The Wii U is Not a Failure - Article

And I hope people will actually try to present some kind of objective evidence of the Wii U's success instead of just thumbing me down to oblivion. :) I like my Wii U as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean it's not a failure.

5 thumbs up in 6 mins wow!

Where did the guy call it a success?

Ka-pi, How does that make wii u a success? The fact that they learned to do not what the wii u did. It doesn't change the wii u's fate, which is a low selling, low software selling device.
Amiibo's sold more off their own merit. I doubt many people bought an amiibo exclusively to unlock a costume in their game.

@Kapi Objective criteria. Learning something from a failure doesn't make it a success. It makes it a failure you learned from. As for Splatoon and Amiibo, there is no reason why these things could not exist on another more successful platform. Amiibos can be used on the 3DS (New 3DS only as of now in the US). Do you honestly think that Amiibo would not have been more successful with a larger install base?

@KLXVER- He never did, and I never said he did. What I did was ask any area where you can claim the Wii U is a success. If the Wii U was not objectively successful in any regard, I think you'd have to call it a failure.

@Machina- Sure it could be somewhere in the middle of success and failure. But why should we consider the Wii U to fall in this area, if we can't think of any areas in which it was a success? And you're giving some pretty flimsy reasoning. Because Nintendo made a system that had a feature that had been standard for nearly a decade that didn't help it sell? And I would not call the transition to HD smooth. There were tons of delays for Wii U games up to yesterday's delay of Starfox Zero. I don't know if you could call Metacritic objective... It's an aggregate of subjective opinions. And even if we count it, it's hard to credit that to the Wii U. How many of the games scoring high on Metacritic really require the Wii U's hardware? As for attach rate... The attach rate being so high is a consequence of the hardware sales being so low. Besides that, most of the games that have such high attach rates were bundled. I'd hardly consider franchises going from 10-20 million in sales to struggling to maybe hit 5 success, regardless of attach rate.

No one said if you're not a success you're a failure. The Xbox One isn't a raving success but it's certainly by no means a failure of any kind.

But JWeinCom is right, if your profits have plummetted from the last generation with awful market share after a year head start isn't a failure I don't know what is.

No one said if you're not a success you're a failure. The Xbox One isn't a raving success but it's certainly by no means a failure of any kind.

But JWeinCom is right, if your profits have plummetted from the last generation with awful market share after a year head start isn't a failure I don't know what is.

Well I would say games like Mario Kart 8, SSB4, SM3DW, Splatoon etc are successes in bot sales and reception.

Nintendo execs have talked about how rocky the transition was. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/195744/Nintendo_We_may_have_underestimated_the_shift_to_HD.php

If you see it as a failure in most respects, and think it succeeded in admittedly minor respects, wouldn't you say that failure is an apt term?

Because it have great games!?

@Machina- If you see it as a failure in most respects, and think it succeeded in admittedly minor respects, wouldn't you say that failure is an apt term?

As for HD development, Nintendo has admitted themselves that they struggled with it
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/195744/Nintendo_We_may_have_underestimated_the_shift_to_HD.php

@KLVER- Mario Kart 8 is the worst selling entry in the franchise, by far. Ditto for Smash Wii U. Mario 3D World is on track to sell less than Mario Sunshine, despite bundling. If you think the games were of the same quality as their predecessors, but they sold less, doesn't that indicate the hardware is causing the decline?

As for reception, I don't know what that has to do with whether or not the Wii U was a success. Mario Kart 8 doesn't really use the Gamepad in any meaningful way. 3D World has some throwaway touch features. Smash Bros 4 could be played without the gamepad. It even had an adapter to avoid using the gamepad.

Do you think these games couldn't be made on other hardware? That they wouldn't have sold better on other hardware? Shenmue, Skies of Arcadia, and Power Stone are all great games, but that doesn't mean the Dreamcast was a success.

Depends on how you look at it. Mario Kart Wii had an attach rate at about 35%. Mario Kart 8 has an attach rate at about 50%. Same with other titles.

Kapi, a legacy doesn't make it a success either. A success is whether it was a viable business endeavour.
Let's say wii u made a $100 profit. That means Nintendo spent time and resources on such little return.
If they could've done something else instead, and made a $100,000 profit, that's money that could be invested back into the next gen to make an even better product.

Assuming Wii U overall made a loss or small profit, there's no room for return on investment, so likely share holders sell shares, they lose business partners (i.e. EA) and the prospect looks worse for their next device.

It doesn't depend on how you look at it, it depends if you want to try to spin things in a biased manner or not.

If we're going to use attach rate of top selling games as an indication of the game and system's success, then we can come up with all sorts of ridiculous comparisons. For example, Sonic Adventure for the Dreamcast has a far better attach rate than the PS2's best seller (GTA San Andreas). In fact, Crazy Taxi also has a better attach rate. So, by the wacky logic you're trying to use, Crazy Taxi was more successful than San Andreas, and the Dreamcast was more successful than the PS2.

And that's why we don't use attach rates. Because when consoles don't sell well, that inflates the attach rate of its more successful titles, especially when there is a loyal core fanbase like Nintendo or Sega's involved.

