Skip to content

Wii U Advert Gets Banned In UK As It Was Misleading


The UK Advertising watchdog ASA have banned a Wii U advert as it claims it mislead consumers. The advert was banned because Nintendo implied that all Wii U games can be switched from your TV to your Wii U GamePad. As we know, this isn’t the case, as only a few select games support this functionality. The advertisement stated ‘Say someone wants to watch TV when you’re halfway through a game … do both, and everyone’s happy’. The ASA took the view that this was misleading and have since banned the advert in the United Kingdom.

121 thoughts on “Wii U Advert Gets Banned In UK As It Was Misleading”

      1. IKR?
        “A few select games.” = “All games except ZombiU, Nintendo Land and…(maybe one I forgot?)

        Games that CAN be sent to the gamepad:

        Little Inferno
        Black Ops2

        I suppose there are several Launch games that are not included, so maybe they could say, “Most Titles” not “All Titles”

        1. Nintendo Land can play select few Games without the TV aswell, the Games are Legend of Zelda Battle Quest, Metroid Blast, Pikmin (whatever the name of that is), Donkey Kong’s Crash Course, Octopus Dance and F-Zero Game (forgot what the Game was called).

          Sonic All Stars Transformed supports this aswell, just flick down on the Gamepad Screen to go onto Gamepad mode, not sure if it works in the middle of Races though, the best place to swap modes is the Main Menu.

        2. Yeh ,it’s about 90% of all launch titles can play off screen play. Some don’t because they’re encouraging asymetric gameplay.

  1. that is what it does!! O.o

    of course, it was to have an advice at the bottom wich says “implementations of this feature varies from title to tile” or “available on select products” etc… but ban it?

  2. Seriously? Not once in the advertisement did they say that all games could switch from the TV to the GamePad and plus the game they showed in fact DOES do that. Might as well ban it because you can’t use the GamePad to scan, aim shuriken, or play real-time in all the games, even though they were in the ad.

    1. You’re making silly points. Nobody would think that you can use shuriken in all game, it was an example of how the touch controls can be used in games (albeit a horrid example). It’s weird to use the No-TV Play as a selling point when a minority of the titles actually support it. They used three games for the commercial and only one supported the feature, that one example. Needless to say, anybody that buys the console for the sake of playing it without a TV is going to be disappointed.

      1. You realize that last sentence was sarcastic, right? You’re just backing up my points right now, not refuting them…

    1. True, but commercials shouldn’t mislead either. Children see commercials and children do not read the back of the box before bugging their parents for the system.

  3. It’s kind of sad that many of the games on the Wii U is using this feature, especially since it was heavily advertised that you can do this with the games that you play. Wasn’t that one of the reasons Nintendo decided to have this type of game controller?

      1. They are not implying anything, but are stating outright that not all titles support this play, and that it may in fact be only a handful of titles released and to be released that do.

        1. No , about 90% of wiiu launch titles support off screen play.

          Batman , AC3 , NG3RE , Darksiders 2 , Mass effect 3 , NSMBU , Tekken tag 2 , Sonic racing , Blops 2 , Nano assault , Trine 2 , fifa 13 , NBA 2k13 , Scribblenauts , and many others all suport the feature.

          Only Nintendo land , ZombiU and Rayman Raving rabids I can think of that don’t. ,

          1. Some minigames on Nintendo Land don’t need a TV such as Donkey Kong’s Crash Course, Captain Falcon’s Twister Race and Pikmin Adventure. A TV is still required, anyway.

            1. Or that any more ever will ? you must be stupid. Only the vast minority of wiiu games don’t support of screen play and that’s because their gameplay is focused on using both screens not just one. There isn’t one wiiu game I can think of that skips out the feature for no reason or just lazyness. It’s a mandatory feature unless the game is like Nintendo land where using 2 screens is the focus of the game.

              1. Why does everyone resort to personal attacks and think that anyone will take them seriously or read past the insult. You must be dumb. XD (Now YOU get to see how effective that is).

