Quantcast
3 reasons that made Nintendo Switch a succes

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - 3 reasons that made Nintendo Switch a succes

Tagged games:

Will Switch sell over 100m?

Yes 54 78.26%
 
I don't think so 3 4.35%
 
I like cookies 12 17.39%
 
Total:69
RolStoppable said:

This thread is pretty much what I expected it to be. You even managed to mess up the easiest point of them all, the games.

3. Marketing of a console is a subsequent factor, not a decisive one. The typical analyses on gaming forums conclude that marketing is front and center, so a console that sells well is considered to have good marketing while a console that struggles is perceived to have bad marketing. But what's really going is that the console itself is either good or bad, so the appropriate conclusion for Switch and Wii U, respectively, is that Switch sells because it's a great console and the Wii U failed because it sucked. The marketing, regardless of its form and quality, doesn't change those fundamental things. And while the two SKU at launch strategy of the Wii U was stupid, it wouldn't have changed the fortunes of the console if there had been only one SKU at launch.

2. The typical arguments about core audience tend to miss the point by a huge margin. When you take a serious look at the bestseller list of the NES (which is what defines Nintendo's core audience), you'll see virtually all of those games that the modern gamer defines as casual and non-core. The NES had a mixture of bringing arcade games into people's homes (so games that were understood quickly and could be played in short bursts) and creating games that had longer play sessions. Does Wii Sports on the Wii really qualify as non-core when the NES had Tennis, Golf and Baseball as multi-million selling games? And what about the Virtual Console that the Wii had from day one, was Nintendo trying to appeal to casuals? What about New Super Mario Bros. on the DS, is that a non-core game?

All too often the modern gamer has the idea that Nintendo's core audience are the people who bought the Nintendo products that led to ever-declining sales, but that's completely backwards. Those failed Nintendo consoles actually show that Nintendo didn't properly cater to their core audience. The games that Nintendo's core audience likes shouldn't be looked down upon; while the modern gamer pretends that those people want easy to win games instead of real games, the reality is that it is about games that cut the bullshit that wastes people's time.

There's this messed up idea that the Wii U catered more to core gamers than the Wii, an idea that is based on assuming that the core gamer is the person who plays FIFA and other stuff that the AAA industry churns out. While that audience is the core audience of Sony and Microsoft, it's certainly not Nintendo's core audience because Nintendo was never the place to play those multiplats. Pretty much all hit games on the NES were exclusives and that carried over to the SNES; the Genesis/Megadrive was the console that housed the precursor of today's multiplat gamer and from there it moved on to the PS1.

Switch's signature title is Breath of the Wild. With Switch Nintendo did indeed return to cater to their core audience and Breath of the Wild's core is the original The Legend of Zelda, not Ocarina of Time. This is something that should make people think. For the longest time Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess (based on OoT) had been the best-selling Zelda games of all time, but now that the original vision for the Zelda series got its first modern interpretation, it's blowing the sales of OoT and TP out of the water. Not only individually, but also combined.

1. You close out your post with the implied importance of AAA third party games despite Switch's success clearly not being based on them. It's one last effort of yours to make the puzzle fit that AAA third party is core despite their sales matching indie games at best. Nintendo's core audience does not need a more powerful Switch, because the core gamer of a Nintendo console is very different to the core gamer of non-Nintendo consoles.

EDIT: I wrote my own thread why Switch is a success.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=225876

It was posted about three weeks before Switch launched.

Perfect.

The core game for Nintendo system are arcade games easy to learn hard to master. With Sega and Atari down, Nintendo is the only sucessor of this core type. 

The core game for Sony and Microsoft are computer games heritage. EA, Rockstar, and other major thirds born in PC game. 



Around the Network

As I interpret them:

1 - A very unique concept that catches peoples eye. Especially the modular nature of the system is what made it so appealing. Hell, even the neon colours have been so great at give it that uniqueness that definitely helped it get noticed in the mainstream arena.

2 - A brand change. Nintendo put some effort in changing their image by the ways of marketing, house styles, online policies and restructuring. I think that coincided well.

