Arms was fun, but got old due to repetitiveness and lack of story for me. Same with Splatoon and Overwatch. Overwatch is at least doing a correction and launching story modes, here's hoping Arms will get one in the future. Nintendo seems to have awknowledged the need for one in Splatoon with Octo expansion, but I haven't played it yet so I'm not sure how good that campaign is?

If it was profitable, it was a success.

They prove you wrong, calling them exceptions based on nothing doesn't change that. All of Nintendo's biggest franchises were hits right out the gate, Mario/Zelda/Pokemon/Smash/Animal Crossing/Splatoon/etc. so it's wrong to even call them that.

The first Animal Crossing sold about 2.3 million LTD.

ARMS is a hit too. Any New IP that sells 2.1 million would be considered a hit. It's just not a massive hit.

Ah my bad, though my point remains. It's really Animal Crossing that's an exception then.

What does ARMS being classified as hit not a massive hit have to do with this conversation exactly? Certainly doesn't prove you can't be a big franchise on the first try. It's really not hard to just admit your wrong, certainly a better look than desperately trying to change the subject to avoid doing so.

You can. It's just difficult to do. Many series don't reach those insane heights at all, let alone on their first game. I feel that its better to have a game series be a consistent and well selling game, rather than trying to make it the next big phenomenon. You can try to do that, but it's not something you can control at the end of the day.

2.1 million for a new IP is brilliant. Especially given that this game isn't some big open world game that took 300 people to develop. It was most likely profitable for Nintendo, so I'd say that's successful.

Contradicting yourself.

"Franchises take time to build. You can't be a big franchise on your first try."

It may have been profitable when only factoring in the cost to make the game. But 2.1 million was probably not profitable in the greater context of Nintendo when you include total expenses for the company if you divide the general burden equally across software released for the fiscal year.

I can't speak to what Nintendo's business goals were for the game, but I would glean that they likely had to do with establishing a major competitive gaming franchise, which ARMs failed to do. Nintendo often touts the successes of their new franchises and how they fit in with their business goals when they are successful.

In other words, if a much smaller company with no strategic goals made the game, it is a success. But this does not make it a success for Nintendo. For Nintendo, much more is not only expected, but required.