If you want to somehow argue that a game selling 30 million copies less than its predecessor and making about a third of a billion dollars less than its predecessor is somehow a sign that its system is more successful, than all I can say is that I hope you never run a business.

Mario Kart 8 has sold 5 million copies on a console with an install base of 10 million. That's amazing. Doesn't matter what the previous game sold. The downside is the WiiU sales numbers, not Mario Kart 8s...

Exactly The problem is the Wii U sale numbers. That means that the Wii U is not a successful platform (a failure) as I was arguing, and that Mario Kart 8 does not show that the Wii U was a success as you were arguing.

JWeinCom, sorry I'm so late to the party (that I'm at least partially responsible for), I actually had to pick up a new PC so I could participate halfway decently. I can't even begin to try to address your many points. You made quite a few, and they sound very good. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you have accurate research behind your various claims, and I commend you for that. My article is to a large extent, driven by semantics and philosophical in nature, not statistical or scientific. It is very likely that I failed to express my thoughts clearly (regardless of if they seemed to have enjoyed the article, some seem to have "gotten it," and others not so much). I acknowledge the sales struggles, and likely concede on every point you make. I believe I even acknowledged that in you can in fact technically call it a failure. I don't argue otherwise because I like it, but because I feel that it is a short-sighted, oversimplification of a complex situation. I'm a small business owner, and over the years I have only come to believe more and more that money is not everything. I know that makes me a poor business man, and I concede that I'm not very good at it, but that doesn't change my convictions. I believe you acknowledged that I did not claim it to be a success outright, but I, in the article, and others, in the comments, have made many points that you choose to gloss over while sticking to the hard numbers and not looking beyond that. And that's fine if you choose to continue to do so. It's like love, you can largely explain the phenomenon we call love through various physiological and biological processes. And some people are content with that. In that way, it could be said that our bodies fool our brains into feeling "tangible" connections to others that could be wiped out or increased through medications. And I believe there is truth to that, but I also feel that stopping there defies the experience of life and love, and likely is not the full explanation. It is in that same way that calling the Wii U a failure (short of saying very specifically a commercial or financial failure, which still may be a bit extreme, we'd need numbers directly from Nintendo to clear that up) is not accurate. It may be splitting hairs because of my wayward ideals, but it's how I feel. So as much as people may have not addressed your request for empirical proof of success, you initial challenge fails to address my philosophical approach that you yourself seemed to have recognized from the start. So I feel it's only fair to say they are no more missing the point than you, relative from where you choose to start this dialogue. Not that I'm saying anyone deserves to be flogged for some egregious sin, it's just that you seemed disappointed and frustrated that others would not stick with you on a very specific train of thought, which is ironic because you failed in the same way to start this. That said, I love dialogues, and I sincerely appreciate your input and the life you brought to this discussion. I have a feeling we will hear more from you, and I look forward to it.

That's not what I was arguing...
The WiiU is a commercial failure, but its not a failure in every aspect.

@KLX- That's fine and all, but I don't think anything is a failure in every aspect. Even the Virtual boy had a good tennis game, even Tim Tebow has thrown a touchdown pass, and so on. I'm not even sure what a failure in every aspect would mean... unless it came bricked in the box. Despite having some good games that sold well relative to the install base, I think it is perfectly fair to label the Wii U a failure with no qualifiers.


@Author- I completely understand your argument, but it ultimately boils down to "I personally like the Wii U". You point out a few nice looking games, that it has the definitive version of a minor third party game, and its online interface isn't quite as far behind as it once was. Frankly, I don't think that's very compelling.

I fully understand your philosophical point of view, but I reject it. You're perfectly free to like Wii U, and write an article about why you like it. However, when you say things like "The Wii U could be called many things, but a failure should not be one of them." or "The Wii U is not a failure". You are not presenting an opinion claim, you are presenting a truth claim.
And if you are presenting a truth claim, there needs to be objective facts to back it up.

By any standard we would typically use to judge a technology or entertainment product (hardware sales, hardware sales vs predecessor, marketshare, revenue, profits, software sales) the Wii U is an unqualified failure. If you are trying to argue that we can't call the Wii U a failure because you, and other people including myself, enjoyed it, then you are calling into question our ability to judge anything by objective standards, and I totally reject that.

It appears as though you are trying to create and control the rules in order to achieve what you set out to achieve. You telling me what my intentions are in a statement I make would be the case in point. The entire article is clearly an opinion, as is that closing sentence. Doing that as you did and summarily dismissing it on account of your arbitrary determination qualifies is old fashioned straw man tactics. In fact, if I say "You should take the highway," that is a suggestion or an opinion; it's not a "truth claim," nor is the sentence that I wrote. As for the title of the article, that is clearly a statement made as though it is a fact, but a title is designed to entice, and must be brief. In attempting to achieve that, I apologize if it was misleading. I thought the body of the article would surely clear up any misunderstanding, and I believe it did for you, but acknowledging that would be inconvenient. If you’re looking for affirmation to your “objective failure” claim, I already tried to offer it. I stand by the point of the article, it’s about trying to open people’s minds and get them to consider different perspectives. You are entitled to reject that, my intentions, my very existence, and anything else you desire, as can I. But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

As someone who has written articles online, I know from firsthand experience that people have expectations based on the article. If the title is a fact statement, then do not act shocked if people expect the article to back up that fact statement.