            1. Dig through the options!!!! until you find where it says. Some games are hard to find that option , took me a while in Ninja gaiden too. Some don’t even tel you in the E-manual.

  4. *facepalm*
    Seriously, it’s not misleading, people are just fucking dumb.
    And surely there was a little fine print in the bottom saying “Gamepad only play is limited to certain titles”, to make the complains look as stupid as they are.

    1. I feel that it is important that commercials are clear. Children watch commercials and may decide they want a system with that feature. Parents may agree and promise it for their children. Imagine coming home with it and realizing that it was not exactly true, or imagine the parent trying to explain to the child that the commercial is not honest.
      The wording does sound misleading to me and I was surprised to learn that it was the games that enabled the feature and not really just the system.
      I little understanding and empathy does a long way when trying to state a point. If you disagree that it was a misleading statement to make surely you could have stated it without the cussing and insults. People tend to automatically disagree with people who are insulting and rude.

      1. I feel that people should take responsibility for their actions…’children may not know’…If I’m plunking down $300+ dollars on my kid(hell, if I plunk down $25+ on my kid I wanna know what it is and what it does) parents should be asking questions, like ‘what does it do’? Or ‘can this feature be used for all games?’ Or maybe ‘I should check this used 3DS just to make sure there is nothing scarring to my child, and while I am at it also put the parental locks on the internet so my kid doesn’t go where I don’t want him/her to go?’

        I mean is every person that irresponsible? Oh, it’s someone else’s fault that I spent a shitload of money on a device that I don’t even know what it does. People need to take some responsibility, and stop blaming everyone else for their own freaking problems, it’s like the second grade, “Well I hit Timmy because he hit me”….Last I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. People want to be treated with respect and given responsibility as adults, but as soon as they screw up, instantly it’s someone else’s fault. Sorry for ranting, but I don’t believe in passing the buck because people are too stupid to read the label…

        1. And I should clarify that while I feel Nintendo may have worded the ad poorly, that does not really warrant ‘banning’…it’s a feature, and it works with a decent amount of games(I have Nintendoland, NSMBU, COD:BO2, AC3, Scribblenauts, and ZombiU, and the only one it doesn’t work with is ZombiU), not to mention a feature on Nano Assault Neo and Mighty Switch Force(and I’m sure others, but don’t have so don’t know). Having to specify seems ludicrous. It’s a feature. All they would have to do is change the commercial to say *function may not work with all software*…not that hard.

        2. I am unclear about your point. Is it that commercials should be able to claim or imply all they want as long as they put everything in the fine print? I disagree if that is the point you are trying to make.

          1. Does it perform said advertised function? Yes. Does it do it a majority of the time? Yes. Is it misleading by saying it has this feature for all games. No. Then why again is it banned? You want more clarification for those freaking idiots out there who will buy it without even having an inkling of what it does or does not do(being ignorant or stupid while dropping $300+ dollars I might add), then put a disclaimer on the bottom. Simple.

            1. Or, you could like, not make an ambiguous statement in the commercial that would lead one to believe it’s a feature that works with every game.

              You know, just maybe.

              Nintendo defense force out in full force today.

              1. Look here you anti-Nintentroll, this has very little to do with Nintendo, and more to do with the with idiocy involved in banning a harmless commercial. If you can’t read, get an education. I for one don’t plunk down money on items I am not sure work in the manner I intend to use them. I don’t make excuses for myself in the off chance that I do(I may call the company and bitch, but in the end I bought it, so it’s MY fault), and I don’t make excuses for others. Be responsible, or deal with your mistakes.

                Your problem is you just hate Nintendo. It’s called a disclaimer. They could tack one on. Nobody said the commercial or Nintendo were perfect(well some might). But banning? Come on. Absurd. The ‘defense force’ is all in your head. The problem is with types that are like ‘I agree with this, let’s burn Nintendo for this terribly misleading commercial!’ or ‘Well I’m glad they banned this, think of the children’. Much like the 3DS with porn. While I think Gamestop should have a policy of formatting used systems(and they might yet instill that, seeing that that situation won’t sit well for their company image), parents should find out what they are getting for their kids. Irresponsible parent/consumer/*insert said person here* is owed nothing for their poor mistakes.

                1. Tell them to revise their commercials more and it wouldn’t be banned. A simple edit to the commercial displaying text that explains how Off-TV play isn’t compatible with every game would fix this entire situation.

                  No gigantic walls of text and whining required.

                    1. They never promised a thing like that, or worded it in a way that they would have received a similar advertisement ban. Try again.

            2. I think you are unclear about the definition of the word misleading. Since that word is central to this conversation and you have a problem with not insulting people while trying to make a point (whatever that point may be), I think that this is a waste of time. I find to be a good, quick resource when you don’t have a good one in print at arms reach. Best Wishes. :)

      2. Well as parent, especually with gaming, they should take more interest and gather information on a system when it’s released.
        And if an advert for say NSMBU is seen by a kid, and says off screen play, an that makes them want to play the game, it’s not lying about the game.
        Kids should be smart enough to realise when i game does or doesnt use off screen play.

        1. As for the parents, if they realize that it is a selling point of the system for the child (hopefully the child mentions it) then great. The parent can look into it and if they have to, break their child’s heart later. It sucks that they may be put in that situation, though. THAT is what I think is not right.
          For the child? I think it is not realistic to expect children to know when things are being embellished.They are kind of still learning about the world so I am a little surprised that was your argument.

    2. The fact that I have to do research into what titles do and don’t support off-tv play and that there’s no official source make this seem perfectly justified to me. A minority of WiiU games support the feature, it shouldn’t be used as a selling point.

      1. Oh come on, it’s not like sitting down on a conputer for an hour research, you look at the back of the game and it tells you if it uses it or not.

    1. It looks like the “UK watch dog” was just trying to limit how many dishonest commercials their citizens are exposed to.

    1. No need, all they’d have to do is add a *not all games are supported to the ad, though I do agree that this is ridiculous; an ad gave you the impression that something functioned better than it actually does? wow! it’s almost like that thing EVERY ADVERTISEMENT EVER DOES!

      1. I don’t think they need to, I think they should out of principle. They’re being singled out, so that’s one way of taking their double standards and shoving them up their backsides

          1. When other get away with misleading advert, it’s only natural to have doubts on the whole organisation as a whole. Even IF you could call that advert misleading, I’ve seen much worse

            1. I do agree but I see where they are comming from. This is after all targeted to kids, if not directly atleast indirectly so ofcourse they have to be alittle stricter than usuall.

  5. That’s way too far. If I tell people to turn their phone on silent to prevent disruptions during a meeting, does that mean that I’m implying that turning off your phone will stop all disruptions during a meeting? Of course not.

    1. That comparison is hilarious. It would be more like a cellphone commercial that says “You can receive phonecalls while playing a game, take the call, and the game will pause for when you’re done”; except in actuality very few of the games actually support it.

  6. I can see why it is misleading. I actually thought to myself, “Well it doesn’t switch screens with EVERY game” when I first saw the commercial. So I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought that!

  7. I think it is very important to protect honest advertising. If that was the wording of the commercial than hopefully those in charge of it have learned that it is important to be clear in their claims. If you are stating that a system does something, it seems to me like it would do that all of the time. It is more like playing on the gamepad is more of a game feature enabled by the system more than a feature of the system itself. I wish that advertisements in Canada and the US were this strict. Things should always work as advertised. When it doesn’t, people deserve compensation.

      1. Of course. What do you do when you buy something that does not work? You return it for a refund. It is common sense.

          1. I don’t visit too much. Knowing it exists and knowing the definition of a common word don’t really mean anything about how often I need the resource. You can follow up pretty much any word with .com and get a website so there is an element of common sense involved as well.The definition of compensation is, “something given or received as an equivalent for services.” In this case that something would be money, or if they want to keep the customer refer to the microwave example.
            Try not to assume things. Usually you are wrong.

