Wii U games running on the console it will become tangible. Then couple that with the fact that it will be on the market in a few months, and all of this pre-E3 frustration will diminish. 

[Ian Sane]

So what would get such gamers to make a Nintendo console their primary console again?  Honestly, I don't know.  Tech on par with the next-generation Sony or Microsoft consoles would help, but the Wii U probably won't have anywhere near that.  3rd party exclusives would help, but 3rd parties have moved away from making platform exclusives over this last generation.  Exclusive DLC content would help, but Nintendo's not the kind of company to shell out the cash for that sort of thing.  A free online service greater than Xbox Live would help, but does anyone really think Nintendo's actually capable of that yet with their low level of experience?

No one who owns a PS360 will buy a Wii U to play the same third party games but those third party games undoubtably HAVE to be there.  So what will sell core gamers on the Wii U will have to be exclusives?  Nintendo themselves will have to release some games that core gamers will buy the system for, and the third party support will then potentially keep them from buying a PS4/720 because the Wii U third party support will suit their needs.

It isn't so much that Nintendo's games didn't sell the Wii to core gamers (and actually they did, but usually as a secondary "Nintendo-only" console) but that the absence of anything else turned them off.  It isn't like Nintendo games aren't appealing, they're just not so appealing that a console with jack **** else is something anyone but the most dedicated Nintendo fan wants to own as their sole console.

The goal is to make sure that the Wii U has the majority of games that core gamers want to play, including some exclusives that tips the choice in the Wii U's favour.  The difference between the systems should be the first party titles and perhaps a few third party exclusives (thought these have become rare).

[Chozo Ghost]

No one who owns a PS360 will buy a Wii U to play the same third party games

I own a PS3 and I would buy those same third party games on the Wii U, but only under one of these conditions:

1) The Wii U version is substantially superior.

2) Even though the game is already on the PS3, its a game I do not own so there's no reason for me not to get the Wii U version of it.

I understand I'm probably a minority, but if I had a choice of giving Nintendo my money versus giving Sony my money I'd rather give it to Nintendo, simply because I like Nintendo better.

[Adrock]

+1. I agree. That's exactly why I'd get the Wii U version. I'm already buying Nintendo's own games. If Wii U played Blu Ray movies, I probably wouldn't switch terribly often.

[nickmitch]

There were a few games where I actually had a choice on whether or not to get the game on my 360 or my Wii. With Ghostbusters, I got it on Wii because of the pointer controls. I'd rather have games like Rayman Origins on my 360 for the resolution and I guess achievements. I usually don't care about those, but if it's the difference between a Wii version and a 360 version, I might as well give credit to something meaningless.

But the problem is core gamers who haven't already decided to buy a Wii U won't buy one because of the 3rd party games. Even if the features are better, it still means buying a new console. Then there's the 3rd aspect for games like Arkham City where gamers might already own it because when it came out it was kind of a big deal, and they're not likely to buy it twice.

But Ian's right in that it has to be core focused Nintendo games that bring people over. If Nintendo can justify buying the Wii U as a Nintendo-only machine, then they're at least in the door. We can't assume everyone with a Wii is going to upgrade automatically like most of us probably are. Other gamers can just ignore the console until a price drop or Zelda or until "Nintendo inevitably goes 3rd party" as doom-sayers like to say.

[Ian Sane]

If I buy a Wii U, my choice for third party games would be whatever version is superior.  But I would never buy a Wii U specifically for a third party game I could get for my PS3, even if the better version was on the Wii U.  I just can't imagine the difference in quality being so significant to spend hundreds of dollars on a new system.

Of course I also didn't buy a Wii to get Twilight Princess using the exact same logic.  I already owned a Gamecube and the Wii version isn't significantly improved (if at all) so why would buy a new system for it?  Now if I had bought a Wii at launch, maybe I would have gone with the Wii version of Zelda because I already have the new system for other reasons.  It would be a good idea to try to get some exclusive content for the Wii U versions of popular games but that isn't going to sell Wii U's, it will merely sell the Wii U version to people who own multiple consoles.

[Adrock]

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not buying a Wii U for 3rd party games. I'm buying it specifically for Nintendo's games. It's the same reason I always buy Nintendo hardware. As long as the Wii U version of 3rd party games is either on par or better than the PS3 version, I see no reason to go with the PS3 version.

I don't think anyone who already owns a PS3 or 360 is looking at Wii U for the sole purpose of buying 3rd party games. Nintendo's own software, as always, will be the difference maker. Bring back the fans who bought a PS3/360 just because certain games weren't also on the Wii. It won't be that simple but that's where it starts.

[Chozo Ghost]

Another potential thing to consider is Wii U games may retain the $49.99 of the Wii, and Amazon already has Wii U games listed for preorder at that price of $49.99 so there is some good evidence for that. If that does end up being the case, then even if a multiplatform game for the Wii U is identical to the PS360 version in all other respects, isn't the fact the Wii U game is $10 cheaper reason enough to opt for that version?

Of course that's assuming Nintendo doesn't bump the price of games up to $59.99 to match that of the competition, which they very well may do, and even if Nintendo doesn't that doesn't necessarily mean third parties won't for their games.

[Adrock]

Will 3rd parties go for that? That's only money lost to them. And if Nintendo sticks to an MSRP of $49.99, I have my doubts that 3rd parties will follow suit. They're already weary of Nintendo outselling them (perhaps unfairly so but still) and this would be just one more hurdle for them to jump over to be successful on a Nintendo console. That could end up blowing up in Nintendo's face.

[nickmitch]

3rd parties won't go for it. They already operate in a $60/game mindset. Adding a new system to put quality ports to would only increase the cost and wouldn't necessarily increase revenue. Nintendo can price their games at $50, but I don't see that price point helping anyone else but Nintendo.

[Ceric]

3rd parties won't go for it. They already operate in a $60/game mindset. Adding a new system to put quality ports to would only increase the cost and wouldn't necessarily increase revenue. Nintendo can price their games at $50, but I don't see that price point helping anyone else but Nintendo.

Considers the Margin.  If Nintendo keeps the margins were the developer gets the same amount and takes the $10 cut on there side it wouldn't matter to them.  We know Nintendo won't but thats how you mitigate it.