And no, "You should take the highway" is not just an opinion. It is a truth claim/statment (to explain clearly what I mean, I am defining truth claim as any statement whose truth value can be assessed. I may be using the term incorrectly, but if I am, it should be clear now). It is implying that taking one course of action (taking the highway) is better than another course of action (not taking the highway). If we were driving together, we could assess the truth value of this statement. For example, if there is a six car pileup on the highway and we had a pregnant woman in the car about to give birth, then we could objectively say that the statement "you should take the highway" is not true. (Assuming that we both accept the premise that we like babies to live and neither of us has the expertise to safely deliver a baby). Even in a less extreme circumstance we could weigh the pros and cons of taking the highway and assess the statement as true or false, or, justified or not justified.

Just because your statement about the highway is an opinion does not mean we can not assess the truth, or justification, of that opinion. Contrary to popular belief, opinions can certainly be wrong, and therefore have a truth value. Opinion =/= preference.

So when you say, "The Wii U could be called many things, but a failure should not be one of them" this is a claim we can evaluate for its truthfulness. Either we are justified in calling the Wii U a failure (meaning we should) or we are not justified (we shouldn't). Since I disagree with your position that we should not, I brought up facts to support my position. If you think this is a strawman argument, you do not know what a strawman argument is. Bringing in other information to address a point is not a strawman, nor is refusing to address the proposition on the terms you set forth. Just because you want to define failure in one way, does not mean I have to go along with that, especially as I feel your criteria is flawed.

So, yes, I get that your trying to get people to look at things in a different way. And I feel this perspective you're endorsing is flawed and renders your conclusion invalid. Why? Well, let's look at your claims for why the Wii was less successful than the Wii U. You make the claim that the Wii did not get certain third party games, which is a claim that can be made for the Wii U as well. You make the claim that the Wii has weak multimedia capabilities compared to its rivals, which can again be said about the Wii U. You claim that the online interface lags in comparison to its competitors, which again can easily be said for the Wii U. So why don't we apply these negatives to the Wii U?

Meanwhile, what did you use to show that we should regard the Wii U as a success? It had a few good looking games? I think Kibry's Epic Yarn, Skyward Sword, and Super Mario Galaxy were lovely games. Backwards compatibility? Wii had that. Definitive version of certain multiplatform games? Rayman Raving Rabbids, Epic Mickey 2, EA Active, and Just Dance say hello. Virtual console? Wii had it too. And yes Wii U has more, but that's simply a matter of time. So why don't we apply these positives to the Wii?

Your perspective is that instead of using objective standards that are commonly accepted in evaluating the success of two different products, we should simply cherry pick arbitrary criteria that we apply inconsistently at our convenience.

This is akin to saying "I think Fantastic Four was a successful movie because Invisible Woman was pretty" or "I think Nikoli's Pencil Puzzles was more successful than Grand Theft Auto V because it had 100% more Sudoku". If you think your criteria for determining success or failure is valid, then try disproving either of those positions with it :).

