Bleh. Watch for a repeat of Reggie's "We'd like to thank all of you who wrote us telling us you loved the name...both of you" joke from Nintendo's E3 Conference back at the Wii's launch.

Ths is a N64 repeat. Nintendo's stubborness will be their undoing, again.
N64, they stubbornly stayed with cartridge, and the WiiU they stubbornly
keep a name that confuses the casual, and turns the Hard core off, cause the
Wii had nothing for them and the WiiU is anextention of that.
Love you Nintendo, but stubbornness has always hurt people in this industry.
$600 PS3 anyone?

The name will cause some confusion. However, I'm hoping they do something with the design of the console even just a color change because while the current design itself isn't bad, it just looks like a Wii redesign instead of a new console. That AND the similar name is just asking for trouble.

I don't think the same will be that confusing. Wii is a brand. When casuals hear about Wii U, they'll ask what that is and will hopefully see it as a new system. Nintendo might want to reconsider the design of the console to differentiate it a little bit. I remember some confusion about it last year.

After a year... I'm already used to the Wii U name. What the heck !

The name is confusing because Nintendo called everything Wii . It sounds like a peripheral. Apparently, a lot of people were confused by the 3DS and that had a number in it denoting sequentiality. Wii U kind of sounds like an educational game.

Wonder if Nintendo will be forced to change the name in UK.

Most of the trademark issues are resolved, they won't be changing the name.

Love it or hate it, it's here to stay.

The 3DS confusion doesn't exist anymore since sales increased greatly after the price dropped and Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7 were released.  This shows the name wasn't the problem but the price and lack of major games that caused the early 3DS sales to be so poor.  Now there might have been some people who were confused early on but as soon as they tried to buy the newest Mario games and found out they wouldn't work on a regular DS, they learned the 3DS was a new needed system.

As long as the Wii U has a reasonable price and some killer apps at launch, people won't be confused by the name.  If people want to play the newest Wii Sports or Mario game this November, they'll find out soon enough they'll need the Wii U to play these games now.

boooo  :-[ :-X


I was hoping for something clever like NEWii or Ultra Wii or even Super Wii or Wii2.0 is better than WiiU which the U has no reasoning behind it. What does the U stand for? Touch screen controller?


Any chance it's just for Japan and America gets a new name?


NES vs. Famicom anyone

I don't agree with that, but because of anecdotal evidence of people still not being aware that the 3DS is not just a 3D version of the DS/i

Just as people are still not aware that the Wii U is not just an add on for the Wii.
But the suggestions you made coupled with a better Awareness and Marketing campaign and a slightly new look for the system itself, could go a long way.

To my understanding, publication of the trademark for dispute doesn't happen in the US till next month, but I don't think anyone in the US has contested it to this point, so there shouldn't be a problem.


Learn to love it ;)

I actually think Nintendo shouldn't drastically alter the Wii U system. Just like Apple, Nintendo pretty much nailed the look of their system (we all agree that the Wii is the best looking system to date). All they should do now is perfect it.

This article is about the American press site and Facebook page.

The problem there is Apple has a Zealot following that now encompasses the Media looking for any difference in there products.  They called the newest iPad "The New iPad" and the media know the different because there hungry for the littlest of Apple news.  Nintendo doesn't have the clout with the Media for that.


Most people I talk to outside of this forum sphere:


1) Don't know Nintendo has a New Console coming
2) Know of the WiiU, but Don't know Nintendo has a New Console coming
3) Been listening to the Media that seems to swear this is an Accessory


The sad part is Nintendo Marketing doesn't seem to want to combat these perceptions at all.  That is why I'm against the WiiU name.

I'm not a huge fan of the name "Wii U," but at the same time I haven't heard anyone come up with a name that's better (that's including in this thread, and all the other threads we've had here where it's come up).

Nintendo's marketing went silent until now. I think we'll see a lot stronger push that makes clear the difference following E3 in the buildup to launch.

Agree, but there has already been a year of damage.

I don't like the Wii U name but I'm used to it. Almost every suggestion except Super Wii has been better than Wii U and that's simply on par with Wii U. It's suffers from all the same issues as Wii U. The name itself doesn't really matter to me because I know what it is and have pretty much decided to be there at launch. I'm aware because I'm a gamer and I follow gaming news sites/BlackNMild2k1's posts. Sounding stupid isn't a problem to me. I think Xbox 360 and Vita for example sound stupid but people know what they mean. Unfortunately, if the name Wii U causes confusion, that indirectly affects me. Anything that may negatively affect the console's performance is reason for concern.

