Quantcast
Is Nintendo Switch really a success?

Forums - Sales Discussion - Is Nintendo Switch really a success?

@DélioPT

If we're looking for signs, how about these:
- No-one cares about 4K
- No-one cares about VR
- No-one cares about streaming games
- No-one cares about Bluray++
- Fortnite

Fortnite is the only one of the above that managed to stall PS4's and XB1's decline.
A game like Fortnite being the next big thing is a good sign for Nintendo.
More people have downloaded it on mobile devices than home consoles.
More people have downloaded it on Switch than XB1X/PS4Pro (educated guestimate) but this isn't suprising given that casual games involving dancing and pets are always more popular on Nintendo systems than on the strongest consoles.

The market has been telling Nintendo to combine their systems for the past 30 years. With the exception of CoD, every new/rebooted megahit of the past 2-3 generations has been either a mobile/portable game (PUBG, Fortnite, PokemonGo, Minecraft, NSMB) that didn't need high end graphics or had motion control (WiiSports/Fit/Kinect).

Just like with touchscreen, casual games on the DS, Nintendo has already seen which way the wind is blowing and embraced the tech that could bring on their own demise.

Nintendo is the only company that could make a success of a tablet in the era of Apple/Samsung.

All the signs are pointing to Nintendo doing amazing while people are questioning the necessity of 4K/VR ie the PS5/XB2.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
DélioPT said: 
HoangNhatAnh said:

I can agree with you that Switch is a HC which have the portable ability just like PSP/Vita.

Commercial of those games? Switch is a hybrid after all, it will have all Nin franchise, both home console and handheld.

Different or not, doesn't change the fact that Japan focus on handheld more and the West love gaming on TV.

What i tried to show is that those commercials act the same way: first home console, then portability and in the end, Switch again as the home console. 
Marketing speaking, that's a clear message.

"Different or not, doesn't change the fact that Japan focus on handheld more and the West love gaming on TV."
Can't agree more.
Personally, i would love to see if Switch has made japanese gamers more TV friendly now that Switch allows for both Styles of play

Marketing here mean nothing if there are people who only use Switch as a handheld. In Japan and many Asian countries, we only play handheld mode.



curl-6 said:
DélioPT said:

Before Switch and the Pro/X i'd probably instantly agree with you.
But Switch is a new contender to their market. Although, not a proven direct competitor, it still is a serious threat.
Those 70%-30% might change in Switch's favour with time.

MS is betting a lot on paid subscriptions and that could pave the way for a different relationship between MS/Sony and their userbase.
Not to forget MS is trying, or will try, that monthly installment angle.

The hybrid concept is a system seller. But, for how long? Novelties like these eventually wear off.
It may be the case where when PS5/XB2 arrive it doesn't have that selling power it has now.

By the time PS5/Nextbox arrive, Switch will be significantly cheaper, have accumulated a massive library of killer games, and have a monopoly on non-mobile portable gaming, all of which should easily offset the hybrid concept no longer being new. We'll be talking about a $200 Switch vs a probably $400 PS5, so in addition to being totally different products, they'll also be serving totally different price ranges.

My guess is 200$, too.

"massive library of killer games"
Aren't you mistaking it for the PS4?? :) joking!

Personally, i highly doubt that Switch will be able to offer that many reasons to buy the system. But more important than that, is how much leftover appeal it's system sellers will have by then.
For example, while it took Mario Galaxy, 5 years to sell close to 12M copies, Odyssey sold 10M in less than a year; Twilight Princess sold 8.7M in six years, yet BOtW sold around 10M in 1 year and 7 months; Mario Kart 7 sold around 15M in pretty much 7 years, while MK8 Deluxe is near 10M in a year and a half.
This is a very atypical situation for Nintendo software - that usually pulls off these numbers throughout the lifetime of their respective consoles.

There are other incoming titles that may or not follow this pattern, so i'll refrain from saying anything more. 

We also can't forget how Nintendo has been bad at supporting their consoles at the end of their life cycle.


400$ vs 200$ is no longer the big difference it used to be.

Even if we reach the year of the introduction for PS5 and XB2 and things go your way, there are two things that aren't a certainty: what will Sony and MS offer? Will have Switch expanded it's userbase, becoming a primary console for that market, or was it just a "it was good while it lasted" situation?



