The sad thing is that the Wii U's failure is 100% attributable to marketing. The GamePad is actually quite comfortable for normal uses (i.e., situations in which games do not include contrived "Look at me ma, I'm using the GamePad!" moments, which are too frequent) and I like it more than I expected to.

Most of the people I ask don't even realize that that the Wii U is different than the Wii. They think it's just a gamepad accessory for the Wii and don't understand that it's a different console. Really a shame.

Nintendo has always had trouble connecting with American audiences -- when they've done so, it's been basically by accident. It seems that while they like American money, they still build their products exclusively with the Japanese market in mind.

The GameCube is a similar tale of woe, a vastly underrated system that came in last entirely due to superficial considerations, like being purple.

I think it is party due to marketing, but I don't think that's the only issue with the Wii U. Other issues include the fact that there's no killer game that explains why the new controller is really needed (most games just mirror the TV to the controller, or show inventory or a map on the controller), the fact that there's only one controller with a screen, so most games that use it have asymmetric offline multiplayer gameplay (which can be difficult to explain to people), and the fact that playing the Wii U doesn't look as much fun as playing bowling or tennis on the Wii did.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Wii U is a console worth owning, and right now, it probably has the best games library of all current-gen TV consoles. I also think that poor marketing and misguiding naming play a role in its poor performance — why not call it the Wii 2, to clearly show that it is different and new?

But I don't think that its failure can be attributed solely to marketing.

The name/brand is part of marketing. I agree that it's bad and contributes to the confusion, but I'm not sure why Xbox can get away with "Xbox 360" or even "Xbox One" and have everyone know it's a different thing, but "Wii" can't do "Wii U". I guess people just expect letters to be modified versions of the same thing, not incremental new releases.

I don't think the issues with the GamePad's usefulness turns people off too much. I agree that most games just use it as a mirror or inventory quick reference, but I think the GamePad is an overall minor part of a great system. Part of the marketing failure is making everyone think the GamePad is fundamental to gameplay instead of complementary and that the Wii U is some weird hybrid tablet-console thing. They've even failed to communicate this to some game developers who apparently feel like they have to make some contrived GamePad level.

I agree it was a somewhat slow start out of the gate with games, but at this point it should be selling like hot cakes. We have a really big holiday season coming up and a few of those games have already released (Hyrule Warriors, Bayonetta 2).

I think you are right. Nintendo mainly makes products for the Japanese market. They might change a few things for an over seas release, but for the most part it is all for the Japanese market.

> they do things differently

Only the Nintendo of recent years. They were famous for NOT innovating much before. The SNES was just another 16 bits console (albeit quite powerful), the N64 did not even ride on the CD technology, and the Gamecube did not have much points of differentiation versus the Xbox 1 or PS2.

I'm not sure that's really fair.

- Nintendo experimented with a CD add on (with Sony) for the SNES. It eventually became the Playstation. - They released the Double Density Drive addon for N64 (probably a failure). - Mario 64 was the first really 3D platformer, and was groundbreaking. - The weird looking controller for the N64 had an analogue stick before anyone else. - Rumble packs - N64 came with four ports for four-way split screens

They're just off the top of my head.

It's not fair. Nintendo has a long history of innovation. They may not have foreseen every shift in gaming, but absolute prescience isn't a pre-requisite for innovation.

In the cases where Nintendo "lagged" others, it was mostly for good reasons; an example is the shift to optical media, which Nintendo resisted because they didn't want the user to have to wait for load times. Ultimately, cartridges were proven to be untenable long-term, but that doesn't mean Nintendo was "not innovative" in their principled choice to prioritize user experience over giving game devs extra space.

They did not experiment with the CD, they commissioned it to Sony first and then Philipps and broke the contract with Sony suddenly and that's why Sony decided to make a game console by themselves under the help of Kutaragi. Yet they never released anything for the SNES in terms of CD drive, while Sega did have the MegaCD or SegaCD way before them.

Analog sticks ? Didn't Sega had the Nights controller with analog sticks around the same period, for the Saturn ?

Four ports... wow, that's innovation ! You mean, everyone else could do it with a peripheral, but because Nintendo suddenly integrates 4 ports on the console, they "invented it" ? You had 4 ports extensions for about every 16 bit console out there to play Bomberman, already. Nothing new, really.

Four way split screens ? Guess you never heard of Hired Guns? Yeah you can argue that was not real-time 3D, yet that was already four way, multiplayer split screen in the very early 90s. Way before the N64.

Seriously, consoles ALMOST did not invent anything, and if they did, it's usually Sega who was at the helm of innovation most of the time - they released a 16 bits 2 years before Nintendo did. They released a 32 bits 2 years before Nintendo did, etc...

Sony and Sega both released analog stick-ish controllers before Nintendo, fwiw. They might have spurred it though by showing it off really early. Which is also probably why the "revolution" aka Wii's control scheme took so long to be revealed.

I think this is a little bit revisionist. In hindsight, much of what Nintendo did seems common, because it has become common. Back then, stuff like the rumble pack or the analog stick or a controller that has directional control on both sides actually was innovative.

Who cares about controllers at the time - it's not like having a rumble pack changed drastically how you played games. I'm talking about game hardware. Nintendo has almost always just copies what other consoles did with slightly more recent chips. And in recent history, they focused more on the controllers instead of the actual hardware.

From what I can tell, the NES controller was the first gamepad to be used on a major console[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamepad#Third_Generation

There were joysticks with buttons way before the NES. Do you consider putting a piece of plastic instead of a joystick a major invention?

I think the fact that there were many joysticks before the NES came out, and many other kinds of input devices, kind of shows that the d-pad was a non-obvious invention. In hindsight, it seems super obvious, but back then, it was a major invention.

And the Atari 7800 controller from 1984 does not qualify as a gamepad? Come on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800#mediaviewer/File:Ata...

If anyone is rewriting history here, that's certainly not me.

I think the relevant thing is the d-pad.

Could you expand on what you consider "innovation" because I'm struggling to see how old nintendo, with their invention/pioneering of basically every part of the standard modern controller doesn't fit into my definition.

Are you just focusing on controllers? Like nothing else matters?