Super Wii.

Stop It Kytim.... :P

I just really hate that name "Wii U." I guess I could always grind off the logo and replace with it with what I like, which is? You guessed it: Super Wii. I refuse to except anything else. It is linguisticlly bad and will confuse the hell out of people.

Yes, those names are very clever (and original to boot)! You can see the careful thought that went behind them.

Wii tu would be clever.

Going from Wii to Wii U won't be any less confusing than going from PS to PS2.

lolwut

It's a name. Not a medium. Not an outrageous price point. 

Or we could just do what my parents do and just call it the "Nintendo".

Yes, because that wouldn't be confusing at all.

http://i.imgur.com/VHApe.png

I really have no problem with the name staying "Wii U" but I think the so called "hardcore gamers" will still look at it like it's a child's toy. The word "Wii" being in the title will most likely keep these gamers away (referencing the original Wii). This is a stupid decision on Nintendo's part and even though there is still a possibility that it could bring in some new Nintendo gamers, it is very slim.

I don't think "hardcore gamers" are going to be swayed by the name. If the system has games they want to play, they'll buy it, regardless of what it's called. If their problem is with Nintendo, a "cooler" name isn't going to change that.

Is there anyone who really *likes* the name?  I'm not talking about "I'm okay with it." or "It's better than what anyone else has come up with." - I mean you really, really like the name?

I pretty much feel the same way about it as I do with the Wii.  I don't like it, but I'll still be in line to get one day one because I don't buy a system based on the name...

Who "really, really" likes the name Xbox 360, or Playstation Vita, though? Game console names are pretty dumb across the board if you really think about it.

No one "likes" the name Wii U, but they dont have to - they'll buy it anyway!
As long as "regular folk" can see it's different, they'll be fine.



Does anyone have any better suggestions for the name? (I don't!)


But honestly Super Wii..I always thought this was a joke, who in the right mind would bring back 1990's terminology!? Plus it makes it sound like a toy, rather than a family entertainment thing.
Wii 2, slightly better but then remember why the 360 wasn't called the XBox 2....


I think the most important thing for them to do is make the casing of the Wii U very different, the fact that the new model Wii (without GC support) doesnt come with a stand is not helping them!


I'm personally hoping for a new more elegant Wii U case and some cool looking game cases that helps them stand out from the Wii shovelware piles.
If the game boxes look exactly the same but with a "U" up top, now that is gonna be confusing as hell in places like Walmart etc, you're gonna get Grandmas buying NSMB Mii and giving it to their grandchildren with a Wii.

When you really look at them, the vast majority of console names have been kind of dumb. I mean, really. Whether you referred to it as SNES or Super Nintendo Entertainment System, it's not exactly catchy. Gamecube, Dreamcast, Xbox? They're all pretty bad.

Wii and Wii U  might be the worst offenders, but they're certainly not the only badly named consoles out there. For me though, the Wii U problem is three-fold.

Firstly, unlike other console names like Gamecube, Xbox, and Dreamcast, Wii U doesn't naturally break up into two syllables when being pronounced. As a result it somehow sounds more, for lack of a better word, flaccid. It's just not as crisp or as intelligible as something like Gamecube.

Secondly, it's terrible branding. Not only does the name 'Wii U' seem ambiguous in terms of whether not it's an upgrade to the Wii or a brand new console, I feel the Wii U icon is similarly confusing. I'm not even sure that it's immediately apparent that the symbol after 'Wii' is supposed to be a U.

Lastly, the choice to use 'Wii' in the name at all seems like a misnomer. The Wii name certainly carries influence among certain casual gamers, a market Nintendo would no doubt wish to retain; but as much as Wii was popular between 2006 - 2010, today it's connotations are less positive and epecially so for core gamers. If Nintendo do genuinely wish to win back core gamers, branding this new console as a successor to the Wii would seem to me at least to be a mistake.

Just give us the WiivolUtion.
Oh well, i'm used to Wii U by now.

Perhaps Nintendo should just be really brazen about it and call it what it will be to many people. The Mario Box. The system that has Mario. They could even bring back the gamecube design, paint it yellow and plaster a '?' on it.

I can see the adverts now.
"The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Revenge. Only on The Mario Box."

I liked GameCube.  And "N64".  And "NES".  ("Super Nintendo" is okay).  "Game Boy" is great, but a lot of that might have been age, now mixed with nostalgia.  "Game Boy Color" is fine with me.  "Game Boy Advance" always seemed a little awkward, but forgivable.  "DS" and "3DS" are good names (didn't care for "DSi" - too "iPod" rip-off-ish).  "Virtual Boy" was a great name, but that might be taking too much nostalgia from the "Game Boy" name.