Pyro as Bill said:
@DélioPT

If we're looking for signs, how about these:
- No-one cares about 4K
- No-one cares about VR
- No-one cares about streaming games
- No-one cares about Bluray++
- Fortnite

Fortnite is the only one of the above that managed to stall PS4's and XB1's decline.
A game like Fortnite being the next big thing is a good sign for Nintendo.
More people have downloaded it on mobile devices than home consoles.
More people have downloaded it on Switch than XB1X/PS4Pro (educated guestimate) but this isn't suprising given that casual games involving dancing and pets are always more popular on Nintendo systems than on the strongest consoles.

The market has been telling Nintendo to combine their systems for the past 30 years. With the exception of CoD, every new/rebooted megahit of the past 2-3 generations has been either a mobile/portable game (PUBG, Fortnite, PokemonGo, Minecraft, NSMB) that didn't need high end graphics or had motion control (WiiSports/Fit/Kinect).

Just like with touchscreen, casual games on the DS, Nintendo has already seen which way the wind is blowing and embraced the tech that could bring on their own demise.

Nintendo is the only company that could make a success of a tablet in the era of Apple/Samsung.

All the signs are pointing to Nintendo doing amazing while people are questioning the necessity of 4K/VR ie the PS5/XB2.

It's not that people don't care about 4K, it's just that it's really hard to sell a console that is 400-500 that offers only a marginal improvement (also due to games not being built specifically for those specific systems) and then ask them to either have a 4K TV or spend another 400-500 dollars for that marginal experience.
Next gen the relevance of 4K might increase a bit.

" No-one cares about streaming games"
I've seen a lot of people talking against it, but it's because of the nature of a business built around it, but more because of fears or bad experiences with lag.
That problem won't last forever.

"More people have downloaded it on Switch than XB1X/PS4Pro (educated guestimate) but this isn't suprising given that casual games involving dancing and pets are always more popular on Nintendo systems than on the strongest consoles"
Without numbers i'll disagree with that guestimate, for 2 reasons.
First, Switch userbase is the smallest one.
Second, the other versions were already available for download since mid last year.
Not all casual experiences are the same. And in this case, they clearly aren't the same.

"Fortnite is the only one of the above that managed to stall PS4's and XB1's decline."
If that were true than it's pattern will be really erratic.
Last year was the peak year for PS4 while XB1 was pretty much the same. This year, XB1 is having it's best year while PS4 seems poised to go down.

I really can't see how Fortnite is affecting the above consoles.

"All the signs are pointing to Nintendo doing amazing while people are questioning the necessity of 4K/VR ie the PS5/XB2. "
You are also talking about the company that has the most mistakes for the three manufacturers.
All the exemples you gave above were either free games or games for a market that doesn't exist, with the exception of NSMB.

I'll agree that it has been one of Nintendo's best moves to bring those popular, free games to Switch.
But we can't also ignore that the other popular, non-free games are absent from Switch and will keep on being if Switch 2 can't deliver. And to those gamers, they keep showing that they prefer those free games plus the other non-free games of the same kind.
This is what Switch and Nintendo need to change.



DélioPT said:
curl-6 said:

By the time PS5/Nextbox arrive, Switch will be significantly cheaper, have accumulated a massive library of killer games, and have a monopoly on non-mobile portable gaming, all of which should easily offset the hybrid concept no longer being new. We'll be talking about a $200 Switch vs a probably $400 PS5, so in addition to being totally different products, they'll also be serving totally different price ranges.

My guess is 200$, too.

"massive library of killer games"
Aren't you mistaking it for the PS4?? :) joking!

Personally, i highly doubt that Switch will be able to offer that many reasons to buy the system. But more important than that, is how much leftover appeal it's system sellers will have by then.
For example, while it took Mario Galaxy, 5 years to sell close to 12M copies, Odyssey sold 10M in less than a year; Twilight Princess sold 8.7M in six years, yet BOtW sold around 10M in 1 year and 7 months; Mario Kart 7 sold around 15M in pretty much 7 years, while MK8 Deluxe is near 10M in a year and a half.
This is a very atypical situation for Nintendo software - that usually pulls off these numbers throughout the lifetime of their respective consoles.

There are other incoming titles that may or not follow this pattern, so i'll refrain from saying anything more. 

We also can't forget how Nintendo has been bad at supporting their consoles at the end of their life cycle.

400$ vs 200$ is no longer the big difference it used to be.

