The Wii U was built around a fundamentally flawed premise that more screens = better experience. People can only pay attention to one screen at a time, and giving just one player at the console a personal additive screen in their hands doesn’t provide much meaningful benefit. The most widely appreciated feature of the system was simply the ability to play elsewhere in your home instead of in front of the TV, which is why they leaned hard into that portability with the Switch.
Edit: that said, the name and marketing were absolute disasters too.
Not to be ‘well ashkually’ but I mean is it? People use dual and tri monitor setups for PCs all the time. Also while smart phones didn’t have as much wide spread usage as they do now, it isn’t uncommon for people to be watching something on their TV and messing with their phone at the same time. Maybe it wasn’t flawed so much as just a bit ahead of it’s time.
Both phone usage and PC multi-monitor usage are completely different use cases of productivity and multitasking. Most gaming, especially on console, is a strictly single-taking experience. You don’t need to do things like copy and paste on a game console. And how often do you use your phone while playing a game on your console? The Wii U asserted that it was useful to give a video game two simultaneous screens in different positions. These are many reasons why this wasn’t “ahead of its time” and why the Wii U is considered an overall miss.
When I did play consoles honestly a fair bit when I needed a YouTube walk through. I guess I’m weird though since I like watching TV while playing games.
Yeah, I never bought into the line that people were confused that a Wii U was a Wii add-on. That’s never been a major problem for similarly named consoles before and anyone I knew all knew it was a separate thing. I think that focus on having to pay attention to two screens, as you said, as well as the severe under-powering for a home console of its generation and an abysmal launch lineup of games, all leading to an abysmal launch for the console itself and third parties deciding pretty quickly to mostly bail on it, led to its relative failure.
That said, I still have my Wii U and also have fond memories of playing it. Say what you will about the severe lack of 3rd party support, Nintendo themselves put some great quality games on it: all the Zelda games (including Hyrule Warriors and the BotW port), Smash Bros 4, the original Mario Kart 8, Mario Maker, 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze, the list goes on. Sega was pretty kind to them too for a 3rd party: Bayonetta 2, TMS #FE (underrated, IMO, good TMS/Persona style gameplay even if its story is goofy… Expected more actual FE-related content though), the quantity of Sonic games (if not quality).
Back when it launched I literally saw a TV news channel demoing it as part of a “Christmas gadgets” segment call it a peripheral for the Wii. They also called Skylanders a board-game.
When you got a fountain of money by getting boomers into gaming, flubbing the branding of the sequel is a massive own-goal.
I guarantee that SOME people were confused about whether it was its own console or not - I just couldn’t say if it was enough people to make a significant difference. Frankly, it was a dumb name and a poorly marketed device that didn’t have the means to command a news cycle through power, exclusives, or an instantly compelling use case. I think it’s basically a huge swing and a miss on Nintendo’s part.
But Nintendo also has the uncanny ability to release incredible games on anything. They could release a 3-button, motion-controlled, tethered monocle game system with a smartwatch chipset and I’d give you 70% odds they launch with a game that has an unforgettable amount of charm and joy infused in it.
Having the screens atop of each over helped along with the fact that most DS/3DS games didn’t require you to pay attention to both screens at the same time (e.g. some games used screen 1 for gameplay and 2 for a map/inventories etc)
Exactly. And arguably, a big part of what they provided was actually the touchscreen support and a 3D-capable handheld with “Nintendo” on it. Not that many games used the second screen in a way that was truly fundamental and necessary.
The Wii U was built around a fundamentally flawed premise that more screens = better experience. People can only pay attention to one screen at a time, and giving just one player at the console a personal additive screen in their hands doesn’t provide much meaningful benefit. The most widely appreciated feature of the system was simply the ability to play elsewhere in your home instead of in front of the TV, which is why they leaned hard into that portability with the Switch.
Edit: that said, the name and marketing were absolute disasters too.
Not to be ‘well ashkually’ but I mean is it? People use dual and tri monitor setups for PCs all the time. Also while smart phones didn’t have as much wide spread usage as they do now, it isn’t uncommon for people to be watching something on their TV and messing with their phone at the same time. Maybe it wasn’t flawed so much as just a bit ahead of it’s time.
Both phone usage and PC multi-monitor usage are completely different use cases of productivity and multitasking. Most gaming, especially on console, is a strictly single-taking experience. You don’t need to do things like copy and paste on a game console. And how often do you use your phone while playing a game on your console? The Wii U asserted that it was useful to give a video game two simultaneous screens in different positions. These are many reasons why this wasn’t “ahead of its time” and why the Wii U is considered an overall miss.
When I did play consoles honestly a fair bit when I needed a YouTube walk through. I guess I’m weird though since I like watching TV while playing games.
That’s fair. But the Wii U wasn’t designed for playing single screen games while watching YouTube, really. Your phone already covers that.
Yeah, I never bought into the line that people were confused that a Wii U was a Wii add-on. That’s never been a major problem for similarly named consoles before and anyone I knew all knew it was a separate thing. I think that focus on having to pay attention to two screens, as you said, as well as the severe under-powering for a home console of its generation and an abysmal launch lineup of games, all leading to an abysmal launch for the console itself and third parties deciding pretty quickly to mostly bail on it, led to its relative failure.
That said, I still have my Wii U and also have fond memories of playing it. Say what you will about the severe lack of 3rd party support, Nintendo themselves put some great quality games on it: all the Zelda games (including Hyrule Warriors and the BotW port), Smash Bros 4, the original Mario Kart 8, Mario Maker, 3D World, DKC Tropical Freeze, the list goes on. Sega was pretty kind to them too for a 3rd party: Bayonetta 2, TMS #FE (underrated, IMO, good TMS/Persona style gameplay even if its story is goofy… Expected more actual FE-related content though), the quantity of Sonic games (if not quality).
Back when it launched I literally saw a TV news channel demoing it as part of a “Christmas gadgets” segment call it a peripheral for the Wii. They also called Skylanders a board-game.
When you got a fountain of money by getting boomers into gaming, flubbing the branding of the sequel is a massive own-goal.
I guarantee that SOME people were confused about whether it was its own console or not - I just couldn’t say if it was enough people to make a significant difference. Frankly, it was a dumb name and a poorly marketed device that didn’t have the means to command a news cycle through power, exclusives, or an instantly compelling use case. I think it’s basically a huge swing and a miss on Nintendo’s part.
But Nintendo also has the uncanny ability to release incredible games on anything. They could release a 3-button, motion-controlled, tethered monocle game system with a smartwatch chipset and I’d give you 70% odds they launch with a game that has an unforgettable amount of charm and joy infused in it.
DS and 3DS are obviously the exception., but those were special cases being completely portable and the screens were situated right atop one another.
Having the screens atop of each over helped along with the fact that most DS/3DS games didn’t require you to pay attention to both screens at the same time (e.g. some games used screen 1 for gameplay and 2 for a map/inventories etc)
Exactly. And arguably, a big part of what they provided was actually the touchscreen support and a 3D-capable handheld with “Nintendo” on it. Not that many games used the second screen in a way that was truly fundamental and necessary.