Jump to content
IGNORED

Nintendo Switch

Not Thread Owner

By Not Thread Owner
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

mushashi

mushashi

Posted
Posted
On 13/08/2016 at 21:06, Dudley said:

 

But people didn't get it did they?

 

I know people who are into games who didn't even realise it was a new format.

 

Nintendo's branding has been a cluster fuck the whole last decade really.

 

But the Wii came out in 2006 and 2 years earlier the DS was launched, they both had successors which were fully backwards compatible with connected brand naming, calling their branding an unmitigated disaster seems a tad harsh when they were just continuing what worked so well the first time.

 

Dual Screen to 3Dual Screen is about as logical a brand continuation as a Wii play together but also just for U aswell to my mind. The 3DS is hardly much different to the DS at a glance either, yet doesn't get the same level of stick.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oh Danny Boy

Oh Danny Boy

Posted
Posted

Not really clear is it? Nintendo's issue is that they release so many updates of their systems ( DSi, DS lite, and DSXL) that unless they branded the next DS as 'THIS IS THE DS2! THE NEXT DS NOT THE OLD DS' then a wishy washy name like 3DS was always going to confuse the consumer. 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mushashi

mushashi

Posted
Posted

I think blaming branding is only raised when a product fails to deliver commercially, otherwise people would be praising the sheer genius of calling it the Wii. Maybe just jot it down to failing to deliver enough compelling software and move on, the usual reason any box succeeds in the long run, it's all about the software in the end.

 

The logic behind their naming schemes in general is pretty easy to work out. Game Boy to one with a colour screen, then a better one, easy enough to follow. Family Computer to a better one, then a 64-bit CPU one, followed by a device which plays games which is Cubed-shaped, see, classic Nintendo logic through their branding history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dudley

Dudley

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mushashi said:

 

But the Wii came out in 2006 and 2 years earlier the DS was launched, they both had successors which were fully backwards compatible with connected brand naming, calling their branding an unmitigated disaster seems a tad harsh when they were just continuing what worked so well the first time.

 

Dual Screen to 3Dual Screen is about as logical a brand continuation as a Wii play together but also just for U aswell to my mind. The 3DS is hardly much different to the DS at a glance either, yet doesn't get the same level of stick.

 

Except of course the 3DS wasn't the replacement for the DS, it was the replacement for the DSi.  And there was the DSXL which wasn't the replacement for either. And wasn't an i. And 3DS XL that wasn't the replacement for the 3DS but the New 3DS is and the new 3DS XL isn't a replacement for the new 3DS and there's a 2DS in there which isn't to be confused with the 2D DS although it does play 2D DS games but it doesn't play them in 3D. And it plays 3DS games as well, somehow.

 

Quote

 


The logic behind their naming schemes in general is pretty easy to work out. Game Boy to one with a colour screen, then a better one, easy enough to follow. 
 

 

 

But again you get to that in hindsight and only by ignoring several models.

 

The Gameboy replaced with the Gameboy pocket, which is smaller but the first one fit in the pocket.  That used the same software and so did the next one, the Gameboy Light, which was the Gameboy with a light, except it was actually a Gameboy Pocket with a light.  THEN and only then did they release the Colour one, but that still played the old games, except it also made them look a bit better.  That was indeed replaced with the better one but actually surprisingly quickly so you might think it played the same games but it didn't, although it could.  Then of course came the Advance SP which did play the same games, and most of the old games but actually not all of them and then they produced another one that was called exactly the same thing and barely identified as different but which had a much nicer screen. THEN yet another one, called the Micro that still played the same games except now it suddenly and without warning didn't play all the previous generation games.

 

And then and only then did you get the DS which wasn't going to replace the Gameboy except it did, barely 2 years into the GBA's life.

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oh Danny Boy

Oh Danny Boy

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, mushashi said:

I think blaming branding is only raised when a product fails to deliver commercially, otherwise people would be praising the sheer genius of calling it the Wii. Maybe just jot it down to failing to deliver enough compelling software and move on, the usual reason any box succeeds in the long run, it's all about the software in the end.

 

The logic behind their naming schemes in general is pretty easy to work out. Game Boy to one with a colour screen, then a better one, easy enough to follow. Family Computer to a better one, then a 64-bit CPU one, followed by a device which plays games which is Cubed-shaped, see, classic Nintendo logic through their branding history.

 

Many people on here said that there would be confusion before the WiiU and 3DS was launched. Also what didn't help the confusion is that both the WiiU and 3DS   aesthetically are almost identical to their predecessors. All your examples the hardware looked so much different to the predecessors that they could only be a new console. Apart from the Gameboy Color which was an update rather than a new console like the GBA was.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Escape

Escape

Posted
Posted
On 8/14/2016 at 20:22, joffocakes said:

Oh man, I loved the curling in that.

