It’s a bit of a silly reason to get upset about considering the sheer amount of characters that are available in the game. There hasn’t been a huge lacking of characters for Smash Bros. Getting some third party characters has been one of the best parts of this game. I mean they made Nintendo ROB in the game and Mr. Watch.

Nintendo was absolutely at fault for the system’s failure. Ultimately, third parties are not responsible for the success of a system. As I addressed in the article, it’s Nintendo’s job to build the install base.

As I think I described well in the article, Nintendo’s efforts on the system were not the kinds of games that would build an install base. There were a lot of fun games, but nothing to really drive an install base. There was nothing cutting edge and nothing truly amazing. Good stuff for the Nintendo faithful, but nothing that would make people buy the system. For example, you mention Captain Toad. A fun game? Yes. Something that would really help build an install base? Not so much…

First off, let’s not pretend the Wii U’s launch lineup was great. Ninja Gaiden? Come on, that was a port of a poorly received title. Mass Effect 3 was a full price release of a year old game that was more expensive than the whole trilogy on other systems. Not what I’d call big names.

And did it sell out at launch? Sort of. But selling out during the holiday season isn’t exactly a huge accomplishment. By mid January you could very easily find one if you wanted.

As for Captain Toad, you brought that one up, not me.

My logic is not dependent on the XBox One or PS4, because the circumstances of each were different. Sony and Microsoft already appealed to traditional gamers, the kind that will buy a console for the next call of duty, fifa, madden etc. Meanwhile, Nintendo’s success has come from trying to expand the audience. The Wii and DS sold because Nintendo of novel experiences. So, they needed to continue that to have success.

No, Mass Effect trilogy actually came out on the PS3 and 360 a few weeks before special edition launched at full price on Wii U. Ninja Gaiden was poorly received in all its forms. They released it as a quick cash grab on PS60, but it’d be hard to say there was demand.The other games you mentioned (save Zombi U) were ports that were on XBox 360 and PS3. Even if they were perfect ports, there was no reason to buy a new console for one, especially if you were already a PS360 fan who would be more keen on waiting for PS4 or XBox One.

PS4 and XBox One didn’t do anything to change their audience because they didn’t need to. The number of people who would buy a new console for the next GTA, COD, etc are more numerous than the people that would buy a system for the next Mario and Smash.

You’re talking about people recognizing the Wii U is different, but again I’d say look at the software. If you were a casual consumer, and you saw New Super Mario Bros U, is that going to communicate the difference? And for those that do know the difference is that going to make you want a Wii U? Tropical Freeze? Mario 3D World? Mario Kart 8? Smash U? Aside from Nintendo Land, Nintendo didn’t release games that highlighted or used the system’s features.

As for third party support, that’s a function of first party support. Ignoring EA, which seems to be a grudge, we saw companies like WB Interactive, Ubisoft, and Activision making, if not perfect, decent ports, and even a few exclusive games. But, as Nintendo couldn’t build an install base, it stopped making sense to invest much in Wii U ports.

You’re saying that the Wii U has the strongest first party support, and from a gamer’s perspective (particularly a Nintendo fan), I’d agree with you. However, from a marketing perspective, it is abysmal. Nothing to appeal to the kinds of gamers who made the Wii a success, nothing to reach outside Nintendo’s base demographics, and nothing to demonstrate why the Wii U hardware was special. Nintendo’s games were designed for a niche market, and the system sold to a niche market.

Like you said, New Super Mario Bros U sold well, but it didn’t sell COD or GTA numbers. And Nintendo NEEDED it to. This was the biggest title they released for their new console. It NEEDED to be something special that would convince people they needed a new system, in the same way Super Mario 64 or Wii Sports was. But it wasn’t. It was a fun Mario title. Nothing more, and nothing less.

And like I say in the article, that’s the story of the Wii U. Quality games that were simply not ambitious enough to push the system beyond Nintendo’s core fanbase. You mention things like off TV play, gyro aiming, inventory management, and motion controls (which were already in the Wii version of Mario Kart), as ways that Nintendo innovated this generation. Do you think that these advancements were enough to justify a 300 dollar purchase to the average consumer? Maybe you do. I don’t, and that’s the point I was making.

