The Wii U was unfortunately not a very successful console, but I feel that it had plenty of power to make fantastic looking games and great experiences. It came out in a weird time for technology and Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware.
As a homebrew device it is amazing. There are still exploits being found with a new, safe, simple method out now thanks to some crazy dedicated modders.
There’s a whole homebrew sdk. The Wii U can also run Wii and GameCube games by reconfiguring the hardware (or some other sort of firmware voodoo). That’s three generations of video game libraries that can be explored on one console!
Always felt like it deserved more popularity, but it couldn’t compete with the ps3/4 and Xbox 360/one.
> Always felt like it deserved more popularity, but it couldn’t compete with the ps3/4 and Xbox 360/one.
The Wii U marketing was a total disaster. Using the same name as a well established, casual platform, with a tiny suffix + pushing the "same gamepad compatibility" makes this hardware looks like an expensive "revised" version.
I can't understand how Nintendo didn't catch on this.
This is a bit of a meme, but it isn't generally true. The Nintendo 64 and GameCube were pretty cutting edge in their day. At the time the Nintendo Switch released, the Tegra X1 was still about as cutting edge as mobile GPUs came (in early 2016).
What Nintendo is about - to a fault, some would argue - is cost cutting. Sometimes that means they use older stuff, but using older stuff isn't always the best cost cutting balance to strike. The article even notes this:
> To be fair, it’s known that Nintendo’s choices are not always based on ‘cutting-edginess’ but on cost and supply.
It came out in a weird time for technology and Nintendo always uses slightly older hardware.
I had a Playstation 2 and 3 before, but since we became parents, we wanted something family-friendly. We seriously considered a Wii U, but were totally put of by the Wii U controller, which seemed clunky, annoying, and expensive to replace in case it breaks. It was the primary reason we went for the XBox One that generation.
We got a Switch pretty soon after it was released and love it (our daughter also has a Switch Lite).
I do think it led to the switch concept which has been very successful for Nintendo, my friend who had a wii U thought it was great, but just wanted the tablet to have better battery life.
The problem was that albatross of a gamepad. Not only did it have garbage battery life, but its presence led Nintendo to actively make games worse just to force mechanics onto the gamepad. Anyone else remember how godawful Star Fox Zero was, for absolutely no good reason?
The Wii U was the first Nintendo console that I had no "must have" game at launch. Gamecube had Melee, Wii had Twilight Princess, Switch had Breath of the Wild. But there was nothing on the Wii U for a whole year until Pikmin 3 and Super Mario 3D World. It squandered their one year head start.
I just think that without the draw of the motion controllers, the Wii U screen just really wasn't good enough to make the console worth using. The Nintendo switch was brilliant, you just had to think like a 13 year old to understand why that was always going to sell like gangbusters.
The games library was just too weak honestly, I think that was the main thing. The software problems were in large part caused by Nintendo under-speccing its machines catching up to it. Multiplatform's were particularly adversely affected.
All in all you were better off buying a PS4 honestly.
For me, the only use was buying one for cheap right after the Switch came out. Everybody and heir mother was getting rid of their games, so everything could be had for cheap (Nintendo cheap).
Can you point me to more information about the GameCube part? Speaking as an owner of an almost broken down GC with a large library, and a very functional Wii U with a smaller one.
The Wii U had a rich feature set. Firsts for a Nintendo home console:
- OTB web browser
- OTB audio and video chat with friends, native support for 3rd party headsets
- real-time direct messaging (via Miiverse) notifications and other friend notifications via the home button LED
- Ability to view online status of friends
- High definition graphics
- 5+ player synchronous local multiplayer
- built-in Nintendo TVii service
- built-in support to use the gamepad as a TV remote
- eShop selections for mobile retro consoles (e.g. GBA, DS)
- background installations and updates
- accelerometer, gyroscope, front-facing camera, touch screen, IR sensor, NFC all packed into the gamepad
- full backwards compatibility with a prior console (Wii)
Not to mention, all online services were free to use. And those still existing, are still free.
Edit: As a kid, this was the first console that had just enough 3rd party support for me to enjoy games like Fifa, Need for Speed, and Call of Duty akin to an Xbox 360, while also hosting all my favorite Nintendo games. It was a fun system, even if it was poorly advertised and a bit awkward. But I enjoyed the gimmicks and I still use it, mostly for playing exclusives that never made it to the Switch.
The Wii U was such a fun console with so many great games, it's a shame that it was relatively inaccessible due to horribly bodged marketing and weird choices - luckily they're porting most(but not all) of the gems. I actually think that the gamepad screen did contribute a lot to a lot of games, especially if there was a lot of action and you were able to use it as a map/for quick actions.
