Now, it was you who brought up the five times userbase. I was just using the figure because you did so. When talking about Switch, I don't really think Nintendo expects anything less than five times the Wii U userbase - that I don't think is even a stretch.

Yes, US 1984, no retailer wanted to sell the AVS. 

Nintendo started their home gaming business with the 70's Pong clones. Famicom came out (the same day with Sega MKIII, btw.) in 1983. NES came out after the Atari crash in the US, to a market that was dominated by the game centric computers. In Europe NES never gained traction the same way it did in Japan and US. Why it looks like NES had no competition is for the same reason it looks like Wii had no competition: it was wiping the floor with them. The reason why 3rd party support arrived rather late for NES, was because of the developers being on the competing systems. 

So, how do you know Nintendo's company values isn't to preserve jobs? If it is, a business model that preserves jobs, is actually a good one. Besides, being opposite to industry trends, Nintendo have been hiring people. So it can't be doing tbat bad (unlike the third parties that have been firing at the same time).

I'm good, I've only brought up 3 points out of your whole list because it would take too much of my time trying to argue over this.

Let's just say that many of your supporting arguments doesn't really point to your reasoning

Now you're arguing against your initial argument. For starters, there's a very good number of people who believe that the games industry was at their MOST innovative during the NES/SNES area. Do you know why? Because 3rd parties were only allowed 2 games released per year, so they had to make those count. That changed when Sony started to pander more toward developers than consumers. This is why the PlayStation was successful, because they captured the developer base. It's nothing to do with competition at all. 

No. Exclusives are what ruin the industry, because they cause "tech bubbles" in the industry, where inferior hardware can survive just because of the games it has and others don't. Forbidding exclusives creates a proper separation between software and hardware. Your socialist statement is just disturbingly hilarious and irrelevant.

What would motivate them? The same thing that motivates all businesses. Money.

If exclusives didn't exist, you can pick the console to suit. You don't need the incentive, because everything is on everything. Your point is irrelevant.

They both have a much larger userbase, but if the argument is to remove exclusives, I'm all for it.

So did the Wii and PS4. What's your point? Selling out of pre-orders is a bad thing?

Yup like i said it Socialst who doesn't understand simple business.

And watch this gaming was most inovative in 90s because maybe new technology came,gaming was litterally new thing it was small industry that couldn't turn over 5 bil yearly people thinking it will never become big so small things were inovative that time

Because in 90s we sure as hell didn't get games that told stories like for example Last of us and defying the genre forever.

But no in 90s inovation was anything from 2D to 3D from linear to open which was going to happen no matter what.

Your point is irrelavent and stupid and doesn't hold any water.

Mods i think it's time to close this thread it's turned in to Cesspool of idiocy.

You're not going by the information available, you're making negative assumptions. Many third parties have said they have games in development for Switch, they just weren't shown yet. The information we have is that everyone on the list is making something for Switch. The 'information' you're creating is that because you have yet to see said games, they dropped support. This is something you made up on your own and are passing off as fact. 

The price is likely fine for now, but it's said that the system was designed with future price cuts in mind. This is typical for video game consoles. 

I agree that we need a few months to see how things go, which is why it's odd for you to say the results for Switch in the marketplace are worse than before. It's not out yet. 

I think potato_hamster's point is that selling out pre-orders doesn't necessarily mean that the system will be successful.

I see that you're indeed NOT comprehending what I write. I clearly stated that if Nintendo DOUBLED their software sales in a platform with 5 times the userbase, they would balance the losses from their hardware division. This is a VERY VIABLE OPTION. 

Almost right, but you were wrong about the competing systems. Nintendo actually controlled the influx of 3rd parties through their dev tools. Beam Software made their own, and Nintendo threatened any company of dealing with Beam Software by revoking their Nintendo license. Competing systems were dead. Developers were forced to comply.

Then he should have not quoted me. I was responding to someone saying that Switch is doing worse in the market so far than any previous Nintendo system. the ONLY information we have pertaining to it's market performance is that it's pre-orders are sold out. This doesn't mean the system is a success, but how can that be seen as a bad thing? How is selling out worse?