On the other side of things - "Master System" is a great name.  "Genesis" as well.  Don't like "Mega Drive"... sounds clunky.  "Saturn", meh.  "Dreamcast" I've always liked.  "Playstation", I could take or leave.  I've never liked "XBox", as I've always detested anything with the letter "X" thrown into it, much like wordz with z on the end.  "Vita" is a great name, but "PlayStation Vita" is icky.

"Wii" and "Wii U"... I just really, really dislike - even more than "XBox".  I just don't like them.  I never have and probably never will.

You know that when you wish upon a star, that star is millions of light years away and is probably already dead? Just like your dreams.

^^Agreed tenfold.

I don't hear too many people say it, but I've always called it the "Super NES." I hear most people around here, or even online, say "SNES"...or even "Super Nintendo." But I've never called it that. Always been the good ol' Super NES for me.

I despise the Wii name. Imagine what the French have to go through! Ugh. And Wii U is just an abomination. Not only does it use the ridiculous name and continuation from the previous generation, but it also adds in the absurd transformation of the word "you." I hate it! And the "U" doesn't have anything to do with the design of the console! Absurd! Gah, it makes me want to pull my hair out.

Nintendo HD
Nintendo Stream
NES6
Nintendo Revolution (yes, I know it's the Wii project name)

The above are much superior names compared to the goofy tripe that is the Wii name. Nintendo marketing/advertising in the last 10 years has been full of the most heinous crap that the human eyes and ears have seen and heard. It's awful -- and they're completely out of touch with what is "marketably" cool.

There. Glad I got that out of my system. Continue on now. :P: :

Smite me if you dare, but I really like the name Wii U now. I certainly enjoy the way it looks more than the actual sound, but I still think the name is cool.

I too like the name.

I am going to have to side with Caterkiller and Oblivion on the name. I really like the name. Also Insanolord has a point with the name. A cool sounding console name isn't going to change peoples minds if it does then well they need to get their priorities straight. Games are what matter for consoles.

Yes, it does. It's "you" as in your personal tablet. The U is even set inside a tablet shape.

A rose by any other name....

I can honestly say I at least saw this coming. :D There really wasn't any major reason to change the name in the first place.

Just call it the Nintendo Fiil already and call it a day. Nintendo, Super NES, 64, Gamecube, Wii -- stick with tradition and come up with something different, even if you're leaning heavily on the double-i branding of the Wii.

The Atari Jaguar and Sega Dreamcast had cool names. It seems like the consoles with the coolest names always do the worst, and the ones with the crappiest names sell the best.


Anyway, the name may be final, but I at least hope they change the appearance of the console to look a lot less like the Wii than the prototype they showed off at E3 last year. If their intention is to confuse people then that design was perfect, but if they want people to think the Wii U is more than just a Wii revision then something different is needed.

As for the Wii U name, yeah it sucks... but that's what stickers are for. Just slap a sticker over the Wii U logo and your console can become anything you want it to be. The only limit is your imagination (and the stickers you have).

Games are what matter for consoles, but do you know what matters for games? Market share. You don't want to give anyone a reason (no matter how stupid) to avoid your product. Maybe to you the name doesn't matter and maybe you think those people who it does matter to are stupid, but here is the thing: if they aren't buying the console then the success of that console is impacted, and like it or not this in turn effects you because it effects what third party support there will be.

The best example I can think of is the TV series Firefly which I really loved, but a lot of people never even gave it a chance because its a hybrid between science fiction and a western, so it tended to alienate both markets and both avoided. So the series ended up being cancelled and I suffered because of that.

It was stupid that people didn't give Firefly a chance, but it still effected me. And that's why I'm using that as an example of the Wii U and its name. If the console bombs because people don't give it a chance then it will effect you. Maybe the reason they won't give the console a chance is stupid, but stupid or not it will be a bad thing for you, me, all the Nintendo fans, and of course Nintendo themselves.

You say games are what matters and with that I heartily agree with you, but a stupid name like "Wii U" can have an adverse effect on that... so yes, the name does matter, because games are what matters, and you don't want to give people even trivial reasons to avoid your console because less market share means less games.

How 'bout we get back to the NES moniker?  Get a little history/nostalgia, while using a name that can be reused for future consoles (NES 3, NES 4, etc.), which would give that name recognition and logical progression of versions that consumers like and understand.