 

Sweep, dammit! The other games were ropey even for their day, but me, my dad and a mate ended up a little too serious in the curling. Disgruntled losers eating biscuits. Up there with Tekken Bowl and Monkey Billiards.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarlaccfood

Sarlaccfood

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Dudley said:

 

Except of course the 3DS wasn't the replacement for the DS, it was the replacement for the DSi.  And there was the DSXL which wasn't the replacement for either. And wasn't an i. And 3DS XL that wasn't the replacement for the 3DS but the New 3DS is and the new 3DS XL isn't a replacement for the new 3DS and there's a 2DS in there which isn't to be confused with the 2D DS although it does play 2D DS games but it doesn't play them in 3D. And it plays 3DS games as well, somehow.

 

 

But again you get to that in hindsight and only by ignoring several models.

 

The Gameboy replaced with the Gameboy pocket, which is smaller but the first one fit in the pocket.  That used the same software and so did the next one, the Gameboy Light, which was the Gameboy with a light, except it was actually a Gameboy Pocket with a light.  THEN and only then did they release the Colour one, but that still played the old games, except it also made them look a bit better.  That was indeed replaced with the better one but actually surprisingly quickly so you might think it played the same games but it didn't, although it could.  Then of course came the Advance SP which did play the same games, and most of the old games but actually not all of them and then they produced another one that was called exactly the same thing and barely identified as different but which had a much nicer screen. THEN yet another one, called the Micro that still played the same games except now it suddenly and without warning didn't play all the previous generation games.

 

And then and only then did you get the DS which wasn't going to replace the Gameboy except it did, barely 2 years into the GBA's life.

 

....but they all sold pretty well so the conclusion surely is that adding a U to the Wii wasn't the thing that made it struggle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mushashi

mushashi

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Dudley said:

 

Except of course the 3DS wasn't the replacement for the DS, it was the replacement for the DSi.  And there was the DSXL which wasn't the replacement for either. And wasn't an i. And 3DS XL that wasn't the replacement for the 3DS but the New 3DS is and the new 3DS XL isn't a replacement for the new 3DS and there's a 2DS in there which isn't to be confused with the 2D DS although it does play 2D DS games but it doesn't play them in 3D. And it plays 3DS games as well, somehow.

 

 

But again you get to that in hindsight and only by ignoring several models.

 

 

In terms of major branding, how is it any different to what any major electronics manufacturer does? Same base brand, some extra bit to signify what new feature this particular model in the same family of products does. Seems the complaining about Nintendo's branding strategy is retroactively stretching all the way back to the very beginning now, even though they don't seem to have changed the process on how they arrive at their naming much since then.

 

The 3DS and Wii U are both backwards compatible with their very successful first entries in their particular product families, so why wouldn't they choose to make them look similar too, Apple hardly changes up their product family look to any massive degree between generations.

 

The entire DS naming scheme is just more of the same, so the 3DS is the successor to the DS line, with its major new selling point being included in the name itself. Why they called the cost reduced one the 2DS should be fairly obvious if you follow Nintendo logic, the same reason the 3DS is named as such.

 

But whatever, people are free to scapegoat what ever factor they think meant the current Nintendo hardware line-up failed to retain the majority of the previous customer base, I'll re-iterate that I believe it basically boils down to the software line-up. Every single successful Nintendo console can point to several key software titles as reasons why they did well, and they were usually new ideas, not sequels. Coupled with the continual problem with getting a diverse high quality software lineup from third-parties and ever increasing competition, the state of things is what it is.

 

As I said before, I'm curious what the new game designed to sell the NX is (assuming they have one), both the Wii and Wii U had at least one, so did the DS, though I can't think of anything for the 3DS, which might explain that situation. Both Sony and Microsoft attempt to launch new games not possible on their older, weaker hardware to give people a reason to upgrade and third-parties do the same too.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mushashi

mushashi

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, deKay said:

 

It did when it came out.

 

Which just proves that like the criticism of the branding, it all comes down to whether the product performs or not, as I haven't seen much complaining about why the 3DS has done what it has done due to Nintendo making it look too much like the DS or naming it too similarly. It's like when the Wii was first announced and loads of people couldn't believe the naming apparently (can't remember that much about it as I never paid attention to that generations launchs), now it's considered perfectly fine. I can easily imagine the conversation years later if it had performed aswell as the GameCube...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept