Wal-Mart's Terrible Nintendo Wii Knock-Offs

MaryAlan writes "Wal-Mart is now selling an electronic LCD game in the kid's section that resembles a Wiimote so closely that even Wal-Mart employees can't tell them apart in a picture. But the games — made by ToyQuest out of L.A. — are complete and utter crap, to the point of being unplayable. Their only redeeming feature is that they look like the Nintendo Wii, which means Wal-Mart is relying on brand confusion to sell any of these things to unsuspecting customers. There is a gallery of photos online, so you can take a look at side-by-side pictures with a true Wiimote, down to the fake speaker on the front. "

Obvious

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Hey, Wal-Mart is always looking for the lowest price on items - even to the point of telling manufacturer's to make a cheaper, lower quality, unit. So they found it. Where can they go from here? A picture of a Wii in a box? (Worked on eBay for another gaming console.)

Re:Obvious

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

not even just lowest price, some of their decisions just plain evil/stupid. Have you heard the story about the whole meat issue? Ever wonder why Walmart ground beef smells, looks, feels, and tastes like some sort of rotting roadkill compared to respectable grocery stores? It's because as I understood the explanation, they refuse to buy meat from any meat processors that are unionized which leaves absolute crap companies. Don't eat Walmart meat...in fact, don't even shop there. They'll pick up any product if it's cheap and they think it will sell. Soon they're going to have way too many people with the feeling that Walmart sells 100% cheap crap products, which somehow they've been able to somewhat avoid so far.
P.S. I actually know the person who sold just a console box on ebay for retail price of a new unit cuz the bidder didn't read carefully.

Re:Obvious

[xrayspx (13127)]

My wife and I pointed out an entire 8' section of the WalMart meat cooler that was at least 10 days out of code, and very brown/green/fuzzy. The employee did nothing about it and went back to what they were doing. I (in my former capacity as a supermarket employee) would have flown over there and scooped it all out, no matter what department I worked in. So would any of my coworkers. I've happily spent less than $1/year at WalMart in the last decade, but I feel that even that is too much.

Re:Obvious

[silverkniveshotmail. (713965)]

Union made products cost more because their workers are treated better and are given benefits that places like wal-mart and target avoid. The price difference between Fred Meyer and a Super Wal-mart aren't worth the actual costs to the workers.

Re:Obvious

[zippthorne (748122)]

I quite agree. For example, union shop General Motors' cars are almost always of far superior quality and reliability compared to worker oppressing Toyota's cars in comparable categories. They might cost a little more, but you know you're getting quality and helping to fund someone's retirement.

Re:

[narcolepticjim (310789)]

Nice of you to point out GM's quality [cnn.com].

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For the first time in 12 years, Toyota's Lexus luxury brand has to share its top rank in J.D. Power and Associates' annual Vehicle Dependability Study.

And it has to share it with an American car.

General Motors' Buick brand tied Lexus in the study, which measures the number of problems owners experience with their cars after three years of ownership.

Re:Obvious

[Molochi (555357)]

You can't oppress a robot. At least not yet.

Re:Obvious

[fermion (181285)]

This is rather simplistic. Workers can only do what the engineers design, and engineers can only design what management lets them. When management is concerned primrily with cooking books to fabricate maximum profit to create maximum bonuses, very little of quality get designed. I have seen america companies compete with offshore interests. It takes dedication of the management to not maximize personal compensation, and to pay workers well, either through union efforts or out of enlightened self interest. Turnover is detrimental to quality. Lack of innovation is detrimental to quality. Keeping non productive workers on staff, either on the floor or in the offices, is detrimental to quality.

Quality does not happen by accident. It must be designed, and it must be balanced with materials, time, and other costs. One thing american manufacturers did in the late 60's and 70's to really fuck themselves was not pay to design quality. The anti-intellectualism, that the egg heads had nothing to contribute, lead to some very bad choices. Sure, part of this was unions trying to keep thier members employed, but that is what they do, just like management tries to hire workers at the lowest rate, even if that means the worker cannot feed their family. That is the way it goes. But one can hardly blame the worker that is told to build a 15 mpg car with a year warrenty instead of a 25 mpg car with a 3 year warranty. That is clearly a management decision. It reminds me of my management time. It was often best when I could delivery not what internal or external customer thought they wanted, but what they actually needed.

Re:Obvious

[smurfsurf (892933)]

The funny thing about Ford vs. Toyota is that as Toyota as a japanese company already provides its workers much of what unions care about. Job security, long time relationship perspective and care for the employee instead of workers vs. management for example.

Re:Obvious

[KingSkippus (799657)]

I hope you get to +5 for that comment, because you're right on the mark. The reason why there's no huge incentive for Japanese workers to unionize is because the work culture is much different over there. I'm not saying it's necessarily better in every way, but there are reasons why U.S. workers had to unionize when they did. Working conditions were simply intolerable to the point of being inhuman, a situation they haven't had to deal with over there, thanks to a different culture and different regulations on what corporations can and can't do.

In our relentless strive for economic freedom, we've given corporations way too much power, power that corporations don't have in other countries such as Japan. As a result, we've had to, over time, develop organizations to protect ourselves from that which we have created. :-(

It's ironic that so many countries have learned lessons from us so well, lessons that we ourselves still haven't picked up on. While they're learning from our mistakes, we just keep right on making them.

Re:Obvious

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

But you've got a totally different working culture in Japan. In Japan, companies actually take some degree of responsibility for their employees. In the US, companies would be quite happy to work employees until they drop, and then serve the remains up as lunch if they thought it would make a penny a unit more profit.

Re:Obvious

[by Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:Obvious

[hedwards (940851)]

Except that isn't actually true. It really depends on more than just unionization. Companies like Costco which pay workers far more than Sam's club don't necessarily end up paying more for workers than those that lowball the wages. I believe that after 5 years on the cash register, an employee at costco is making like 40k a year, while at Sam's club its closer to 15k(or whatever it is that minimum wage comes out to).

What people forget about is that training, lack of company pride and absenteeism are very much a cost of doing business. Shafting an employee by paying minimum wage and no benefits at all, isn't something that is forgotten. Employers that do that kind of thing, especially if they employ people for long terms, can pretty much count on the employees not caring about doing a good job and not being particularly interested in showing up.

By contrast companies that take better care of their employees frequently have reduced turn over and increased productivity which can in many cases more than compensate for a higher rate of pay.

In Walmart's case, the suits that run it are just cheap bastards with little interest in sound business principles. And yes, I do know what I'm saying on this. Walmart's profits were always based upon being able to undercut the competition through and economy of scale, with that disappearing and the rivals largely caught up the regressive employment policies are going to put them in a world of hurt. Not to even mention the municipalities that want to stop subsidizing their benefits or the fact that they are selling products that are less and less difficult to find at affordable prices elsewhere.

As a result of the generally bad attitude that the execs have towards their employees, the employee cost per square foot of retail space is much higher than it is for costco.

Re:Obvious

[LeoHat (415705)]

*cough*Bullshit*cough*Bullshit*

Walmart average wage is $9.68/hr. Costco's average is $16.

Walmart: only 38% of nonsupervisory staff has health care. Walmart dumps its employee health care on the state health care system.
Costco: 85% of employee's are covered. Costco offers part-time employees partial coverage. There is even a test program to offer a health care plan to self employed customers.

On a per store basis Costco does double that of Walmart
"Wal-Mart operates 5,332 stores with annual sales of $288 billion, or $54 million per store. Costco has 452 stores with annual sales of $48 billion, or $106 million per store."

Costco's turnover is about 1/3 of Walmarts.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005107_6620.htm [businessweek.com]

The Costco Mission Statement
1)Obey the law.
2)Take care of our members.
3)Take care of our employees.
4)Respect our vendors.
5)Reward our shareholders.

Walmart does not even have a official mission statement

(disclaimer: I work for Costco)

Re:Obvious

[Cuppa 'Joe' Black (1000483)]

Obey the law? It's a sad commentary on corporate culture that that should have to be specified in a mission statement.

Re:

[Rodyland (947093)]

Obey the law? It's a sad commentary on corporate culture that that should have to be specified in a mission statement.

I'd say it's a sad commentary on the state of the law and its enforcement when a company can make a point by making a point of obeying the law...

Re:Obvious

[yfarren (159985)]

<i>1.they pay above minimum wage - sure it's not huge but what do you expect to be paid for stacking boxes?</i>

A living wage you stupid arrogant fuck. The fact that you and I were privileged with a higher education, or the fact that we were born smarter doesn't mean that the mere peasants should all live in poverty.

I have a good job programming computers. That doesn't mean I have any place disrespecting someone else's work. If there is a job that needs to get done, someone deserves to be paid a living wage to do it. If a company cant afford to pay a living wage to do it, it shouldn't get done. Belonging to a society which marginalizes and preys upon it's uneducated and stupid, is disgraceful. And that is exactly what you are doing with "what do you expect to be paid for {insert job here}".

I expect someone to be paid a living wage. A wage that will let them:

1. Pay for housing
2. Buy food
3. Get healthcare
4. Get heat
5. Support a child
6. Have enough time to spend with that child

$20k/year doesn't even buy rent and health insurance. For one person. Let alone someone trying to support a family.

Anyone who treats other people, who talks about other people who are doing useful work, that is necessary, like they are somehow not worthy of those simple things is either not thinking about what they are saying, or to me, mostly a vile person.

I expect a living wage. So should you. Shame on you or anyone modding you up with your hateful rhetoric.

Re:

[mcarp (409487)]

Hey! You know what? Thats good! It shows that the (partially) free market in still at work and doing well. Unions drive up the price of labor (a commodity like entity) and thwart performance. Union employees are asked to provide mediocre labor to keep the work available longer and easier to perform. Its in the union rules most of the time how much work can be performed to prevent overburdonning members. Remember when labor performance incured a reward in the form of a raise? Not if you're unionized you

Re:Obvious

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

buying from a union shop makes it just about impossible for you to be supporting illegal immigrants working in this country for illegally low wages without paying taxes

If buying from a union shop was a guarantee that you weren't supporting illegal labor, I'd be a lot more inclined to buy union. But it isn't, and in fact quite a few of the unions are involved in legalization schemes because they think all the illegal workers will increase their political clout, if they can get them unionized.

In effect, the union organizations are selling out their rank-and-file (who are the ones who really get hit by the wage depression as a result of all the illegal workers) in order to bring in lots of new members and make themselves more powerful. I've seen this to most obvious effect in the unions that have gotten involved in the service industries, but it's pretty widespread if you look for it. Very few of the unions seemed to be putting up much of a fight when push came to shove earlier this year on the immigration issue.

At least the corporations generally are upfront about screwing you; the union leaders seem to enjoy pretending that they're on the side of legitimate workers while doing the same thing.

Re:

[Mr2001 (90979)]

Unfortunately, no one seems to have solved the glaring flaws in these voucher proposals...

1. If the vouchers can be used at religious schools, that obviously raises First Amendment issues.

2. Taking money out of the public school system makes the public schools worse for everyone who chooses to stay in them (or can't afford to switch, or can't get accepted by a private school - see below).

3. The vouchers aren't guaranteed to cover tuition at any private school, which means they may end up as little more than

unethical

[rice_burners_suck (243660)]

I think this is a highly unethical business practice which must be stopped. It is somewhat akin to companies in China producing brand-name knock-offs that so closely resemble the original product that they can only be described as counterfeit.

The best thing to do is to take a few minutes of your time and send a short, concise, and polite letter to:

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Attn: Customer Service
702 S.W. 8th Street
Bentonville, AR 72716

Believe me, they will notice your letter and do something about it.

Re:unethical

[JustShootMe (122551)]

How could you think that resembles it so closely as to be regarded as counterfeit?

It's obvious they took design cues from it, but I don't see what people are complaining about.

Re:

[G Fab (1142219)]

I've got friends who work at Wally world, and I mean no disrespect, but a lot of walmart employees are complete idiots.

And yeah, this is a dinky toy that is meant to knock off a great toy. Kinda sad, but the market will correct. IN fact, it has. For many people, walmart ain't worth the trouble of sandals melting my feet off or lead filled vampire teeth toys. Sure, walmart is doing fine, but only for those who really don't care about reliability. If you don't give a crap about reliability, walmart presen

So what!?

[Lethyos (408045)]

Who cares if some fool is so easily taken by this product. If someone could be so stupid to plunk down their hard-earned cash without understanding what they are paying for in the first place then they should suffer the consequnces. Promoting nannyism to prevent dumb behavior will solve nothing. Idiocy has to hurt or people will never stop being idiots.

Re:So what!?

[Romancer (19668)]

So am I the first to see this article and think "Wow, darwin for consumers!"
The stupid will have to return this or lose money so they will suffer for their stupidity. Good.

Re:So what!?

[Shajenko42 (627901)]

I've got a better mnemonic:

If it looks like a snake, get the fuck away.

Re:unethical

[stevenvi (779021)]

Unless the promotional materials (such as the packaging of the toy) refer to it as a device for your Wii, how is selling this unethical? The photo gallery (not article, as there was none) only showed pictures of the toy out of the box. There was no mention of a deceptive box, only a statement that, "hey look, this toy is designed to look like a wiimote. And the toy sucks."

Is it also unethical to sell squirt guns on the basis that they are (or were, anyways) designed to look like guns, except instead of using gun powder to propel bullets, they shoot water? If you look at the box before you buy something, you can save yourself some embarrassment when you have to return it later.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

A squirt gun is usually quite a bit different from a real gun. Most of them don't try to trade on someone else's brand identity either, I've never seen any that look like any single specific gun such that they look the same at a glance.

It's the use of someone else's brand identity that I think is unethical. I would consider the general WiiMote design to be part of the Wii brand identity.

Re:

[click2005 (921437)]

In North America squirt guns are not allowed to resemble real guns so they cant be used for bank robberies etc. With the shoot first interrogate later mentality of most cops nowadays its probably a good thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirt_gun [wikipedia.org]

Re:unethical

[Jerf (17166)]

The true, original purpose of trademark law (which I am aware I'm the first to bring up) is to protect the consumer from products that are designed to fool you into believing you are purchasing a product from somebody other than the true source. That is why the touchstone of trademark infringement is "Would a reasonable consumer confuse the two products?"

As usual, you can skirt the line. You can argue about whether it claims to be a Wii, exactly what the box says, exactly what it claims to be, etc. Nevertheless, I'd say the intent here is pretty clearly to pick up sales through deception, with varying degrees of plausible deniability. That they try to stay on the legal side of the line doesn't make it automatically ethical.

They don't give me enough data to come to a conclusion. But it's certainly enough to be suggestive.

Is it also unethical to sell squirt guns on the basis that they are (or were, anyways) designed to look like guns, except instead of using gun powder to propel bullets, they shoot water?

"Guns" are not a protectable item. A closer analogy here, despite my hatred of using analogies in online debates, are the numerous "generic controllers" that you can buy that contain games in them, but are not unauthorized representations of any particular controller. Only a squirt gun that looked like a specific, trademarked gun would be comparable, and yes indeed, the law will require you to get permission. You can't make a model car that looks exactly like a real car without permission, which is why the Grand Theft Auto world is populated by knockoffs. You can't make a model Enterprise without permission from Paramount, but you can make any generic space ship you want. As is invariably the case with analogies used in debates, the difference between the analogy and the real-world situation render your analogy irrelevant.

Re:unethical

[aichpvee (631243)]

Three points:

1) This "story" is really OLD. It did the rounds on the Internet MONTHS ago.

2) As stupid as I'm sure a lot of walmart employees are, I have a hard time thinking even many of them would be able to confuse these two items.

3)
a. Either zonk has trouble telling the two apart and thinks this is legitimate "news."
-or-
b. zonk believes that it has already been posted on /. and is posting it again just to make a dupe.

Re:unethical

[feepness (543479)]

1) This "story" is really OLD. It did the rounds on the Internet MONTHS ago.

3)
a. Either zonk has trouble telling the two apart and thinks this is legitimate "news."
-or-
b. zonk believes that it has already been posted on /. and is posting it again just to make a dupe.

Maybe Zonk just has difficulties telling the stories apart?

Re:

[belmolis (702863)]

If the design is sufficiently similar to the Nintendo Wii as to confuse consumers, Nintendo can sue for infringement on its trade dress [wikipedia.org]. Trade dress is similar to trademark, but instead of the words of a brand name or slogan it refers to the non-functional characteristics of a product. In other words, existing law should take care of this problem.

Re:unethical

[poopdeville (841677)]

Keep that in mind next time you go to the pharmacist. Or have your brake lines replaced. Or buy meat.

Shit, calm down

[stratjakt (596332)]

They've been making little LCD toys that looked like console controllers since the Atari 2600.

They make lighters that look like pistols and male masturbators that look like flashlights. If you dont want to be "taken", read the package first.

Slow news day? Is this the best you can do to muster nerd rage?

Re:

[bladesjester (774793)]

I think you even have 90 days to do so.

You only have like 30 days for electronic stuff and some of it they won't refund if it's been opened, only replace with an identical item.

Re:

[Kredal (566494)]

On the plus side, if the WalMart employee can't tell the difference, a real Wii remote could be the "identical" item that you recieve in trade!

Re:

[RobFlynn (127703)]

Oh, I've heard of a security label. But this didn't have anything like that. It was just a pack of socks. I realized that I had bought the wrong kind. If no one is working the front door, then I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do.

It looks like a great product...

[distantbody (852269)]

...although I think my next game system will be a Mini Polystation 3 [gizmodo.com]. Thanks Dr Ashen!!! [youtube.com]

no sympathy... it's wal-mart after all

[eagl (86459)]

Come on... This is wal-mart we're talking about. Who goes to wal-mart to buy *good* stuff? wal-mart is all about large quantities of cheap stuff, end of story. It's a great place to buy cheap or bulk items... I shop there all the time for generic food items and anything disposable that I need in bulk (kleenex, cleaning supplies, etc). If you want to find something really good at wal-mart, you MUST look for the exact name brand and even then you have to carefully check model numbers to make sure you're not getting a cheaper wal-mart only version. You know, the wal-mart equivalent of those crappy dell soundblasters that don't work with anything but dell drivers and which had ultra-cheap and noisy components. I had a drill like that... My Dad had one from Sears and it had a metal body, durable rubberized, grips, etc. The same drill from wal-mart (same model number but with an "a" on the end) had a plastic body and the grip cracked within a week.

The point is, if you're going into wal-mart expecting to get high quality anything, you're either an optimist or a retard and deserve to get what you find there.

walmart employees

[pavera (320634)]

Well, just because walmart employees can't tell them apart doesn't mean your average 6 year old can't.

Personally, I have no problem telling them apart and I've only seen a Wii once for about 5 minutes...

Sure this is probably a violation of some intellectual property law or other... but aren't we always complaining about those laws and how stupid and unnecessarily restrictive they are? We defended Lindows and said "you'd have to be an idiot to confuse Lindows with Windows". Personally I'm from the camp of idiocy gets what it deserves. If you're too dumb or ignorant to tell these 2 devices apart, then you deserve to have your money taken. I know my 8 year old brother wouldn't be fooled by the knock off, so why should anyone? Or are we all willing to say that the average adult is dumber than an average 8 year old? And, if that is what we're saying HOW IS THAT OK OR ACCEPTABLE?!?

Foreign imports

[fmarkham (1091529)]

Damn those cheap foreign knock-offs of quality American designs! Oh wait...

More Spin...

[LWATCDR (28044)]

Yea it gets you points to bash Walmart on Slashdot.
So why is everybody posting how bad Walmart is for selling this.
ToyQuest out of L.A is the manufacture. So where is the venom for them? Is this a Walmart exclusive? Has anyone checked to see if Sears, Target or those stupid little carts in the middle of every mall is selling them?
I am not a huge Walmart fan but this is so slanted that it is just silly.
Sorry folks it looks sort of like a Wiimote and costs all of $10. I don't think this is anymore of a ripe off than the toy cellphones that look like a Razer.
Good grief.

Re:What?

[macshome (818789)]

If you click on the images you will find the text...

Re:

[TheGoodSteven (1178459)]

I don't think that are really trying to fool video game players though. I think they are trying to target the parents that have no knowledge about video games aside from seeing a Wii a few times and know that they are popular. I am such a person, and aside from the "Wii" on the bottom of the real controller, would be unable to tell which one was the knockoff. Certainly if someone threw one of the knock offs in my hand, my first thought would be that it was a Wii controller without thinking twice about it. A

Re:They don't look at all alike.

[Ephemeriis (315124)]

They don't look alike at all.

Yes, they do. It's not just superficial... It's fairly obvious that the knock-off was intentionally designed to look like a Wii-mote.

the changes are significant enough that I wouldn't be fooled.

You aren't the target here.

I used to work at Electronics Boutique over the holidays, and I can guarantee that there are plenty of parents out there who would purchase this thing without a moment's hesitation - believing the whole time that they were purchasing a Wii-mote, or even the entire Wii system.

Parents used to show up with the most vague descriptions of what their child wanted... Or pictures clipped from catalogs, sales fliers, and magazines... Folks wouldn't know whether they needed a game for the PS2, Xbox, Game Cube, or computer. All they knew is that their kid said this, or it looked like that, or it had some guy with wings in it.

We had plenty of returns after Christmas because of this confusion. Folks who bought the game for entirely the wrong system...or the wrong kind of memory card...or bought some part of the system instead of the whole thing... And that was all without overly deceiving advertising or product design like this thing.

Re:They don't look at all alike.

[RobertM1968 (951074)]

Mod Parent "+1 Intelligent" (and then ban him from SlashDot!!!) ;-)

The magic of "Something like it."

[xC0000005 (715810)]

I would imagine that most people who buy this don't honestly think this is a nintendo wii. They think it looks a lot like one, and for kids toys so often that's "enough". The logic is twisted, but if you're a parent who can barely afford the $15 for this toy and your child wants a wii, well, it's a delusion that gets bought into. You can't afford the real thing. You can afford a cheap knock off, and "it's kind of the same thing, right?"

No. It isn't. That doesn't really enter the equasion.

Re:How can you confuse them?

[reddburn (1109121)]

Far more likely than your utter slam of everyone else in the US (which tells us nothing more than that you think you're better than everyone else) is what the GP said - they're relying on brand confusion and poverty to sell something that looks like a Wii to people who can't afford the real thing and whose kids want a game system. Have you ever been that kid? Ever wondered why Christmas was a big deal in everyone else's house but not yours?

I have, and looking back with a kid of my own, I feel worse for my parents for picking up the knockoff than for myself for getting it. I can't imagine how they felt when they realized it wasn't worth fifty cents and broke the first time I used it. Blame Walmart for targeting desperate parents who want to do something really good for their kids but end up getting cheap crap instead of what they thought they were getting. We can't all be as wonderfully gifted as you, and an eighty hour workweek at a demanding physical job can wreak havoc on a mom who's out doing her last minute shopping.

Think of self-important, critical dickheads like you and realize that while your witty repartee might amuse you for a moment, it doesn't do a goddamn thing to help. Realize that if everyone you meet is "retarded," it may not be them. It may be you.

Re:How can you confuse them?

[Whiteox (919863)]

Even though there's no Walmart around here (for about 10,000k or so), there are certainly stores that sell crap.
What should annoy everyone is that valuable raw materials are being used to make this crap (often unusable) that shouldn't be made in the first place.
Simple example: I can buy a chinese dustpan on a stick and brush for $2.00. It can't be used though as the pan's edge has been warped during manufacture and it would be pointless trying to use it. There's about 10 of them, lined up, ready for sale.

In other words, some factory in China is pumping out this useless product, some importer/wholesaler is paying for the transport and a distributor sends them out and consumers are supposed to buy it (I don't think the store sold any).
That translates into throwing away oil.

What is needed in situations like this is some kind of authority with enough clout to stop or even prevent material wastage on products that just can't be used.

There should be a form of quality control in the design and manufacture that is definitely missing in certain parts of the world.