Just a thought.  :)

They could have called it the Nintendo Tittybomb and it wouldn't have affected the "core" gamer crowd one iota. While there could well be people who claim they'd never buy something called the WiiU, these aren't the people that were going to be persuadable by Nintendo anyway.

The only thing that's going to win over that crowd is if the tablet controller is actually an important leap forward in functionality. Will you need a controller screen to be the best at Black Ops 3? If the answer is no, and the experience isn't transformative, then things will keep muddling along the way they have been with Nintendo viewed as the family console. Which is fine, it's a durable branding association, kids need safe products, and it can keep Nintendo alive for another gen, hopefully.

Nintendo could win that crowd over. It would take more than a simple name change to do it, but it could be done if they were serious about it. What Nintendo is lacking (and I've said this many times in many threads) is their own exclusive FPS franchise. Sony has Killzone and Resistance and Microsoft has Halo and Gears of War. Nintendo has nothing at all in this genre, and that's a huge void in their franchise offerings. Nintendo has pretty much every other genre well represented, but this one is sorely lacking and should be addressed. If this were addressed along with a name change then the "core" crowd could be won over.

What? The original system was not called "Nintendo". It was Nintendo Entertainment System, and the next one was Super Nintendo Entertainment System. So that was not a "new" name, they just added "Super" to the previous one.

I like the Wii U name. Sounds good, fits their message with the system, and is easily recognizable. People don't buy a product based on the name, the gamer who claims they wouldn't buy it based on the name wouldn't have bought it anyways and just use that as an excuse.

I don't know about that. I sure as hell would avoid something called "Holocaust Juice". At least, I'm pretty sure I would.

Hmmm...then again, if it was called "AlcoHolocaust" I know I wouldn't.

People still buy regular Clorox because it's Clorox. Bleach is bleach though.

There's a big difference between sticking by a trusted brand name (which Nintendo is encouraging by keeping Wii in the name) and avoiding a product because of a silly/bad name. Also, the Clorox example doesn't fit with this, because as you said, the name is the only difference. If the Wii U were competing against systems that were exactly the same except they had better names then the name would be important, but there are a lot of other, more relevant differences.

And Stogi, knowing you, you would totally buy something specifically because it was called Holocaust Juice.

I was only pointing out that people do, in fact, buy a product based on a name.

I did a ridiculous amount of research before I bought an iPhone. There are people who bought one because they heard of an iPhone, not because they understood the pros and cons.

Well, its debatable whether "Wii" is a trusted brand name due to the reputation it has built up over the last few years of casual shovelware and games droughts. Its not a brand name that has a great deal of "street cred" among hardcore gamers.

If the intention is to maintain the casual market, then "Wii U" is a fine name for that purpose, but if the point is to win back the "core" market, then its a terrible choice. I think Nintendo wants to do both, but the name is only good for one of those objectives.

The hardcore don't honestly care about the name. The casuals might. Therefore, it makes sense to go the way they did.

What do you guys think the Wii U's successor will be named? It's never too early to start speculating.

What would be ironic and funny at the same time would be for Nintendo to announce a new name for the system at E3. It would blow everyone's mind! XD

Depends on how well it does.  If it does as good as the Wii or even better, then they'll probably keep the Wii name because the brand is still strong.  If it doesn't do as good as the Wii then they'll change the name because the the brand is has lost it's power.  That's how it works.

The "Wii U" name itself is not going to damn the system with core gamers.  But it won't help.  The N64 and Wii were doomed to having poor third party support from the get go because of hardware limitations.  The Gamecube, however, had no such overall flaw and still flopped.  Making the Gamecube look like a purple purse didn't tank the system single handedly.  But it didn't help.  Combine that with no DVD playback and essentially no online, all the way down to little ticky tack stuff like how the memory cards were 1/8 the size of the PS2's but cost the same amount or how the Player's Choice titles were $10 more expensive then the competition's "hits" line or how Nintendo was anti-demo disc.  The Gamecube died the death of a thousand cuts.  There was no universal flaw that sunk it, it was just a whole lot of little chincy things that turned off all but the most dedicated.  On the Cube it was like everything was just a little bit wrong and that turned off a market that was already set to ignore the system after getting burned with the N64.  They were trying to win people back but provided no incentive to do so and almost intentionally played to the expectations of their detractors.