Of course, marketing and other aspects come into it, but I think the lack of compelling software from Nintendo was the biggest reason the Wii U didn’t succeed. That’s not to say there were no good games, but simply that there were no games that would convince people to throw 300 dollars on the table.

Anyway, even if you disagree, I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment.

As I’m not a developer, it’s a bit unfair to ask me what kind of game I would make. But for a couple of ideas, they could have really done a lot with local co-op. I believe I did do an article about this near the Wii U’s launch, but I can’t locate it atm. For starters though, expanding either Metroid Blast or Zelda Adventure into full fledged games would have been amazing. A stealth game that allows you to use the gamepad to manipulate spy cameras. A co-op Zelda style game that allowed players to explore a castle together and work in different rooms to solve puzzles.

As for how that ties into expanding the audience, that’s simple. People pay attention to novel things. That’s why Splatoon and Super Mario Maker helped move systems more than almost any other Wii U titles. They were new experiences, and people paid attention.

If the Wii U sold 10 million copies on launch day publishers would definitely develop more content, which is why the Wii saw much stronger support than the Wii U. There is no guarantee these games would sell well, but there is a far better chance. It is hardly a coincidence that multiplatform titles are almost universally selling better on the PS4. More consoles generally mean more sales.

And yet I still want to collect them lol

First, explain to me why any content on my game cartridge should be blocked.
Next, explain to me why the only way to unlock that content on my cartridge should require me to buy 10 dollars worth of plastic.

After that, explain to me why these pieces of plastic that are required to play content that is already on my cartridge should be produced in limited quantities, so that only a certain amount of players with the game can play the content regardless of their willingness to pay.

Amiibo are not as bad as horse armor. They are worse.

Horse armor was simple cosmetic flair with no impact on gameplay. Worth 2 bucks? Hell no, but you weren’t missing out by not buying it. Meanwhile Amiibo inherently limits game content to a certain number of people. There is absolutely no reason that everybody who wants to play the content on their game card should not have that ability, even if they don’t want to play it. Even IF I was willing to pay 13 dollars for a character in Codename Steam I couldn’t. That is a viciously anti-consumer policy.

Suppose Link wasn’t in the default Smash roster, and the only way to play as him was through buying an Amiibo, of which only 10,000 were produced. Can you imagine the backlash Nintendo would get for that? The only difference here is that less people care about Codename S.T.E.A.M., but that in no way means the policy is any less deplorable.

Maybe the Amiibo will pay off in time, but that in no way excuses preventing customers from getting the content they want, when there is no reason that Nintendo could not offer it to everyone.

“I’m just going to stop you right there. You clearly had a set up in your mind of how you were going to make your argument. Then realized that the definition completely went against your argument. Here let me help you out in the definition part.”

You do realize that my computer has a backspace key… right? If I realized my set up wasn’t going to work, why on Earth would I leave it there?

Before you ripped my quote kicking and screaming from its context, I explained why I didn’t want to use the dictionary definition. That is an argument that is terrible and frequently used, and I wanted to smother it in the crib. But alas, I failed.

When was the definition of sports created? Does this definition predate electronic games? If so is it still relevant? Websters is devoid of social context. But if you love the dictionary definition so much, then fine.

“a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other”

Now explain to me why, by that definition, Scrabble is not a sport. Rules? Check. Competition? Check. Physical activity? Check. And, if you try to tell me that moving tiles doesn’t count as physical activity, then clearly it matters how demanding the activity is, and football is certainly FAR more demanding than Smash Bros.

Is Chess a sport? Checkers? Tic Tac Toe? Dominos? Marbles? Operation? A belching contest? Hot dog eating contest? Synchronized swimming? Darts? Rock paper scissors? Battle of the Bands? Texas Hold Em? Iron chef? A ventriloquism contest? Extreme ironing? All of those meet the incredibly broad definition you present. That definition is broad enough to include virtually any competitive activity. Yet in our society we differentiate between sports and other forms of organized competition. That is why I said the definition was not worth discussing.