It's good that they basically built a product that was impossible to market badly with the switch, it probably sells itself, considering the form factor and all of the first and third party support they have now.
My reason to buy a Wii U back then was that whenever I found the time to play a video game, I had to go through a session of Windows Update, Steam update and game update that I lost interest by the time it was ready.
Compare that to the Wii U back then: Turn on and play.
Nintendo even achieved to keep this mindset with the Switch: It will update in the background so usually you just turn it on and play.
> Nintendo even achieved to keep this mindset with the Switch: It will update in the background so usually you just turn it on and play.
I don't agree. I play my switch maybe once every couple of weeks, and almost without fail there's a system or game update that it asks me to install.
Granted, _most_ updates can be put off for a while by hitting "update later", but I see very little difference between the consoles (and PCs) in terms of update behaviour these days, for better or worse.
I got a steam deck - it makes a very decent attempt at transforming the former experience into the latter, but keeping access to all your existing PC games.
Way back when I had a Playstation 3 it would update in the background but only if you paid for the subscription, otherwise, every time you turned it on, you had to wait for the updates to download to play a game, if the game had updates. This model for updates just rankled me so much I stopped buying Playstation, every time I turned it on, it had to download updates and I would forget why I had turned it on by the time I got back to it.
Huh. I had the complete opposite experience. My girlfriend and I used to joke that the U in Wii U stands for "update". Maybe it's just because we didn't play it frequently.
I reckon Nintendo has the best strategy almost game consoles. Not focusing on the power/realism and instead of other aspects.
At some point, if someone buys a ps5 or xbox for power only. Then they just get a pc, those consoles takes years to design. By the time they're released, it's already outdated
> At some point, if someone buys a ps5 or xbox for power only. Then they just get a pc, those consoles takes years to design. By the time they're released, it's already outdated
I don't think that's really true. Hardware moves slowly enough nowadays that really good hardware from a couple of years ago is still very competitive with today's hardware. And if you tried to build a PC with comparable specs to, say xbox series x, you'd be paying a very substantially larger amount because MS have economies of scale and a strong negotiating position.
I always saw it as: Sony and Microsoft seem to aim to be the "premium" gaming/set-top-box experience for pro-sumers and hardcore gamers.
Nintendo, on the other hand, tries to appeal to a much broader market. They learned from their success in the 80s, when pretty much every North American living room with kids in the household had an NES and a stack of games on top of the TV. Nintendo sees themselves as friendlier to casual gamers and families. They want to the "the safe choice" when grandma or grandpa whip out their checkbook at Walmart to buy a gaming system for their grandchildren.
Just being family-friendly doesn't quite guarantee success, which is why they've always been exploring new ways to interact with video games. Basically every new console they've introduced has had controllers markedly different from what came before. (Even if it turns out they were not necessarily _better_ than what came before.) In the case of the Wiimote, they pretty much hit a home run. It was not only a novel input method, it turned out to be loads of fun for casual gaming, social gatherings, and families.
Slightly OT but Wii U games seem to be a topic here: There were many great games, but the IMHO single best game on this console was Lego City Undercover.
It was like a less violent GTA. Such a joy to play, plenty of jokes, fantastic open world and great story mode with funny missions.
Luckily they ported it to other consoles too. My kids are still playing it with their friends.
I loved and still do love my Wii U and still use it semi regularly to this day. There was something about the Wii and Wii U that was lost on the Switch. They just had that special Nintendo "feel" and vibe
IMO it's because Switch adopted the great XMBC UI. That's probably why. Wii's channels for me (and I feel most based on how I saw others use their Wii) were useless...
Another badly designed Nintendo console. Now hear me out:
NES: Well designed.
SNES: Well designed.
N64: Hampered by the originally 12-24 MB cartridges as opposed to 650 MB CDs.
GameCube: Well designed. A little hampered by the 1.4 GB mini DVDs as opposed to 7.8 GB DVDs.
Wii: Underpowered, but a surprise smash hit capturing that era’s sensibilities (like the PS2).
Wii U: Clunky and awkward, which however led to the Switch.
Switch: Well designed.
GB: Well designed.
GBC: Well designed.
GBA: Well designed, however with a very bad audio quality as compared to the SNES.
NDS: Well designed, again with very bad audio quality, and a surprise smash hit capturing that era’s sensibilities (like the PS2).
3DS: Hampered by its pitiful 2004 era 200 MHz CPU and 240p display. Clunky and unremarkable, which had a success in its second half of existence because people just want Nintendo games.
Switch: Well designed.