I could see the Wii U having the same fate.  Nintendo talks about getting the core gamers back but they're not going to do it with something moderately competent.  They have to be exceptional and they sure as hell can't be almost-but-not-quite-as-good as the competition like the Cube usually was.  The name alone isn't going to ruin everything but it's the first cut out of a thousand.  If they're going to screw THIS up and give the system a name that is almost certainly going to be associated with the sort of casual shovelware fluff core gamers associated the Wii with, what else are they going to screw up?  What has better odds?  That Nintendo goofs on the name but otherwise does everything exceptional or that this is just one of many things that Nintendo will goof up because they're out-of-touch and have a reputation for screwing up the little things that anybody familiar with videogames would get right?

Don't forget that not only has Nintendo stuck with a name that is not core gamer friendy but this is the same Nintendo that just left the Wii to rot over the last year while great core games were just waiting to be released.  This is the same Nintendo that had to have other companies step up and offer to assist in the publishing to get some of the more hardcore Wii games released in North America.  They're coming off a major PR gaffe with core gamers and have a name that screams "casuals only".  So THIS company that fails to see the problems in this name and who has demonstrated having almost no interest in localizing games that do not have mainstream appeal is going to win back core gamers?  This name stuff isn't an isolated incident in an otherwise clean record of appealing to core gamers.

Another problem I can see with the Wii U is Reggie is still in charge at NOA. This is the same man who refused to bring over the Operation Rainfall games until a massive fan campaign and an offer from Gamestop finally reluctantly forced him to agree to bringing them over. As long as Reggie is still in power this mentality is still at work at NoA. I don't think he's changed or learned anything, so the same thing is going to inevitably repeat itself. A change of leadership at NOA is needed... Reggie isn't a core gamer and doesn't understand what gamers want. As long as he is in charge Nintendo has zero chance of winning core gamers back.

The name certainly doesn't help either, but as Ian pointed out it would be just one of many cuts which end up derailing the console from its fullest potential. The mentality which refused to bring over Xenoblade Chronicles except under enormous fan pressure is another serious problem. It also took years more than it should have for us to get Pikmin 2 NPC, and some games like Captain Rainbow we still haven't got.

I don't see any reason to think the Wii U will be any different. There will be games Europe and Japan gets, but we won't and its all because of Reggie.

For some reason the name reminds of the scene in Bowfinger when Eddie Murphy reads the last line of the latest screenplay pitched to him. The line is, "Have a nice fall, Cliff." and he's supposed to push the bad guy off a cliff. And his name is "Cliff". Get it? Murphy's response, "Cliff? Arnold gets "Asta la vista, baby" and I get Cliff? That means the audience has to think. It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!"

That's how I feel with the Wii U name. They want people to think that it's a system for parties and single players. But, it's too meta.  Honestly, the Wii was passable as a name because in English "Wii and We" have the same meaning. It was still meta, but phonetically, it still work. Someone else mentioned the Wii name must have been horrible for the French. Probably, but probably not. It's probably just as passable as a name.

But Wii U? That doesn't mean anything in English. It sounds like an ambulance siren. All the other game consoles had names that were based on, you know, the English language. This is why I think EVERYONE universally agrees that this is a BAD name.

Yeah, its just like when parents give their kid some ridiculous name and it just ends up being fodder for bullies to use to pick on them in school.

On the other hand, historically, the consoles with the best names were poorest selling (except Genesis). Think Jaguar, Saturn, Dreamcast, Game Gear, Lynx, Odessey.  They may have done decent business, but they were crushed by their poor-sounding console name competition. The 2600? What they hell does that mean? The Nintendo Entertainment System? That's a mouthful. Xbox was a cool name, but didn't sell as well as the others. But the XBOX 360? That's a stupid name. It does not roll off the tongue smoothly no matter how you say it.

So, it will have to come down to the quality of the console, NOT a marketable name. I'm getting it because I only have a Wii and since it plays all the Wii stuff and is compatible with the old controllers. It also has the awesome idea of playing a console game where ever you want in the house, so I no longer have to unhook the console and tote into another room. I can be in the same room as my family and still choose my medium of entertainment!  That alone sold the WiiU for me.

http://youtu.be/WNSf-KQORRk

My pick for a name would be: Nexus.  It means "connection" so it has that meta connection that they want us to make, but sounds so much better! Nintendo Nexus rolls off the tongue nicely.


I predict that Nintendo will not win over the hardcore in the first two years, maybe not ever. Those people do NOT want to be associated with Nintendo any more. Hell, I would have been that way if I had not had kids when I did. All of a sudden, I cared about having a family-friendly console. So, appeasing those kinds of gamers is pointless.

I'm pretty sure calling it Nexus would get them sued by Google.