Even if we reach the year of the introduction for PS5 and XB2 and things go your way, there are two things that aren't a certainty: what will Sony and MS offer? Will have Switch expanded it's userbase, becoming a primary console for that market, or was it just a "it was good while it lasted" situation?

That Nintendo's Switch software is selling more strongly than on prior consoles is a point in its favour, not against it. All the evidence points to its evergreen titles remaining strong sellers for years to come, including ones that are still to arrive like Animal Crossing, Smash, Gen 8 Pokemon, and more that we don't even know about yet.

And double the price is double the price whether it's 2006 or 2020.

Sony/MS will almost certainly offer what they always have; just their last system but with more power. That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 08 October 2018

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
DélioPT said:

My guess is 200$, too.

"massive library of killer games"
Aren't you mistaking it for the PS4?? :) joking!

Personally, i highly doubt that Switch will be able to offer that many reasons to buy the system. But more important than that, is how much leftover appeal it's system sellers will have by then.
For example, while it took Mario Galaxy, 5 years to sell close to 12M copies, Odyssey sold 10M in less than a year; Twilight Princess sold 8.7M in six years, yet BOtW sold around 10M in 1 year and 7 months; Mario Kart 7 sold around 15M in pretty much 7 years, while MK8 Deluxe is near 10M in a year and a half.
This is a very atypical situation for Nintendo software - that usually pulls off these numbers throughout the lifetime of their respective consoles.

There are other incoming titles that may or not follow this pattern, so i'll refrain from saying anything more. 

We also can't forget how Nintendo has been bad at supporting their consoles at the end of their life cycle.

400$ vs 200$ is no longer the big difference it used to be.

Even if we reach the year of the introduction for PS5 and XB2 and things go your way, there are two things that aren't a certainty: what will Sony and MS offer? Will have Switch expanded it's userbase, becoming a primary console for that market, or was it just a "it was good while it lasted" situation?

That Nintendo's Switch software is selling more strongly than on prior consoles is a point in its favour, not against it. All the evidence points to its evergreen titles remaining strong sellers for years to come, including ones that are still to arrive like Animal Crossing, Smash, Gen 8 Pokemon, and more that we don't even know about yet.

And $200 vs $400 is exactly as big as it has always been, double the price is double the price whether it's 2006 or 2020.

Sony/MS will almost certainly offer what they always have; just their last system but with more power. That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes.

Funny how even clear facts that are positive and actually better than before, he trying to spin in something potentially negative. :D

Also claim that 400$ vs 200$ is no longer the big difference it used to be, doesn't make any sense because it's fact like you wrote we again taking about double price in any case.



curl-6 said:
DélioPT said:

 

That Nintendo's Switch software is selling more strongly than on prior consoles is a point in its favour, not against it. All the evidence points to its evergreen titles remaining strong sellers for years to come, including ones that are still to arrive like Animal Crossing, Smash, Gen 8 Pokemon, and more that we don't even know about yet.

And double the price is double the price whether it's 2006 or 2020.

Sony/MS will almost certainly offer what they always have; just their last system but with more power. That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes.

What evidence are you talking about?

The way i see it: it can go either way: increased numbers overall for said franchises or burning through their potential market faster than in other generations.
A quick remember: I'm talking about end of product cycle sales, in a time when PS5 and XB2 are already out or incoming.

Obviously time doesn't change mathematic laws.
The real point is that we have seen PS4 sell more than 80 million consoles with a price that goes between 300 and 400$. That alone shows that customers are more willing to pay those high prices than they were back in the day, if the value is there.
So, you can't automatically assume that because one is cheaper, it will be ok.

What will determine one scenario or the other is what appeal Switch, PS5 and XB2 will have by then.

"That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes"
Things aren't that linear as you make them to be.
The moment that your market is being offered an alternative to your product, you're already in danger of losing marketshare/sales.
What determines if that happens and how much impact it has, depends, mostly, on brand fidelity. And so far, that clearly favours Sony and MS and not Nintendo (despite everything 2017 and 20018 brought, only 30% non PS/XB users).
 



DélioPT said:
curl-6 said:

That Nintendo's Switch software is selling more strongly than on prior consoles is a point in its favour, not against it. All the evidence points to its evergreen titles remaining strong sellers for years to come, including ones that are still to arrive like Animal Crossing, Smash, Gen 8 Pokemon, and more that we don't even know about yet.