You’re missing the whole story here. Was the Game Boy well designed? It was a smash hit upon release, but everybody immediately complained about the screen quality. The thing sold and sold and sold because it was inexpensive and just plain fun, bad screen notwithstanding. By 1996 however, it was woefully old, and the Game Boy Pocket sales were soft when it came out. Pokémon saved Nintendo’s bacon and gave them leeway to develop the Game Boy Color, which was also old and criticized upon release, but it again had Pokémon.
It’s more complicated than a simple good or bad checkmark whether a thing is popular or not.
The DS had 16 audio channels compared to the GBA's 2. Actually, the DS was able to use the built-in GBA coprocessor to process its audio. So it was leaps ahead of the GBA, though not quite to SNES standards. By the time the DSi came around, there was a built in audio processing chip as well.
I think "design" is overused in this case. Sure some users base their purchase decision on actual design/look of a console, but that's a rarity.
Success is more dictated by 4 main constraints or factors:
- Game selection and support
- Price point
- System performance (including storage)
- Innovative-ness or accessibility
Successful consoles typically met at least 3 of the above. For example the Nintendo Switch had very mediocre system performance, but it had great (1st party) game support, priced lower than competing XBox and PS4, and seemed very approachable for all demographics.
copetti.org's writeups about the classic consoles are really good. So copetti.org has interesting details on Nintendo's other flop - the Virtual Boy. What I found interesting about that is the VB uses moving mirrors and a vertical LED strip to generate the display - a teensy bit similar to DLP.
The Wii U was a failure in marketing and odd design choices. The former has been discussed quite well by others, so I want to focus on the design choices that didn't help its long-term success.
The console initially promoted the gimmick of being a controller for cable TV, as seen by the blue TV button the bottom of the gamepad. This was at a time when cable TV was starting to die out for the younger crowd. The original Xbox One made a similar misguided focus on controlling TV, while the overall market was making a major shift to streaming in that period.
Next, the gamepad used a resistive touchscreen instead of a capacitive one. Phones with capacitive touchscreens had been the norm for years at this point, making the Wii U touchscreen feel very low quality.
The gamepad came with too small of a battery, which limited the gamepad's use as a portable console, which was already tied down to being nearby the console itself to stream games smoothly. The battery could be easily upgraded to a larger size, but it had to be purchased and installed later on.
The base console only had 8 GB of storage. The deluxe model only came with 32 GB of storage and cost an extra $150 (for $350 total). The console largely focused on using discs for games, but the next gen of Xbox and PlayStation consoles showed that internal storage was important. The Wii U had an SD card slot, but SD cards could oddly not be used to expand game storage; USB storage could be used however.
The Wii U had some very strong game releases that eventually saw successful ports to the Switch, and it also had the best Virtual Console release of games in any console ever, that the Switch still has not matched. The value of a Wii U by the end of its life was insane. It's the only console where so many incredible games (almost all of Nintendo's catalogue through the Wii - but not the GameCube) could be played on the system. I think the console just focused on all of the wrong things in the minutia. Tie that with terrible marketing, and the console was doomed to failure. The Wii U's genius was later revised upon and proved to be a success with the Switch. Despite it's failures, the Wii U was a great console that is one of my favorites of all time (along with the PlayStation Vita).
The concept of this machine was such a mess. You can truly tell something was rotten in the org chart when a bizarre console/tablet compromise is what they actually shipped with a straight face.
Not at all. Nintendo has been making experimental toys since before anyone here was alive. They've been making experimental electronic toys for as long as there have been electronic toys.
ace2358|3 years ago
As a homebrew device it is amazing. There are still exploits being found with a new, safe, simple method out now thanks to some crazy dedicated modders.
There’s a whole homebrew sdk. The Wii U can also run Wii and GameCube games by reconfiguring the hardware (or some other sort of firmware voodoo). That’s three generations of video game libraries that can be explored on one console!
Always felt like it deserved more popularity, but it couldn’t compete with the ps3/4 and Xbox 360/one.
actionfromafar|3 years ago
Especially considering a lot of Wii buyers were not exactly deep gamers, but very casual customers.
Narann|3 years ago
The Wii U marketing was a total disaster. Using the same name as a well established, casual platform, with a tiny suffix + pushing the "same gamepad compatibility" makes this hardware looks like an expensive "revised" version.
I can't understand how Nintendo didn't catch on this.
DCKing|3 years ago
This is a bit of a meme, but it isn't generally true. The Nintendo 64 and GameCube were pretty cutting edge in their day. At the time the Nintendo Switch released, the Tegra X1 was still about as cutting edge as mobile GPUs came (in early 2016).