Or the WWE.


http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16800000/You-re-either-NEXUS-or-you-re-AGAINST-us-wwes-the-nexus-16863009-720-428.jpg

George Carlin's take on boy's names: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo8CrY_ZfFk
NSFW

Considering the names kids have today, bullies probably pick on the kids with "normal" names.  "John?!  What the fuck stupid name is that?  Hey Moonbeam! Cedar!  This guy's name is 'John'!  Let's kick his ass!"

Thinking about it I can't imagine "Wii" being any more of a problem for French people then the band Yes is for English speakers.

But I agree with thedefalcos that Wii U's meaning is not necessarily intuitive to the masses and is awkward to say.  But then I imagine if NCL called it the "Aynel Secks", no amount of arguing from the English speaking branches of Nintendo would change their mind.

Speaking of confusing or awkward band names, have you ever heard of this band?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_the

What do you think of their name? Keep in mind a lot of search engines exclude the word "The" so if you want to do a search about anything relating to "The The" you will have a difficult time.

Not really true. Just try it.

I didn't expect Nintendo to actually change the name since they seem to think it's rather clever. They no longer need to be creative with it so they would have been better off with Wii 2 since it's pretty clear cut, but this name won't be an issue as long as Nintendo does a good job showing exactly what the system is. They seemed to have learned lessons from the 3DS so I think they will do a better job of that this time around.

As far as names go, the only system name I have ever liked is Nintendo Entertainment System. It has the company name, it's descriptive, and it isn't some nonsense word. Funnily enough, it'd be a perfect name for the Wii U which will offer more types of entertainment than just games, but unfortunately they can't use the same name, especially since NES games can still be purchased on the system.

Every other system name ranges from meh to terrible.

I'd like to mention that, calling it the Super Nintendo Entertainment System was a stroke of genius.  As a kid our whole lives had revolved around Nintendo and this was the SUPER Nintendo?  Holy shit!  I'll take five of them!  Kids are stupid so the fact that I liked it as a kid does not in any way suggest it was a good idea.  But it followed the insanely popular NES and suggested that it was in fact better than the NES.

So I suppose for kids having some association with the Wii would be a good idea (assuming kids don't think the Wii is for babies and are actually playing Xbox 360, which is probably EXACTLY what's going on).  The one problem is that "Wii U" doesn't suggest a better version of the Wii, merely a follow-up.

The only dumb thing about the "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" name was that Nintendo completely abandoned it in favor of the "N64" and later Gamecube and eventually Wii names instead. They could have kept that "Nintendo Entertainment System" brand alive and going.

I also wasn't happy that they abandoned Gameboy for the DS brand either.

I'm glad they didn't run that brand name into the ground and instead mixed things up. And dropping the Game Boy brand seemed to work out pretty well for Nintendo, since the DS will likely go down as the best selling game system in history, and the 3DS is doing even better so far.

Its worked out fine for them. I just don't like it because I was attached to those brands because that's what I grew up with so to me I value it for nostalgia reasons.

I also don't think it would have made any difference sales wise if Nintendo had kept those brands. People have kept saying the name of a console doesn't matter, well if that's the case it also means there was no reason to adopt the Wii or DS brands in the first place, because after all the name doesn't matter right?

Well the whole Gameboy and DS name thing was just a result of Nintendo trying keep their options open in case the DS failed.  The DS was called the Nintendo DS instead of Gameboy DS because if the DS failed, Nintendo could have easily dropped it and just released a different successor to the Gameboy Advance with Gameboy in the title and no harm would have been done to the Gameboy brand.

But since the DS end up being more popular and selling better then any of the Gameboys ever did, that just ended up becoming the new name for Nintendo's portable devices because the name DS became the stronger brand.

Yeah, the name change and the whole "third pillar" angle were just there as an escape hatch, because Nintendo didn't have much confidence in their little dual-screened experiment. I'm sure if Iwata were honest and talking off the record he'd tell you he was shocked that it did anywhere near as well as it did. That's probably why Nintendo's playing it a bit safer with the 3DS and Wii U, because they're smart enough to know they're not likely to get that lucky going with a crazy out-of-left-field idea this time around.

Remember this guys?

http://i.imgur.com/buvJM.jpg

You never know unless you try.

Anyway, there's also a danger in being too conservative and not changing things enough. That was basically what led to the demise of Atari because each console was only incrementally different than the last, so even though all the consoles bore the name "Atari" which was a well known and popular brand at that time, the NES still kicked their ass because it had far superior graphics and other important innovations like the D-Pad. So my point is being too conservative is actually just as risky (or maybe even more so) than changing things too much. The key is balance.