And double the price is double the price whether it's 2006 or 2020.

Sony/MS will almost certainly offer what they always have; just their last system but with more power. That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes.

What evidence are you talking about?

The way i see it: it can go either way: increased numbers overall for said franchises or burning through their potential market faster than in other generations.
A quick remember: I'm talking about end of product cycle sales, in a time when PS5 and XB2 are already out or incoming.

Obviously time doesn't change mathematic laws.
The real point is that we have seen PS4 sell more than 80 million consoles with a price that goes between 300 and 400$. That alone shows that customers are more willing to pay those high prices than they were back in the day, if the value is there.
So, you can't automatically assume that because one is cheaper, it will be ok.

What will determine one scenario or the other is what appeal Switch, PS5 and XB2 will have by then.

"That will not disrupt the Switch as it sells for entirely different reasons, just as the release of a new sports car won't unduly affect sales of motorbikes"
Things aren't that linear as you make them to be.
The moment that your market is being offered an alternative to your product, you're already in danger of losing marketshare/sales.
What determines if that happens and how much impact it has, depends, mostly, on brand fidelity. And so far, that clearly favours Sony and MS and not Nintendo (despite everything 2017 and 20018 brought, only 30% non PS/XB users).
 

The evidence that Switch's evergreen titles are showing fantastic legs with nothing whatsoever to suggest this will change.

We're just going in circles now; you're still dancing around the fact that Switch is a totally different product from PS/Xbox that occupies a totally different niche; the fact that their sales aren't affecting each other does not support your argument, it totally undermines it, as it shows that they don't directly compete. 

The only way your position would hold any water at all would be if you believe Sony/MS are going to create their own competing hybrids next gen.



curl-6 said:
DélioPT said:

 

The evidence that Switch's evergreen titles are showing fantastic legs with nothing whatsoever to suggest this will change.

We're just going in circles now; you're still dancing around the fact that Switch is a totally different product from PS/Xbox that occupies a totally different niche; the fact that their sales aren't affecting each other does not support your argument, it totally undermines it, as it shows that they don't directly compete. 

The only way your position would hold any water at all would be if you believe Sony/MS are going to create their own competing hybrids next gen.

Again, i'm not talking about short term effects on sales of said games.
And even then, that doesn't qualify as conclusive evidence as you are comparing the sales pattern of na typical situation to that of a atypical situation.

"you're still dancing around the fact that Switch is a totally different product from PS/Xbox that occupies a totally different niche;"
I never even questioned the idea that they were different products nor did i said such a situation couldn't be true/happen. What i said is that, given the data we have, i don't believe that because they are different, that automatically explains sales numbers and coexistance.

I don't deny that coexistence. What i did was question how that same coexistence was/is being possible in the way we are witnissing.
And that's really what separates our views. 

What you have been saying is this: they are different products and because Switch goes after a niche market, it can easily coexist now and in the years to come.
First, 20 million consoles sold in 18 months or so is anything but niche.
Second, by saying that you are ignoring certain important aspects:
To this day, since launch, despite everything Switch, only 30% of the 20M are new users;
70% of it's users already own a PS4/XB1. And i think it's safe to assume "already owned" is more accurate;
When Switch came out, more than 80M consoles had been sold. A number that has increased to 108M, alongside Switch.

The reason, to me, to their coexistance, is simple:
There was no real competition because the number of consoles sold was already so high that there was enough people for Switch to sell to without causing much distress to PS4 and XB1. But saying that is like saying that your potential market has an expiration date (it doesn't renew itself enough)

Also, another problem arises: why didn't more new users opted for Switch in 2017 instead of staying with PS4 and XB1? The same goes for 2018.
It's a valid question for a system that was so hyped and brought a new concept along with 4 system sellers in 10 months… why didn't the 2017 and 2018 consumers prefer the Switch over PS4? In other words, why aren't we seeing Switch leading sales over the competition (in a year where even XB1 is managing to go up)?


Simple explanation: people, who aren't made of money had a choice to make. They chose PS4 over Switch. 
Which left old PS4/XB1 users as the most likely consumers for the new console (enough time with other consoles; Switch being a very desirable product; no PS5/XB1 in sight).

As you see, i don't dance around the obvious. I question why the obvious performed the way it did and not differently and what may ensue or not.