It is now completely unclear to me how a “truth claim” is different from an opinion; your initial use and clarification of the two indicated there was. Of course an opinion can be wrong, but I most often see them as having varying amounts of value. That right there is a lessen in itself about me, I dislike labels.
That was a huge driving force in writing this article, I almost always see them as extreme and/or narrow minded. Similar to how my title may be an injustice to what I’m trying to say in the article, particularly because of how short it is. All the more so, throwing out a one-word description of anything, including a game console, regardless of your intended meaning (e.g. sales/commercial failure), can be misleading to others.
I couldn’t care less if the Wii U is a sales success, or even a success or failure in any context. I don’t have much of a concern over whether or not the Wii U bankrupts Nintendo. I mean, I hate “sad” things happening, but it doesn’t personally effect me in any big way. What absolutely drives me mad is people oversimplifying things, and falling victim to confirmation bias. If even once, the labeling of the Wii U as a failure caused someone to never try it, as obviously that doesn’t make it sound too appealing, than it’s one time too many in my neurotic little brain.
I’m the type of person who feels that every one should have an open mind and be open to new experiences. If someone tries the Wii U with an open mind and doesn’t enjoy it, while I may disagree, it’s no problem for me to respect and move on from. This was me expressing my feelings and playing “devil’s advocate” to try to make sure people aren’t being small minded, even in the least (videogames are not that important in the big picture). Being small-minded is counterproductive and potentially dangerous, I feel very strongly about that.
Your concern was that my stance, and the answer you might receive from others, would be too subjective. A subjective view is practically the definition of opinion. So as I tried to bow out of the challenge you laid, stating the my statements are simply opinions, rather than the “truth claims” you said they were so they could be judged as objectively true or not, you redefine “truth claims” to effectively be an opinion, which is by its definition subjective, that you choose to interpret as an objective claim .
Not only did you make that subtle change in order to continue your pursuit, but you likened my suggestion/opinion of how/what we should consider things like the Wii U to a convoluted life and death situation of racing to the hospital to deliver a baby, but me suggesting the highway which unbeknownst to me has a six car pile up, which might prevent us from making it there before the baby is delivered, and that delivering babies outside of the hospital increases mortality rates (I’m sure there are some studies on this, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if you could find conflicting studies.) Not only are those stunningly (and unnecessarily) rigid parameters (why can’t we get take a different exit as we see traffic ahead backing up, and possibly make it to the hospital in time, just a few minutes later than we would have liked; or why can’t we coincidentally come to a stop right next to an ambulance, and they deliver the baby with nearly of all the necessary equipment; or better yet, what if we’re racing to the hospital because of contractions, but they’re only Braxton Hicks contractions and it’s a false alarm?), but I don’t see how any of that parallels me saying that we all should stop being so quick to label, and try to see some light in a world that can be awfully dark.
So you build up my opinion to be a claim that I know the best way (and possibly only) way to the hospital, and then you show how if I’m wrong about that claim (because of bizarrely narrow parameters) a baby might die, so now we need to judge my opinion/claim in hindsight as a guarantee to a safe and sound delivery of a newborn. And because of the hypothetical six car pile up, I’m wrong, both about me suggesting we take the highway as well as me saying my suggestion is/was just a suggestion? Yes, that is attacking a straw man.
You make a lot of excellent points, and you express them well, but they’re off topic. You can tell me they’re not, but as the creator of the article, even if it’s a poorly written article, I reject that. I reject that this was ever supposed to be about cold, hard numbers. And I do that not because I can’t win your challenge (admittedly I cannot show you how the Wii U was a commercial success), but simply because it’s true.
I get that it’s frustrating because of how strongly the facts support your stance. It’s similar to debating the existence of God(s). You can cite scientific evidence against it (and likely make a good case) but someone who believes (possibly for no objective reason) can simply say they know God is real because of their “experiences” with him, because they can “feel” him. You’re trying to have a debate grounded in stats and science, and I’m trying to cling to hopes and ideas that there is more beyond what the numbers and evidence might indicate on the surface. It’s infuriating (I been through that example more than once, and from different sides), but there’s nothing you can do to stop me from having my feelings that we should look for the good in things, even if that means digging deeper than is convenient or desirable for one reason or another. (Also, sorry for just now realizing that I could space paragraphs, I think I thought hitting enter would send the comment. I saw you did it, and it helped me grow as a comment poster, so thanks.)

"""""""""It is now completely unclear to me how a “truth claim” is different from an opinion; your initial use and clarification of the two indicated there was"""""""""""""

I don't think my clarification indicated that. Opinion and truth are not mutually exclusive. If it was confusing, it should not be by this point.

""""""""""""I couldn’t care less if the Wii U is a sales success, or even a success or failure in any context."""""""""""""""

Well, you wrote a persuasive essay about it, so I would imagine you did. Otherwise you chose a very strange topic to write about :-/

"""""""""""""If even once, the labeling of the Wii U as a failure caused someone to never try it, as obviously that doesn’t make it sound too appealing, than it’s one time too many in my neurotic little brain. """"""""""""""""""""'

Which has nothing to do with whether that label is actually apt.

"""""""""""""""A subjective view is practically the definition of opinion. So as I tried to bow out of the challenge you laid, stating the my statements are simply opinions, rather than the “truth claims” you said they were so they could be judged as objectively true or not, you redefine “truth claims” to effectively be an opinion, which is by its definition subjective, that you choose to interpret as an objective claim ."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I didn't redefine anything. I realized my term may have been confusing, so I clarified. Your statement is a subjective opinion about an proposition that can be objectively right or wrong. If we can evaluate the proposition, we can assign a truth value to your subjective statement.

You can't simply bow out by saying "these are opinions" (not honestly at least) because opinions can be wrong. So labeling them as opinions doe not excuse you from defending them. Of course, if you have no interest in defending your opinions, I have no interest in forcing you to.

""""""""""""""""Not only did you make that subtle change in order to continue your pursuit, but you likened my suggestion/opinion of how/what we should consider things like the Wii U to a convoluted life and death situation of racing to the hospital to deliver a baby, but me suggesting the highway which unbeknownst to me has a six car pile up, which might prevent us from making it there before the baby is delivered, and that delivering babies outside of the hospital increases mortality rates""""""""""""""

Since you don't seem to know what a strawman is, let me help you out. What you just said is a strawman argument.

I never compared to the Wii U to delivering a baby, and I don't think there is any logical reason to suggest that I did. You brought the example of the highway as a hypothetical statement to show that suggestions cannot be regarded as true or false. I made my own hypothetical (building on yours) to show that we can use relevant evidence to evaluate suggestions and determine if they are right or wrong. This was not brought up in relation to the success or failure of Wii U.