“From Webster.
5. Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked.
These players earn more money than any one of us (contributors to GotGame and affiliates) would even dream to earn. Considering the average salary is roughly $66,000. (http://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-professional-gamer-jobs.html) With the top paid gamers raking in roughly $200,000-$500,000 a year. Since most of the money is given to them from tournament pools, sponsors, and even fans it’s clear to see that money is staked in professional gaming. ”

Context is key. You focus clearly on the money part, and completely ignore the “of the field” part. But, even if you ignore that, the argument still makes no sense at all. They make more money than me? What does that have to do with anything? A dentist makes more money than me. Does that make dentistry a sport? Are olympic athletes (who do not earn money) not athletes? Is Bill Gates the world’s biggest sports star? Totally irrelevant.

“e-Sports are a thing. There is no difference between an League of Legends Pro to a Basketball Pro except for what they are spending hours practicing on to pay their bills. Players have even succumbed to stress. ”

Again, irrelevant. Stand up comedy is stressful. Not a sport. SATs are stressful. Not a sport. Almost every job on the Earth is stressful. Not sports. Speaking of jobs, lots of people spend hours doing them to pay their bills. Yet, they’re not all sports. There is a difference between a League Player and a basketball pro. The difference is that they are engaging in different activities. Doesn’t make one better or worse, but it makes them different.

The government can recognize esports as sports. Doesn’t make it so. The government also recognizes tomatoes as vegetables, but they are definitely not.

In the link you posted, the Olympic committee clearly gives their rationale as a way to attract younger audiences. It potentially makes them money to say it’s a sport. Doesn’t make it so.

The activities of playing football or basketball or boxing and the activity of gaming are so extremely different that it is ludicrous to view them as the same kind of activities. Even with sports as different as Judo and Football, many of the skills involved in one clearly transfer over to the next, because the activities are similar The actual physical activity involved in gaming and football intersect in only the most minute details.

Can you think of some similarities? Yeah. But the similarities you present are too broad to be useful. Lots of activities require practice, make money, or are stressful. Yet the vast majority are not sports.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. I’ll give a better one. It’s like going to a chef in a restaurant and saying, this isn’t a sport and you’re not an athlete. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t work hard at his craft, that his skill is less valuable, that he isn’t well compensated, that he is lazy, or that he shouldn’t be doing it. It doesn’t mean what he is doing is any lesser than what an athlete does. It just means that it is a different kind of activity.

Of course, the chef is not likely to be offended, because he is not in the least bit insecure about what he does. It is an acceptable job, so he doesn’t need to latch onto something more socially acceptable to gain credibility.

Edit: And, the point was not to insult professional gaming or professional gaming. The point was that if we call it a sport, people are going to judge it as a sport. People are going to focus on what gaming lacks that other sports have. Doing this invites negative comparisons. People are going to react negatively, because you are trying to sell it as something it isn’t.

It’s like if you try to tell people Zelda is an RPG. Is it a game? Yes. Does it involve playing a role? Yes. So, you can define it as a role playing game. However, it lacks many of the traits that are common to what we call RPGs. Zelda is an awesome game, but if you judge it as an RPG, it would suck. Similarly, pro gaming may be awesome, but as a sport, it’s sorely lacking.

I respectfully disagree with this.

Nintendo rocked 2014, and with even bigger first party titles coming out this year and 2016 if they release a new console they will alienate half of their customers. They have a gold mine right now and we probably shouldn’t need to see a new console until 2018 at the earliest. The XBox 360 after their first major year pumped out great games for half a decade. So should the Wii U.

The problem with the money in the bank argument is that stockholders expect the company to be making money. If they don’t make money, people at the top lose their jobs. The company will not go out of business if they continue on their current path, but people will be fired.

As for the rest of your comments, I mostly agree. I bought the Wii U and currently have little desire for a PS4 of XBox One. But, the market as a whole disagrees. As a fan and a gamer, I have no particular desire to see Nintendo drop the Wii U. From a business perspective though, it’s a necessity.

Thanks for reading and commenting.