MasonADC said:
Meaningful handheld titles for 2019 also include Animal crossing, Fire Emblem, and Luigi Mansion! |
All those were born in home consoles.
Although Animal crossing is clearly found it's home on handhelds, we can't say for sure that the same won't happen on Switch.
Luigi's Mansion 2 sold really well and Fire Emblem had a sales spike on 3DS, but we haven't gotten home console versions to make the claim that they are mainly handheld titles.
RolStoppable said:
The three biggest sellers Nintendo has announced for 2019 are Pokémon, Animal Crossing and Luigi's Mansion, all of which hit it big on the 3DS. I am convinced the reason why you see so many home console type games is because you want to see it that way. In reality, there's significant overlap between home console and handheld software, so many IPs can be counted as both; however, you choose to count them towards home consoles exclusively, so you create the basis that then leads you to the wrong conclusion. You are committing a major contradiction in the following part:
You have argued many times that Switch isn't aimed at PS4 and XB1 owners because the game libraries are so different, therefore Nintendo needs to pursue the third party games that are only on PS4 and XB1. But in the above quote you argue that Switch was directly aimed at PS4 and XB1 owners. You explain this contradiction by committing the fallacy that the console market is a zero sum game. It's not a zero sum game though, therefore there's no problem if Switch doesn't cut into other companies' console sales. What's happening is that Nintendo provides a unique value proposition with Switch which first allows it to sell well in a market with established consoles and afterwards works as a shield against newly introduced consoles that follow the same model as the PS4 and XB1. You concede that the PS5 and next Xbox are unlikely to make Switch unattractive, so the only problem you really have is that you are basing everything on the wrong premise that the console market is a zero sum game. When I ask for sales data, I mean sales data that supports your position, namely that Nintendo is better off when they pursue AAA third party support. Of course I know that such data does not exist, so you can save yourself the time looking for it. Besides, I am now sure that the root cause for your concerns is the belief that the console market is a zero sum game; that's what you are basing everything on. If this single thing gets rectified, you'll pack up your house of cards because you will have realized that your argumentation doesn't make sense due to its fundament being an outright error. |
We still haven't seen how the revamped Fire Emblem does on consoles and only now LM has a sequel on home consoles.
AC is pretty much a handheld title.
But i'm not counting them as exclusively home console titles.
Zelda and Mario also exist on 3DS, but the actual games differ completely from home consoles to handhelds.
Look at the top 30 and you'll see that despite the overlap, Switch's library is clearly favouring home console type of games.
"You have argued many times that Switch isn't aimed at PS4 and XB1 owners because the game libraries are so different"
I think you are mistaking me for Miyamotoo.
I've always said that Switch is aimed at those consumers.
If that's what you understood, then you misunderstood me.
I don't deny that one of the reasons for Switch's success is the exclusives (Mario, Zelda, MK8 and Splatoon, primarly).
I have also said that said games aren't the priority for the mass market. Which they aren't. 'Cause if they were, Nintendo's home consoles would have faired way better.
My call for better 3rd party support is based on the fact that it's what selling PS consoles since ever. And no manufacturer has been able to dethrone them at their game.
"It's not a zero sum game though, therefore there's no problem if Switch doesn't cut into other companies' console sales"
Actually it is.
In any market people have only a certain amount of money and time at their disposal. So, choices have to be made.
There are times where that is more apparent then others, but that is how, in general, markets work.
The fact that Nintendo isn't stealing customers is actually really relevant.
It means that in 2017, despite all the hype and all the games, Nintendo could not sway consumers to think of Switch first and then, the others, after it.
So far, in the US, only 30% of consumers made that kind of choice. And given all the Switch had to offer, you should expect more.
To me, when you have a console that goes after the same people as your competition, and in the end, it's as if it wasn't there, then you have a problem.
And because of that it's not clear or obvious that Switch is shielded against PS5 and XB2. It would be shielded if sales demonstrated that people were opting more for Switch than PS4 and XB1.
Again, Switch is not succeeding against new released consoles. And that is what is helping it succeed, but that also means that it's market is not renewing itself at a desirable/healthy rate.
Do you really believe that if Switch was released in 2013, things would be the same as they are now? I don't.