""""""""""""""So you build up my opinion to be a claim that I know the best way (and possibly only) way to the hospital, and then you show how if I’m wrong about that claim (because of bizarrely narrow parameters) a baby might die, so now we need to judge my opinion/claim in hindsight as a guarantee to a safe and sound delivery of a newborn. And because of the hypothetical six car pile up, I’m wrong, both about me suggesting we take the highway as well as me saying my suggestion is/was just a suggestion? Yes, that is attacking a straw man. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

No I absolutely did not, and it is dishonest to suggest that I did. Are you seriously trying to suggest that I attempted to make you "wrong" about a purely imaginary driving scenario? Because that is totally ridiculous. Seriously, why would any sane person be arguing about which of two completely imaginary routes to take? Why would you think that I would be doing that O_o..?

I'm not saying "you're wrong because you want to take the imaginary highway". I'm saying you're wrong for saying that the statement "we should take the highway" has no truth value, and I am using a hypothetical situation to illustrate that this question can (and I would say pretty much always does) have a truth value. The pregnant woman was just to make the truth value of the situation easy to discern.

It is abundantly clear by my language (IF and FOR EXAMPLE to denote that this is a hypothetical) that I am not saying this is a position you actually hold. And just by the basic context of the argument it should be clear that I am not seriously trying to debate which imaginary road we should take.
Again, stop throwing the term strawman around if you do not know what it means. Funny enough, claiming I was trying to "attack" a purely and clearly hypothetical statement when I clearly was not IS a strawman... Either that or you don't understand how hypothetical examples work.

""""""""""""""""""""""You make a lot of excellent points, and you express them well, but they’re off topic. You can tell me they’re not, but as the creator of the article, even if it’s a poorly written article, I reject that. I reject that this was ever supposed to be about cold, hard numbers. """""""""""""""""""""""""

Yes the Wii U is not a failure, as long as we're not allowed to bring up any area in which it failed...

You presented an opinion piece claiming we should not call the Wii U a failure for the reasons you suggested. In response, I claimed that we should call the Wii U a failure and offered my reasons. I can't possibly think of anything that could be more on topic.

Just because you wrote an persuasive essay about a whether we should call the Wii U a failure does not give you any kind of special power to claim we can only evaluate your position on the criteria that you deem worthy. People are free to bring in other evidence to address your points. That's how discussion works. And you can reject my evidence, but if you reject it without a valid reason, that is a cherry picking fallacy.

""""""""""""""""""I get that it’s frustrating because of how strongly the facts support your stance."""""""""""""""""""""""""

If the facts don't support your stance, why is it your stance?

""""""""""""""It’s similar to debating the existence of God(s). You can cite scientific evidence against it (and likely make a good case) but someone who believes (possibly for no objective reason) can simply say they know God is real because of their “experiences” with him, because they can “feel” him."""""""""""""""""

So... you complained that I was trying to compare the Wii U being a failure to a convoluted scenario, and now you're comparing it to god? I mean... do you seriously think an existential question about an potential being is the same type of claim as the success or failure of the Wii U? Just cause you don't like things being black and white does not mean you have to intentionally obfuscate the matter.

But no, it is not like that because the Wii U is not some metaphysical gaming console. We have very well established criteria for evaluating the success or failure of a product. We don't need to drag metaphysics into this.

""""""""""""""""""and I’m trying to cling to hopes and ideas that there is more beyond what the numbers and evidence might indicate on the surface.""""""""""""""""""""""

You're trying to argue that instead of using consistent criteria to evaluate proposition we should just consider whatever we feel to be valid. If this is the case, and feeling is all that matters, how can we possibly evaluate any proposition?

...but there’s nothing you can do to stop me from having my feelings that we should look for the good in things, even if that means digging deeper than is convenient or desirable for one reason or another."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

No, I can not stop you from having your feelings, nor did I try to. However, when you express those feelings in an article on a public forum in the form of a persuasive essay, you open those opinions to questioning and evaluation.

Are you really trying to suggest that the success of the Wii U is something we just have to "feel" in our hearts like some people claim to "feel god"? Because if you're claiming that this vague "feeling" is a valid basis for an opinion, then you have made it impossible to have any rational conversation or debate on the matter. In which case, not to be rude, I'd have to wonder why you would write a persuasive essay on the topic.

You know, Mr. Feeny seemed so much more reasonable on the show. I admire the way you methodically responded to various things I stated, but I fear we're both beginning to make fools of ourselves. I can't go through and do what you did, I don't have the stomach to do it even if I had the time. Neither of us are making any progress, and I'm sure both us feel we have somehow substantiated our position. The truth is neither of us are fit to make that determination in any kind of effective, impartial manner.

Again I want to stress that you’ve made many good points, and another one or two that you made is that regardless of my intention or expectation, I’ve opened myself up to this “discussion” we’re having. You’re absolutely right, and of course that is at least in part by design. It’s good mental exercise going back and forth like this, but I had hoped for something a little bit different. Alas, beggars cannot be choosers. We’re just going back and forth, spinning our tires, and ultimately digging ourselves deeper into the positions we had at the start.