What Nintendo is about - to a fault, some would argue - is cost cutting. Sometimes that means they use older stuff, but using older stuff isn't always the best cost cutting balance to strike. The article even notes this:
> To be fair, it’s known that Nintendo’s choices are not always based on ‘cutting-edginess’ but on cost and supply.
chungy|3 years ago
It did, and it shows in that many of the top-selling games on Switch are ports of Wii U games.
microtonal|3 years ago
I had a Playstation 2 and 3 before, but since we became parents, we wanted something family-friendly. We seriously considered a Wii U, but were totally put of by the Wii U controller, which seemed clunky, annoying, and expensive to replace in case it breaks. It was the primary reason we went for the XBox One that generation.
We got a Switch pretty soon after it was released and love it (our daughter also has a Switch Lite).
Synaesthesia|3 years ago
causi|3 years ago
herbst|3 years ago
The controller is meh, however most games also let you play with a pro controller. The screen on the Wii U brick is barely used.
And if you have a party or so just let them bring their Wii controllers, all the multiplayer games support them.
If you are not a classic gamer but are looking for some gaming fun it might still is the perfect console for you
weberer|3 years ago
faeriechangling|3 years ago
The games library was just too weak honestly, I think that was the main thing. The software problems were in large part caused by Nintendo under-speccing its machines catching up to it. Multiplatform's were particularly adversely affected.
All in all you were better off buying a PS4 honestly.
philistine|3 years ago
vanderZwan|3 years ago
duxup|3 years ago
I owned a Wii and loved it. To this day I don’t know what the selling point(s) of the Wii U were supposed to be.
I just don’t think it was marketed well.
jrootabega|3 years ago
eru|3 years ago
Not always. The N64, for example, tried to be cutting edge.
Bondi_Blue|3 years ago
- OTB web browser
- OTB audio and video chat with friends, native support for 3rd party headsets
- real-time direct messaging (via Miiverse) notifications and other friend notifications via the home button LED
- Ability to view online status of friends
- High definition graphics
- 5+ player synchronous local multiplayer
- built-in Nintendo TVii service
- built-in support to use the gamepad as a TV remote
- eShop selections for mobile retro consoles (e.g. GBA, DS)
- background installations and updates
- accelerometer, gyroscope, front-facing camera, touch screen, IR sensor, NFC all packed into the gamepad
- full backwards compatibility with a prior console (Wii)
Not to mention, all online services were free to use. And those still existing, are still free.
Edit: As a kid, this was the first console that had just enough 3rd party support for me to enjoy games like Fifa, Need for Speed, and Call of Duty akin to an Xbox 360, while also hosting all my favorite Nintendo games. It was a fun system, even if it was poorly advertised and a bit awkward. But I enjoyed the gimmicks and I still use it, mostly for playing exclusives that never made it to the Switch.
IntelMiner|3 years ago
tiagod|3 years ago
Wasn't the Wii, at least initially, compatible with gamecube? Mine even has gamecube controller and memory card slots.
meibo|3 years ago
It's good that they basically built a product that was impossible to market badly with the switch, it probably sells itself, considering the form factor and all of the first and third party support they have now.
mikepurvis|3 years ago
Splatoon— second player without split screen.
New SMB U— gamepad player can spawn blocks to help you reach secrets.
Wind Waker— map and inventory.
But an awful lot of titles just mirrored the TV or had a button to enable off-TV play.
m_st|3 years ago
Compare that to the Wii U back then: Turn on and play.
Nintendo even achieved to keep this mindset with the Switch: It will update in the background so usually you just turn it on and play.
majesticmerc|3 years ago
I don't agree. I play my switch maybe once every couple of weeks, and almost without fail there's a system or game update that it asks me to install.
Granted, _most_ updates can be put off for a while by hitting "update later", but I see very little difference between the consoles (and PCs) in terms of update behaviour these days, for better or worse.
buildfocus|3 years ago
stevenwoo|3 years ago
derrikcurran|3 years ago
langsoul-com|3 years ago
At some point, if someone buys a ps5 or xbox for power only. Then they just get a pc, those consoles takes years to design. By the time they're released, it's already outdated
quietbritishjim|3 years ago
I don't think that's really true. Hardware moves slowly enough nowadays that really good hardware from a couple of years ago is still very competitive with today's hardware. And if you tried to build a PC with comparable specs to, say xbox series x, you'd be paying a very substantially larger amount because MS have economies of scale and a strong negotiating position.
bityard|3 years ago
Nintendo, on the other hand, tries to appeal to a much broader market. They learned from their success in the 80s, when pretty much every North American living room with kids in the household had an NES and a stack of games on top of the TV. Nintendo sees themselves as friendlier to casual gamers and families. They want to the "the safe choice" when grandma or grandpa whip out their checkbook at Walmart to buy a gaming system for their grandchildren.