@insano:  I forgot about Microsoft's Nexus.

@blacknmild:  Holy shnikes!  Somebody actually made that connection before?  Actually, it does show that people think it's a cool name.

honestly wouldn't mind that Nexus design back.

The Nexus line was possibly named for the Nexus-6 from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Blade Runner). Phillip K. Dick's daughter was apparently actually considering legal action when the Nexus One was announced.

As bad as the name is, if the Wii U fails to sell to Nintendo's expectations I don't think the name will be the major reason why.  I think the single crippling problem with the Wii U is going to be convincing gamers who may currently own a PS3, 360, or PC to buy a console that mainly plays games they can already play on their existing hardware with only minimal improvements.  I don't think the call of Nintendo 1st party titles will be enough, not when Nintendo's 1st party software wasn't enough to keep their interest on the Wii.  And I just don't see casuals buying this console enough to make up for the multiplatform owners that likely won't cross back.

So what would get such gamers to make a Nintendo console their primary console again?  Honestly, I don't know.  Tech on par with the next-generation Sony or Microsoft consoles would help, but the Wii U probably won't have anywhere near that.  3rd party exclusives would help, but 3rd parties have moved away from making platform exclusives over this last generation.  Exclusive DLC content would help, but Nintendo's not the kind of company to shell out the cash for that sort of thing.  A free online service greater than Xbox Live would help, but does anyone really think Nintendo's actually capable of that yet with their low level of experience?

I think the burden of everything really rests on that controller now, and unless that controller is just capable of things we can't even imagine that completely change how we view games (and right now, it doesn't seem so) I just don't know if that'll be enough.

The Nexus name could be used for a console, because "Nexus" is a real word in the English language, and while the intellectual property system may be pretty stupid at times, I'm pretty sure an already existing single word can't be copyrighted by anyone.

Nintendo can start with their own fans. Having Wii owners who also bought PS3/360 to ditch those platforms for Wii U is a good start.

I plan on getting the Wii U version of 3rd party titles whenever possible. It would certainly help if Nintendo can convince 3rd parties to announce as many of those titles at E3. Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider are the hold-outs at the top of that list.

Chozo:  I thought of that as well. Like the way Jaguars the car company and the Jacksonville Jaguars can co-exist.

I think it’s kind of funny that putting glasses-less 3D into a handheld, and a 6 in.+ touchscreen into a controller isn’t considered to be as risky for Nintendo this generation. They want to control the roll of the dice a little more on their second throw. I wonder if Wii U, as we know it, would have ever come to fruition if Wii hadn’t been such a success, and provident for its successor?

In terms of the name, Wii U seems fine to me. Most electronic devices have close approximations in names between product lineups, and that doesn’t seem to be a substantial detractor to the sales success of those products. Once Nintendo finally shows real Wii U games running on the console it will become tangible. Then couple that with the fact that it will be on the market in a few months, and all of this pre-E3 frustration will diminish. 

No one who owns a PS360 will buy a Wii U to play the same third party games but those third party games undoubtably HAVE to be there.  So what will sell core gamers on the Wii U will have to be exclusives?  Nintendo themselves will have to release some games that core gamers will buy the system for, and the third party support will then potentially keep them from buying a PS4/720 because the Wii U third party support will suit their needs.

It isn't so much that Nintendo's games didn't sell the Wii to core gamers (and actually they did, but usually as a secondary "Nintendo-only" console) but that the absence of anything else turned them off.  It isn't like Nintendo games aren't appealing, they're just not so appealing that a console with jack shit else is something anyone but the most dedicated Nintendo fan wants to own as their sole console.

The goal is to make sure that the Wii U has the majority of games that core gamers want to play, including some exclusives that tips the choice in the Wii U's favour.  The difference between the systems should be the first party titles and perhaps a few third party exclusives (thought these have become rare).

I own a PS3 and I would buy those same third party games on the Wii U, but only under one of these conditions:

1) The Wii U version is substantially superior.

2) Even though the game is already on the PS3, its a game I do not own so there's no reason for me not to get the Wii U version of it.

I understand I'm probably a minority, but if I had a choice of giving Nintendo my money versus giving Sony my money I'd rather give it to Nintendo, simply because I like Nintendo better.

+1. I agree. That's exactly why I'd get the Wii U version. I'm already buying Nintendo's own games. If Wii U played Blu Ray movies, I probably wouldn't switch terribly often.