You acknowledged that I never claimed the Wii U was a success, and that is especially true in terms of sales or commercial success. That is fairly straight forward. The article was about trying to see some positives in what the Wii U has done and in what it offers, rather that simply calling it a failure because of sales figures and glossing over any redeeming qualities.

I’m not sure who you normally deal with, and how you deal with them, but you stating something, no matter how much conviction you have while saying, does not make it true. Rejecting things like you have establishes nothing save for the fact that you disagree with it. Telling me what I intended when I said ‘it’s not a failure,’ and telling me I cannot bow out, or that I cannot do it honestly, is all laughable to me. Literally. I’m not sure if it’s an attempt at a Jedi mind trick or what, but it’s completely ineffective.

Lastly, I know you’re smarter than to think that I ever compared the Wii U to God. Maybe you didn’t phrase that as intended, but as it stands, that comment is absurd. I was empathizing with you, and effectively confirming what you now put in your last paragraph. In case you’re completely unfamiliar, science vs. creationism can often devolve into largely accepted science against whatever creationists need to suite their position (less accepted science, simply rejecting accepted science, or relying on rather subjective and anecdotal evidence.) It can be a lot deeper and better based than that (in my opinion), but the point is, is their stance is not based in science, you can spew the science all you want, it will likely be of no use. That’s what it is here. I was never claiming the Wii U as a success by the numbers, you can cite the numbers all day, but it does nothing to persuade me, because I already knew, accepted, and outright acknowledged the numbers. In the article I admitted that in the proper context you can call the Wii U a failure. The point was and is that there are positives about it, subjective as that may be, and that in the interest of fairness, they should not be overlooked on the whole. All too often we are too critical and close minded in how we view things.

After reading the many responses the author gave to JWeinCom (maaaan this discussion has being good) I get that he feels strongly about this because people calling the Wii U "A failure" might stop others from trying it and see how good of a product it is.

Now, the thing is that, by any objective criteria, the Wii U IS a commercial failure. Does that make it a bad product? of course not. But WE CAN call it a failure.

So I think that instead of saying: "The Wii U could be called many things, but a failure should not be one of them" he should have said "The Wii U could be called many things, but a bad console should not be one of them".

@Chakkra You got it man. Glad you're enjoying the discussion. I was actually debating whether or not to reply, but you've swayed me :p. Call me a stickler if you will but I think accuracy is important and as you point out those two claims are very different.

""""""""""""""""""""""You know, Mr. Feeny seemed so much more reasonable on the show."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I don't appreciate being called unreasonable, especially not in a passive aggressive manner. I also don't appreciate ad hominen attacks. What exactly have I said that is unreasonable?

""""""""""""""""""""""' I admire the way you methodically responded to various things I stated, but I fear we're both beginning to make fools of ourselves.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I don't believe I've made a fool of myself at all. If you think you're making a fool out of yourself, that's your call.

""""""""""""""""""" I can't go through and do what you did, I don't have the stomach to do it even if I had the time. Neither of us are making any progress, and I'm sure both us feel we have somehow substantiated our position. The truth is neither of us are fit to make that determination in any kind of effective, impartial manner.""""""""""""""""""""

If you don't think you can make a determination, you probably shouldn't have tried. As for me, I can, because I'm providing evidence. Do you really think there is no way to evaluate how successful a product is? Because it happens all the damn time. And even if we don't have a 100% perfect method of it, we have a pretty decent framework.

Let's play a game. Game.com vs Nintendo DS. Which is more successful? If you can answer that question, then you can evaluate how successful products are. And I have faith that you can.

"""""""""""""""""""""""Again I want to stress that you’ve made many good points, and another one or two that you made is that regardless of my intention or expectation, I’ve opened myself up to this “discussion” we’re having. You’re absolutely right, and of course that is at least in part by design. It’s good mental exercise going back and forth like this, but I had hoped for something a little bit different. Alas, beggars cannot be choosers. We’re just going back and forth, spinning our tires, and ultimately digging ourselves deeper into the positions we had at the start."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

I'll change my position just as soon as you provide a rational reason to do so. Nothing wrong with sticking with an opinion that is not refuted.

Besides, you should be happy because this drags up the comment number and gets you more hits.

"""""""""""""""""""""""You acknowledged that I never claimed the Wii U was a success, and that is especially true in terms of sales or commercial success. That is fairly straight forward. The article was about trying to see some positives in what the Wii U has done and in what it offers, rather that simply calling it a failure because of sales figures and glossing over any redeeming qualities. """""""""""""""""""""""""""

Except the article says in the title the Wii is not a failure, in the conclusion that the Wii U should not be called a failure, and in the thesis that it is a mistake to call the Wii U a failure. You said at least three times in mildly different ways that the Wii U is not a failure, and it is.

And I don't mean to seem angry, but I gotta put this in caps cause you keep coming back to it.

I DON'T CARE WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS TRYING TO DO. THE ARTICLE MAKES SPECIFIC CLAIMS THAT CAN BE ASSESSED AS TRUE OR FALSE.

"""""""""""""""""""""I’m not sure who you normally deal with, and how you deal with them, but you stating something, no matter how much conviction you have while saying, does not make it true.""""""""""""""""