    1. And this is the problem with the world…people think they deserve things that they, in fact, do not. This is the truth of responsiblity, and how the lack of people taking it in the world is destroying every country. I live in the US and people think they deserve something for everything. Take the reason why there is a ‘Warning:HOT!’ label on McDonald’s coffee…because some dumbass in the 90’s spilled his coffee on his lap in the car or whatever and sued McDonald’s for, IDK, like 10 million dollars, just because their coffee didn’t specify that it was ‘hot’. Wow, because I thought coffee always came ‘ice cold’…

      Excuse me for not being sympathetic to the whims and wants of morons, but people don’t deserve shit because they are as dumb as brick walls. You wanna live your life without a brain, thats your problem. Don’t take it out on other people, and make like they owe you for being a dumbshit.

      1. It is one thing to not know that your coffee is going to be hot when you order it. It is another thing to buy something because the people who created it say it does something that it does not really always do.
        I think it is silly that you used suck a flimsy example and then just spent the rest of your post insulting people.

        1. How is that a flimsy example? Just one of the innumerable that occur regularly. You think because something wasn’t advertised the way you wanted it that you are entitled to receive ‘compensation’ when you find out it wasn’t exactly what you thought. I’m sorry, but that is not ok. That is akin to legal theft. They aren’t advertising that the thing can do it all the time. They are saying it can. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean you are entitled to get something for it. You have a responsibility as a consumer to do a reasonable amount of research about a product before you buy it.

          And insults are deserved, not because there are some people who are stupid and/or ignorant, but because some who are insist that their idiotic thoughts and opinions be taken as right. This wasn’t a lie, and it wasn’t false advertising. No one should have to pay the parents who buy this because they ASSUMED that they were spending their money on a feature that works sometimes for some things, and didn’t take the time to find out for themselves.

          1. Insults are “deserved” when you have the gift of anonymity and a keyboard at your disposal. Go ahead and call tell them precisely what you’re saying directly to them, in person.

            I bet you can’t. :)

            1. Wrong…when this type of crap comes up, I call it like it is. I don’t pull punches with nobody. You wanna stand on moronic principles because of your emotional attatchment to a subject, because thats how most people make decisions. No logic or reason. Just always thinking of themselves. ‘I got laid off, so I deserve unemployment for two years.’ ‘I had 3 kids I can’t take care of, somebody shoud take care of me(welfare)’. Nobody owes anybody for poor mistakes. Responsibility is all I am gonna say. You can believe what you want keyboard-warrior, somebody asks me how I feel and I tell them. You don’t like it? Don’t ask me how I feel, and don’t make stupid fucking assumptions about how you felt emotionally wronged so you are owed something.

              1. You wouldn’t call anything as it is. You’ll reword every sentence to avoid getting a brutal beating to anyone who looks like they would do it to you. Don’t try lying to yourself.


                1. I am completely shocked with the horrible behaviour I see from these people. You are absolutely right that they would definitely get their lights punched out if they can’t say something without throwing in a huge list of insults. You simply just have to go out in public to know that although people claim to be this belligerent in their regular everyday lives, they don’t. Quite frankly you would hardly be able to walk around the block without seeing screaming or a street fight if they did. This is simply not how people behave in the real world.

                  1. Street fights?? That’s not dramatic at all. Because last I checked, assault was a crime. Maybe not in whatever country you come from, but just because someone may or may not say something you like does not give you or anybody else the right to attack them. But maybe the law doesn’t apply with you or the people you know. People have the right and liberty to say what they want wilthout recourse, regardless of how ‘mean’ it might be. But I don’t expect someone who thinks they deserve compensation from a company for doing nothing to understand such a simple concept.

                    1. It is against the law? I guess that means it never happens. XD
                      P.S. If you live in the states, try to keep it in your “free speech zones.”
                      Look. You have not said a single viable point this entire time. Look up the word “mislead” and then ask someone to teach you some manners. I am done. :)

          2. It is flimsy because it is not a situation that is even similar to this one. If you had said something more along the lines of maybe buying a microwave that advertises a timer but the timer only works when it is cooking food or something. The coffee is as advertised. Health and safety issues are different.