Again, when three companies go after the same consumers they are already competing.
Of course, it's better for them all to do it their own way and not just copy the other, as that creates more reasons to have all products. But when people have money on their hands they first go after the thing that matters the most and then, if there's more Money - WHEN there's more moeny -, they'll go for the second most important product.

Difference is good and a very good argument, but you can't ignore when that same differance is being offered in a head-to-head competition or when it's being offered when the market is already there ready to go for something new.
Switch kinda faced both situations: it succeeded in attracting satisfied customers but didn't succeed in being the top choice for new users.

Iit is not different or irrelevant if you can attract more users to you than the other guys in a given context. And in this context, Switch isn't being able to be at the top.
At the top are... the "top" priorities. Obivious but still very imporant to remember that.

 

I get it that you don't agree with me and no matter what i say you probably won't, so, as to not drag this any further, let's end things here?
Maybe one day we will get back to this and see how things changed.



DélioPT said:
curl-6 said:

The evidence that Switch's evergreen titles are showing fantastic legs with nothing whatsoever to suggest this will change.

We're just going in circles now; you're still dancing around the fact that Switch is a totally different product from PS/Xbox that occupies a totally different niche; the fact that their sales aren't affecting each other does not support your argument, it totally undermines it, as it shows that they don't directly compete. 

The only way your position would hold any water at all would be if you believe Sony/MS are going to create their own competing hybrids next gen.

Again, i'm not talking about short term effects on sales of said games.
And even then, that doesn't qualify as conclusive evidence as you are comparing the sales pattern of na typical situation to that of a atypical situation.

"you're still dancing around the fact that Switch is a totally different product from PS/Xbox that occupies a totally different niche;"
I never even questioned the idea that they were different products nor did i said such a situation couldn't be true/happen. What i said is that, given the data we have, i don't believe that because they are different, that automatically explains sales numbers and coexistance.

I don't deny that coexistence. What i did was question how that same coexistence was/is being possible in the way we are witnissing.
And that's really what separates our views. 

What you have been saying is this: they are different products and because Switch goes after a niche market, it can easily coexist now and in the years to come.
First, 20 million consoles sold in 18 months or so is anything but niche.
Second, by saying that you are ignoring certain important aspects:
To this day, since launch, despite everything Switch, only 30% of the 20M are new users;
70% of it's users already own a PS4/XB1. And i think it's safe to assume "already owned" is more accurate;
When Switch came out, more than 80M consoles had been sold. A number that has increased to 108M, alongside Switch.

The reason, to me, to their coexistance, is simple:
There was no real competition because the number of consoles sold was already so high that there was enough people for Switch to sell to without causing much distress to PS4 and XB1. But saying that is like saying that your potential market has an expiration date (it doesn't renew itself enough)

Also, another problem arises: why didn't more new users opted for Switch in 2017 instead of staying with PS4 and XB1? The same goes for 2018.
It's a valid question for a system that was so hyped and brought a new concept along with 4 system sellers in 10 months… why didn't the 2017 and 2018 consumers prefer the Switch over PS4? In other words, why aren't we seeing Switch leading sales over the competition (in a year where even XB1 is managing to go up)?


Simple explanation: people, who aren't made of money had a choice to make. They chose PS4 over Switch. 
Which left old PS4/XB1 users as the most likely consumers for the new console (enough time with other consoles; Switch being a very desirable product; no PS5/XB1 in sight).

As you see, i don't dance around the obvious. I question why the obvious performed the way it did and not differently and what may ensue or not.

Again, when three companies go after the same consumers they are already competing.
Of course, it's better for them all to do it their own way and not just copy the other, as that creates more reasons to have all products. But when people have money on their hands they first go after the thing that matters the most and then, if there's more Money - WHEN there's more moeny -, they'll go for the second most important product.

Difference is good and a very good argument, but you can't ignore when that same differance is being offered in a head-to-head competition or when it's being offered when the market is already there ready to go for something new.
Switch kinda faced both situations: it succeeded in attracting satisfied customers but didn't succeed in being the top choice for new users.

Iit is not different or irrelevant if you can attract more users to you than the other guys in a given context. And in this context, Switch isn't being able to be at the top.
At the top are... the "top" priorities. Obivious but still very imporant to remember that.

 

I get it that you don't agree with me and no matter what i say you probably won't, so, as to not drag this any further, let's end things here?
Maybe one day we will get back to this and see how things changed.

Yeah we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, we could go on forever like this.