Why does who I normally deal with matter? What does how I deal with them matter? Are my statements true or false? Stop it with the ad hominen.

Saying these things with conviction does not make it true. Which is why I've backed up (as you've seemingly admitted) what I've said with evidence and logic. If you can't show where I've been wrong, don't say I'm wrong. If you can show it, I'll happily concede.

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””telling me I cannot bow out, or that I cannot do it honestly, is all laughable to me. Literally. I’m not sure if it’s an attempt at a Jedi mind trick or what, but it’s completely ineffective. “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’

Yeah. Well when you decide to be a liar and take my quote out of context, it does make me seem pretty laughable doesn’t it?

I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re just innocently misunderstanding me anymore. At this point, it’s happened often enough that it’s outright lying. To show what I said,

“You can't simply bow out by saying "these are opinions" (not honestly at least) because opinions can be wrong. So labeling them as opinions does not excuse you from defending them. Of course, if you have no interest in defending your opinions, I have no interest in forcing you to. “

So when you cut out the part where I say the opposite of what you’re implying I said, it sounds pretty dumb. You’re riding those strawmen so hard you’re going to get a rash on your junk.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" The fact Rejecting things like you have establishes nothing save for the fact that you disagree with it."""""""""""""""""

No, which is why I gave reasons for rejecting it. I showed how using subjective criteria that is not applied consistently prevents any form of valid judgement.

Is the statement "John Carter from Mars isn't a failure because it had a good action scene" (the movie lost like millions and millions of dollars) valid or invalid based on the logic you're using? If not, then I'd suggest that logic is flawed.

"""""""""""""""""""""Telling me what I intended when I said ‘it’s not a failure,’""""""""""""""""""""""""

No, I never said what you intended. And, I've corrected you on this strawman I think more than once, and you're still going on with it. I don't care what you intended. I care about what you said, and about whether or not that is true. I'm not reading your thoughts or your intentions, I'm reading the words you published.

"it's not a failure" means, it's not a failure. It is a sentence with words that have fairly defined meanings. "it's not a failure" does not mean "it did a few things right" which is why the overwhelming majority of the comments say "yeah it's a failure". And it doesn't help that you do not define what you feel failure to mean, or set any kind of consistent criteria, subjective or objective, to judge it.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Lastly, I know you’re smarter than to think that I ever compared the Wii U to God. Maybe you didn’t phrase that as intended, but as it stands, that comment is absurd. """""""""""""""""""""""""""
To be honest, I don't know why you would bring up god. Quite possible I misinterpreted it. Absurd to bring it up in the first place.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""I was empathizing with you, and effectively confirming what you now put in your last paragraph. In case you’re completely unfamiliar, science vs. creationism can often devolve into largely accepted science against whatever creationists need to suite their position (less accepted science, simply rejecting accepted science, or relying on rather subjective and anecdotal evidence.) It can be a lot deeper and better based than that (in my opinion), but the point is, is their stance is not based in science, you can spew the science all you want, it will likely be of no use. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Which is why I don't want to get into it, cause I'll probably wind up offending someone. While I have strong opinions on god and creationism, I do not like to bring it up in unrelated topics. But whatever.

Why should a claim which is not based on any evidence be treated with the same regard as subjective of anecdotal evidence? To get away from religion...

Should the argument "an analysis of the medical records of 2 billion children showed no link between vaccination and autism" be treated with the same regard as "my cousin's son got a vaccine and now he's autistic"?

If you think these claims should be regarded equally, you're not thinking rationally. If you think that one claim is more valid than the other, how do you suggest we go about determining which is true?

"""""""""""""""""""""""That’s what it is here. I was never claiming the Wii U as a success by the numbers, you can cite the numbers all day, but it does nothing to persuade me, because I already knew, accepted, and outright acknowledged the numbers. """""""""""""""""""""""""""

Oh you weren't trying to say the Wii U was a success by the numbers? I don't care yet again. I was saying the Wii U was a failure by the numbers to counter what you said, as have quite a few other people in the comments.

If you want to cherry pick totally random facts like the Wii U has a few games with good graphics, and ignore the best criteria we have for evaluating success and counter with the vague and flimsy evidence you've given, then what can I say? Your position is unreasonable.

""""""""""""""""""""""""'In the article I admitted that in the proper context you can call the Wii U a failure. """"""""""""""""""""

The Wii U is a failure in the proper context.... But the Wii U should not be called a failure. And calling the Wii U a failure is a mistake....

@_o Can you please define the terms "proper context", "failure", "mistake", and "should"? Because if all of these words mean what I think they mean then you cannot possible hold all of these positions at once.

""""""""""""""""""""The point was and is that there are positives about it, subjective as that may be, and that in the interest of fairness, they should not be overlooked on the whole. All too often we are too critical and close minded in how we view things."""""""""""""""""""""

Aside from the part about subjective evidence, I generally agree with this point which is why I didn't challenge it. But this is not the point I was objecting to.

I was objecting to the point you made in several different ways in the article including the three most prominent parts (conclusion, title, thesis) that the Wii U is not a failure and/or should not be considered a failure.