There were a few games where I actually had a choice on whether or not to get the game on my 360 or my Wii. With Ghostbusters, I got it on Wii because of the pointer controls. I'd rather have games like Rayman Origins on my 360 for the resolution and I guess achievements. I usually don't care about those, but if it's the difference between a Wii version and a 360 version, I might as well give credit to something meaningless.

But the problem is core gamers who haven't already decided to buy a Wii U won't buy one because of the 3rd party games. Even if the features are better, it still means buying a new console. Then there's the 3rd aspect for games like Arkham City where gamers might already own it because when it came out it was kind of a big deal, and they're not likely to buy it twice.

But Ian's right in that it has to be core focused Nintendo games that bring people over. If Nintendo can justify buying the Wii U as a Nintendo-only machine, then they're at least in the door. We can't assume everyone with a Wii is going to upgrade automatically like most of us probably are. Other gamers can just ignore the console until a price drop or Zelda or until "Nintendo inevitably goes 3rd party" as doom-sayers like to say.

If I buy a Wii U, my choice for third party games would be whatever version is superior.  But I would never buy a Wii U specifically for a third party game I could get for my PS3, even if the better version was on the Wii U.  I just can't imagine the difference in quality being so significant to spend hundreds of dollars on a new system.

Of course I also didn't buy a Wii to get Twilight Princess using the exact same logic.  I already owned a Gamecube and the Wii version isn't significantly improved (if at all) so why would buy a new system for it?  Now if I had bought a Wii at launch, maybe I would have gone with the Wii version of Zelda because I already have the new system for other reasons.  It would be a good idea to try to get some exclusive content for the Wii U versions of popular games but that isn't going to sell Wii U's, it will merely sell the Wii U version to people who own multiple consoles.

Yeah, I hear you. I'm not buying a Wii U for 3rd party games. I'm buying it specifically for Nintendo's games. It's the same reason I always buy Nintendo hardware. As long as the Wii U version of 3rd party games is either on par or better than the PS3 version, I see no reason to go with the PS3 version.

I don't think anyone who already owns a PS3 or 360 is looking at Wii U for the sole purpose of buying 3rd party games. Nintendo's own software, as always, will be the difference maker. Bring back the fans who bought a PS3/360 just because certain games weren't also on the Wii. It won't be that simple but that's where it starts.

Another potential thing to consider is Wii U games may retain the $49.99 of the Wii, and Amazon already has Wii U games listed for preorder at that price of $49.99 so there is some good evidence for that. If that does end up being the case, then even if a multiplatform game for the Wii U is identical to the PS360 version in all other respects, isn't the fact the Wii U game is $10 cheaper reason enough to opt for that version?

Of course that's assuming Nintendo doesn't bump the price of games up to $59.99 to match that of the competition, which they very well may do, and even if Nintendo doesn't that doesn't necessarily mean third parties won't for their games.

Will 3rd parties go for that? That's only money lost to them. And if Nintendo sticks to an MSRP of $49.99, I have my doubts that 3rd parties will follow suit. They're already weary of Nintendo outselling them (perhaps unfairly so but still) and this would be just one more hurdle for them to jump over to be successful on a Nintendo console. That could end up blowing up in Nintendo's face.

3rd parties won't go for it. They already operate in a $60/game mindset. Adding a new system to put quality ports to would only increase the cost and wouldn't necessarily increase revenue. Nintendo can price their games at $50, but I don't see that price point helping anyone else but Nintendo.

Considers the Margin.  If Nintendo keeps the margins were the developer gets the same amount and takes the $10 cut on there side it wouldn't matter to them.  We know Nintendo won't but thats how you mitigate it.

I don't think Nintendo determines the margins. Game prices went up because it's more expensive to make HD games (or so the story goes). If the Wii U is cheaper to develop for and 3rd parties make it the lead console, then I could see them passing the savings along to us especially if it means keeping up with Nintendo.

Nintendo, Sony, & Microsoft get a cut of every sale as the platform holder.

If Nintendo made it mandatory to charge only $50 for Wii U games then third parties would just leave.  They don't NEED Nintendo pretty much at all so why would they put up with that crap if they can sell games for $60 on the other systems?  Nintendo should let third parties charge whatever they want.  If a third party charges too much for a game then the game doesn't sell.  There is no need for Nintendo to be involved as the market will determine what price point people are willing to pay for which games.

Even though PS360 games debut at the $59.99 price point, after a few weeks they tend to drop down to about $39.99 and if you wait a few months most of them will drop to the rock bottom $19.99 range. Nintendo's games don't generally behave like that. They debut at $49.99 and they stay there for years, until they finally become "Nintendo Select" titles and then and only then do they get a price cut.