            If I buy something that advertises a function it does not have, I don not think that it is legal theft to expect that I get compensated with my money back if I return this product for this reason, or get some sort of benefit if that was the reason that I chose that microwave over another. It is customer service.

            1. That’s where you’re wrong though. The commercial said that the Wiiu can be played off screen instead of onscreen– which is true for certain games. Saying that it “does not have that feature” is barely a step above a lie. In fact, I think I need “compensation” for that lie.

              1. It is the games you can use that feature for. They can use it as a selling point of the games this feature is available for and mislead no one.I still feel it is more of a feature of the games just because it is a limited feature.
                P.S. I have promised you no service so I have no clue what you were going on about in that last sentence. It is rough to see people with such a weak grasp at English.

              2. Eeeeek! I am truly sorry if you were using that word in a sentence for the first time, though! You should know you used it incorrectly. There was no service involved. I am not selling or supplying you anything at all. Hopefully that helps you in your understanding. It is like again, the microwave example. If the timer only works when you are cooking and you thought it was a timer you could use when you are not cooking food in the microwave maybe the company can send you an egg timer or something.That would be a good way to help make the customer happy. I still wouldn’t buy from that company again, though.
                I love Nintendo products so it will take more than a commercial that may have implied something to keep me from eventually getting the WiiU. This is definitely why I wait past the hype, though. In the beginning, nothing is ever as it seems.

                1. I was making a point. Obviously, you would realize that instead of trying to insult me, but I guess you have trouble with comprehension reading. Just like you have trouble comprehending basic knowledge. Did I use that word correctly?

                        1. “Eeeeek! I am truly sorry if you were using that word in a sentence for the first time, though! You should know you used it incorrectly.”

                          1. I am not sure why you posted it again. Context is useful. If you are confused about it I wrote that because I felt bad about my previous comment. Not everyone has the same vocabulary and I was not sure if that was your first crack at the word. It is always good to try it in a sentence otherwise it does not stick. You need to use it correctly or you will form bad habits like people tend to have with the word “literally”.

                            1. com·pen·sa·tion

                              Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.

                              Here’s the thing, I did use it correctly.

                              1. Here’s the thing. I started skimming your posts because your are trolling and clearly stated I had no idea the word you are talking about. If you like, you can refer to my more complete definition since yours states only “typically”.

                            2. “I was making a point. Obviously, you would realize that instead of trying to insult me, but I guess you have trouble with comprehension reading. Just like you have trouble comprehending basic knowledge. Did I use that word correctly?” The word compensation is not even in this post. In the post where you actually used that word you really did use it incorrectly. I am providing you no service unless you hired me without telling me and my check is in the mail?

                              1. com·pen·sa·tion

                                Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.

                                I was demanding compensation for my suffering of reading your silly comments. The point was, which somehow you still don’t get, it is ridiculous to demand money over something so trivial. Ironically, you are saying that you can only ask for compensation if someone provides you a service, yet Nintendo never provided you any service. Talk about hypocritical. Look, I’m done trying to teach you basic things.

                                1. I stop reading after the first insult so I stopped at “ridiculous comments”. If you actually want me to read what you have to say you could use respect.Again, I have promised you no service so you your pain and suffering is on you.

              3. This is pretty shady–subjective at the least. If you thought that the Wiiu was able to do this with all titles then you’re seeing things. The commercial never said that you could do it with all titles, so the assumption that you could is nothing other than the consumers fault. I think commercials shouldn’t be banned because of someone’s lack of intelligence.

              4. If we banned every commercial that was possibly misleading there would be a lot more dead air on television. I knew we were doomed when they started putting the ‘toy is not actually alive’ warning on ads where Barbie and friends started moving by themselves.

              5. It’s not really misleading to the point to get banned. They should have just received a warning to change the message to a more specific one about how some games need both screens, that’s all.

              6. Pingback: Anuncio del Wii U en Reino Unido es prohibido | TierraGamer

              Leave a Reply