I further reject that these statements are statements which we cannot evaluate objectively, and that the evidence you presented to support any of the claims in the argument is valid (and don't say I'm just rejecting things for no reason, because I explained why).

Don't care if what you said is right by your standards and definitions. We (by we I mean people who care about whether or not something is true) use evidence and logic whenever applicable. If your opinion is just "I like some things about the Wii U so it's not a failure" then I have no idea don't know why you felt that to be worth sharing.

I apologize if anything I said was offensive to you. The Mr. Feeny comment was meant to be funny, not a personal attack. As for bringing God or religion into it, it felt like a fitting comparison, again sorry if that upset you.

I don't recall once saying that you were wrong about any of the facts that you have used. I conceded the "commercial failure" part, and I've more than once commended you for your stance and how you supported it. To be honest, I'm not even entirely sure what we're going back and forth over. I felt "failure" was a bit harsh and too absolute (it does have many meanings, and in my experience, people tend to favor the more negative definition) . You, and many others, feel differently, and for good reasons. We're disagreeing over semantics.

Somehow all of that spiraled into I don't even know what. It was fun at times, but seemingly hardly ever productive. I think we actually agree on quite a bit (I think, I might be way off, I'm not sure how well I'm recollecting), but somehow the little differences were made to be much bigger than they are/were. So yeah, the main thing I wanted to say was that I am really sorry if you felt like I was attacking you. That certainly wasn't my intention, but it would not be the first time my intention didn't sit well with you. And I said it once before, I do appreciate your contributions in the comments. I saw the one about 'Nintendo could have sold a lump a coal and not go under' and got a chuckle out of it. I'm not so sure how much comments help me get views, and I've noticed that replies don't seem to be counted on the main article comment count; but again I'm not sure how much all of that matters anyhow. So thanks again. I trust if I don't see any more replies from you here, that we will cross paths again soon enough.

Fair enough. I appreciate your apology.

What's considered a commercial failure? A console that has sold only 10m units but profits from it, is technically a success. A console that has sold 24m yet doesn't make a profit, could technically be called a failure.

The Wii U isn't sold at a profit. If there's any profit it'd come from SW sales of games like MK8 and Smash

What's considered a commercial failure? A console that has sold only 10m units but profits from it, is technically a success. A console that has sold 24m yet doesn't make a profit, could technically be called a failure.

A commercial failure is a product that fails to recoup R&D/distribution costs on its own. If profits have to come from elsewhere to cover it, the product failed on a commercial level. At only a little over 10 million sold, the Wii U is most definitely a commercial failure. I mean, the Gamecube just barely made it into the black before it left the market, and that sold more than twice as much as the Wii U now. Development costs have only gone up. At the least, the Wii U likely needs to sell around 20 million to at least be considered neutral, neither success nor failure.

Sorry for the double comment.
But actually yes, the Wii U IS sold at a profit. Nintendo said so themselves.

Sorry for the double comment.
But actually yes, the Wii U IS sold at a profit. Nintendo said so themselves.

Wii U sold at at a loss until sales reported in oct 2014. From then till now its sold about 2 million consoles. The remaining 8.4 million were sold at a loss.

Being sold at a profit doesn't make something magically successful. As I mentioned, it needs to be able to recoup all the costs that went into making and distributing it while going on to make a noteworthy profit to be considered a commercial success. Depending on when the Wii U started being sold at a profit (especially if it's that October 2014 date), Nintendo is probably just deeper in the red with the system alone than they were when it initially launched. In the end, the Wii U is a monetary loss for Nintendo, just as the Gamecube very nearly was. Software and their handheld sector are where the profits come from, but those can't be used to excuse something as major as a commercial failure home console.

On top of what Henry said, as if i'd believe a system needing a price cut for a long time now without getting one would be sold at a profit. They didn't drop it cause they couldn't, not because they didn't feel like it. They're not selling the Ouya, their target isn't the sales they've been having or even close.

Definitely a HATER

87th gen? oops I mean 8th gen.

I don't believe I ever claimed it to be a success commercially. The aim was to encourage people to consider looking beyond the painfully obvious and see some of the good things that it offers and has accomplished.

Splatoon did not not sell well? WTF? do you even check news at least? it's already beating smash sales LT in japan WTF are you saying if you don't know shut your mouth please

I'm not sure what other reference there should be. I believe that is included in support of the idea that sometimes a misstep, or even a loss, can actually result in a better product in the end.

that's a shame. you have missed out many great games.

People talked about the Vita's failure all the time.. And I'm not sure what you mean by pulling a Dreamcast... if you mean launching a console early, then it looks like they'll do that. If you mean forced them to exit the console market, then that hasn't happened because Nintendo of Nintendo's cash reserves. Nintendo could have literally sold a lump of coal as their system and not had to drop out of the market.

Put tropical freeze on Ouya =/= not a failure.

WE KNOW THE KEY.

TRUTH!

Put tropical freeze on Ouya =/= not a failure.

WE KNOW THE KEY.

Severe Déjà vu up in this bitch...

No console can be a failure appearantly