Quantcast
Why do Nintendo's new Switch IPs get called "failures"?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why do Nintendo's new Switch IPs get called "failures"?

Pemalite said:
Nogamez said:
I think its mainly because all their New IP's just look a litte odd and niche. Splats a great success but yeah cant really see Arms and 1 2 Switch getting sequels. Even if they did sell moderately well.

I think it's a good thing though.
...Remember games like Mario Kart and Smash were all "risks" once upon a time and ended up becoming console selling franchises.

Gotta' keep testing the waters and if something takes hold and becomes big, then all the power to Nintendo.

Testing the waters is all it is. People shouldn't be afraid to call those tests failures compared to Nintendo's usual franchises.

 

Hell even within franchises, people have called certain Zelda's failures because well they didn't do as well as others in terms of content or something that didn't work quite well, which meant It wasn't up to the magical standard the set with some Zelda games. Next Zelda game has a lot to live up to. It could sell well, but still be considered a failure if it misses the mark.



 

 

Around the Network
vivster said:
TheMisterManGuy said:

Just look at this forum alone. I made an ARMS topic a while back, and 90% of the posts made were about the game being a supposed failure, and that Nintendo should move on from it or farm out a sequel to a third party so they can focus more on the safe AAA franchises. It didn't matter that the game did 2 million copies worldwide, the fact that it didn't reach the highs of Splatoon 2 or Mario Odyssey was enough for people to write the game off. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/dev2016/thread.php?id=237192&page=1

Anytime Nintendo introduces a new Switch IP and it does immediately do 5 million in a year, then it's deemed a bomb and a total failure by Nintendo fans, Even if Nintendo considers 2 million a success. How many "Failures" is it going to take Nintendo to get it through these people's heads?

The curse of success I guess?

All I can see is people saying that the new IPs failed to have the big impact its predecessors had. Nothing wrong with that. If your regular high class IPs sell upwards of 5 million and even breach 10m then an IP that sold 2m and definitely has no widespread appeal and will certainly not build a legacy then that IP certainly failed at being the next big IP of Nintendo.

I'm not actually sure what you're even trying to defend against here. Nintendo made a new IP, it didn't reach the heights of old IPs or even Splatoon and people noticed. An original IP of Nintendo is a big deal and of course it's gonna be measured against other Nintendo IPs.

If you feel the need to defend a game, doesn't that mean it already failed to speak with its own success?

As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP". 




1doesnotsimply

I don't think developing games anticipating that they will sell 5 or 10 million copies is a sustainable business model, as we have learned with the number of studios that have closed in the last several years...
I think any model that requires such sales will result in a serious drain in innovation...



Have a nice day...

These games are failures because they're not very good. They still sold OK because they had a lot of marketing and there's not much else worth buying outside the Mario/Zelda/etc superhits.



My 8th gen collection

ICStats said:
These games are failures because they're not very good. They still sold OK because they had a lot of marketing and there's not much else worth buying outside the Mario/Zelda/etc superhits.

Not true. ARMS and Labo are well received. And the Switch already has tons of games worth buying outside first party. 



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

So you're saying Nintendo could've made a better game but chose not to?

No. I'm saying the people within Nintendo capable of making a better game were busy and all that was left was the new/not so good staff and that was the best they could do.

So they chose to make a sub par game because they didn't want to wait. There is always the choice of not doing something, you know. And if anyone can afford to not do something, it's Nintendo.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

FarleyMcFirefly said:
vivster said:

The curse of success I guess?

All I can see is people saying that the new IPs failed to have the big impact its predecessors had. Nothing wrong with that. If your regular high class IPs sell upwards of 5 million and even breach 10m then an IP that sold 2m and definitely has no widespread appeal and will certainly not build a legacy then that IP certainly failed at being the next big IP of Nintendo.

I'm not actually sure what you're even trying to defend against here. Nintendo made a new IP, it didn't reach the heights of old IPs or even Splatoon and people noticed. An original IP of Nintendo is a big deal and of course it's gonna be measured against other Nintendo IPs.

If you feel the need to defend a game, doesn't that mean it already failed to speak with its own success?

As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP". 


Fire Emblem is a long running series of critically acclaimed JRPGs, it already has its legacy and committed fanbase. I don't see how anyone could ever compare that to something like Arms.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

TheMisterManGuy said:
betacon said:
They were bad games with little base to build off, sales aren't everything, I highly doubt you will ever see a second entry for these ip's.

They aren't bad games at all, they're simply more niche than Nintendo's other Switch games. Also, don't be surprised if you see ARMS again.

No they were bad games and not close to the standard people expect from Nintendo games, none of them deserve a new entry, that's not to say a new entry couldn't be great but the standard of the first doesn't set high hopes.  I would compare these games with Knack, sold great but playable at best. If they could increase in quality like Knack 2 then great but as it stands theyre just not good games.



vivster said:
FarleyMcFirefly said:

As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP". 


Fire Emblem is a long running series of critically acclaimed JRPGs, it already has its legacy and committed fanbase. I don't see how anyone could ever compare that to something like Arms.

Arms has to start somewhere. For people to say they won't be surprised to never see a sequel when it has sold very well for what it is. Arms has sold more than most Fire Emblem games. In time it has the potential to leave a legacy.



1doesnotsimply

TheMisterManGuy said:

It's a trend I've noticed a lot with Nintendo's new concepts on Switch, whenever it doesn't do Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Smash Ultimate, or hell, Wii Sports numbers, it automatically is deemed a failure, even before official numbers and expectations come out. 1-2 Switch? Failure (sold 2.69 million), ARMS? Failure (Sold 2 million), Nintendo Labo? Failure (Sold 1.4 million in its first few months, and has seen sales boosts during the holiday season, so it's probably at 2 million already). 

The only exceptions to this rule are Snipperclips, which was eShop only in its original run, and Sushi Striker, a game that actually failed. 2 million is not a failure, at all. You may not like these games, but they have an audience, and are some of the Switch's best selling titles. Do people honestly think Nintendo expects everything to catch on like Splatoon or have the same audience as it? Or is it because these IP are reminiscent of the filthy Wii era, and thus, need to hold them to the impossible Wii Sports standard to justify their argument? Also if ARMS and Labo were such failures, why does Nintendo keep promoting them regularly?

I actually have not come across anyone calling these games a failure before. Some people in this thread have decided to take it on themselves to justify the point, but I am not sure they know what they are talking about. The games have flaws, true, or they may not like them, but that has no bearing on whether or not they are sales failures.

If anything, considering how these are fairly low tier games and still sold millions make them successes.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.