Just being family-friendly doesn't quite guarantee success, which is why they've always been exploring new ways to interact with video games. Basically every new console they've introduced has had controllers markedly different from what came before. (Even if it turns out they were not necessarily _better_ than what came before.) In the case of the Wiimote, they pretty much hit a home run. It was not only a novel input method, it turned out to be loads of fun for casual gaming, social gatherings, and families.
pjmlp|3 years ago
m_st|3 years ago
Luckily they ported it to other consoles too. My kids are still playing it with their friends.
I hope they are working on a successor.
astura|3 years ago
mkw2000|3 years ago
fallat|3 years ago
lynguist|3 years ago
NES: Well designed. SNES: Well designed. N64: Hampered by the originally 12-24 MB cartridges as opposed to 650 MB CDs. GameCube: Well designed. A little hampered by the 1.4 GB mini DVDs as opposed to 7.8 GB DVDs. Wii: Underpowered, but a surprise smash hit capturing that era’s sensibilities (like the PS2). Wii U: Clunky and awkward, which however led to the Switch. Switch: Well designed.
GB: Well designed. GBC: Well designed. GBA: Well designed, however with a very bad audio quality as compared to the SNES. NDS: Well designed, again with very bad audio quality, and a surprise smash hit capturing that era’s sensibilities (like the PS2). 3DS: Hampered by its pitiful 2004 era 200 MHz CPU and 240p display. Clunky and unremarkable, which had a success in its second half of existence because people just want Nintendo games. Switch: Well designed.
philistine|3 years ago
It’s more complicated than a simple good or bad checkmark whether a thing is popular or not.
purpleflame1257|3 years ago
paulpan|3 years ago
Success is more dictated by 4 main constraints or factors: - Game selection and support - Price point - System performance (including storage) - Innovative-ness or accessibility
Successful consoles typically met at least 3 of the above. For example the Nintendo Switch had very mediocre system performance, but it had great (1st party) game support, priced lower than competing XBox and PS4, and seemed very approachable for all demographics.
_chu1|3 years ago
aidenn0|3 years ago
tenebrisalietum|3 years ago
_chu1|3 years ago
pjmlp|3 years ago
29athrowaway|3 years ago
The game didn't age as gracefully as other StarFox games.
humaniania|3 years ago
lights0123|3 years ago
> Similarly to how the Wii Remote mangles the Bluetooth protocol to avoid third-party usage
with "mangles the Bluetooth protocol" being a broken link. Anyone have information on this? I'm interested in how so.
weberer|3 years ago
https://github.com/xwiimote/xwiimote/blob/master/doc/PROTOCO...
mmis1000|3 years ago
Just remove the extra text
pwpw|3 years ago
The console initially promoted the gimmick of being a controller for cable TV, as seen by the blue TV button the bottom of the gamepad. This was at a time when cable TV was starting to die out for the younger crowd. The original Xbox One made a similar misguided focus on controlling TV, while the overall market was making a major shift to streaming in that period.
Next, the gamepad used a resistive touchscreen instead of a capacitive one. Phones with capacitive touchscreens had been the norm for years at this point, making the Wii U touchscreen feel very low quality.
The gamepad came with too small of a battery, which limited the gamepad's use as a portable console, which was already tied down to being nearby the console itself to stream games smoothly. The battery could be easily upgraded to a larger size, but it had to be purchased and installed later on.
The base console only had 8 GB of storage. The deluxe model only came with 32 GB of storage and cost an extra $150 (for $350 total). The console largely focused on using discs for games, but the next gen of Xbox and PlayStation consoles showed that internal storage was important. The Wii U had an SD card slot, but SD cards could oddly not be used to expand game storage; USB storage could be used however.
The Wii U had some very strong game releases that eventually saw successful ports to the Switch, and it also had the best Virtual Console release of games in any console ever, that the Switch still has not matched. The value of a Wii U by the end of its life was insane. It's the only console where so many incredible games (almost all of Nintendo's catalogue through the Wii - but not the GameCube) could be played on the system. I think the console just focused on all of the wrong things in the minutia. Tie that with terrible marketing, and the console was doomed to failure. The Wii U's genius was later revised upon and proved to be a success with the Switch. Despite it's failures, the Wii U was a great console that is one of my favorites of all time (along with the PlayStation Vita).
tb_technical|3 years ago
whywhywhywhy|3 years ago
willis936|3 years ago
dm319|3 years ago