3 - The best launch game ever, which is BotW. Nothing more needs to be said.

4 - A whole year of quality releases almost every month, topped off with an amazing Mario game.

5 - Combining strengths of handheld gaming and home console gaming. Thus having also unified games output.

All these things just gave it a really good boost and momentum has been going since then. Also, the incredible amount of fake hate on the January presentation and attempts to ridicule it just made it all the more popular.




Games and good marketing are both correct awnsers. Also, it helps that Switch has the best value proposition of any Nintendo product in more than a decade.
As a customer you'll get one product that is both an high-end handheld and a competent home console to play the latest Nintendo games. You have basic couch multiplayer right in the box and a great catalougue of games to play with friends. You have access to a great selection of indie games playable on the go, as a plus you'll even get to play some PS/XB multiplatform titles with some minor drawbacks.

Last edited by freebs2 - on 11 January 2020

Snoorlax said:

OK so my points have met your awfully low expectations. I'm not gonna lie, I am honored that you're not dissapointed with this thread as you still took the time to write and post and i guess in your mind the average Nintendo fan is a simple minded sheep that praises Nintendo's farts and everything else Nintendo pulls out of their ass, but not you, oh no because you're just so much smarter than the rest and have an actual well thought out opinion or you're just an edgy contrarian, I really don't know, but i still got your attention to read my weak minded views in a long post. Either way it's your views and you have every right to express yourself but you don't have to apply my views on your own so keep breathing and RELAX.

The WiiU being a good or bad console is highly subjective and frankly a stupid reason to point as a cause of failure. The WiiU was underpowered? Yes, but so is the Switch and especially when the next generation of consoles launch yet it's not bad because it's selling well? The Dreamcast failed, Gamecube failed, PSVita failed are all of these consoles bad according to you? They were among the most powerfull consoles/handeld of their time and are still fondly remembered by many. Of course marketing alone does not guarantee a succesful product as it's a combination of factors but neither do the rest of the factors alone guarantee success. Marketing is essential in making the target audience aware of your product and to specify what's it got in store for them whereas Nintendo failed with WiiU because most people did not even know that it was a new console and why they should buy the thing, what makes it worth a purchase? I remember seeing Nintendo putting a side by side ad of the Wii and WiiU and their differences because the WiiU was virtually unknown and people were uninterested in another Wii console targeting children. That is the first thing Nintendo fixed with Switch marketing, focus on young adults then the children will follow the adults not the other way around.

I think you're complicating this way more than it is and again, sorry but you bringing up the NES is a terrible example. The NES days were way too different from todays videogame industry and i don't think i need to explain you all of it's differences. But to repeat the examples i mentioned games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit are fun and innovative multi million selling games but those are not the type of games Nintendo's core audience or "Nintendo Nerds" were looking for. And here is where you're horribly wrong or just purely in denial... YES, Nintendo fans wanted more 3rd party games like Assassins Creed, Dark Souls, Battlefield, GTA the games every other console got but the WiiU because these games in most cases simply wouldn't run on the U and more importantly wouldnt sell so why would 3rd parties waste their time on it? This has been the oldest and most vocal criticism of Nintendo consoles coming from Nintendo fans, the Gamecube actually managed to get decent third party multiplats but again it had it's hardware limitations which also limited it's third party support just like the N64. The fact that games like Tekken Tag, Injustice or Assassin Creed 3 underperformed on WiiU doesn't mean Nintendo fans don't want them it's just that these games in most cases were inferior ports, ported too late when people already owned these games on other platforms and the fact that the WiiU sold terribly, you can't expect third party games with next to no marketing to get decent sales on a console with next to no marketing. Why would Nintendo even try to convince 3rd parties if they knew they wouldn't sell? They tried to please both audiences with the WiiU and ended up losing both.

Please, take your time and reread my post as i've never specified nor stated that AAA 3rd party games are a huge success or define Switch's success. I clearly said 3rd parties, either indie or AAA, are getting more ports on Switch which in of itself is a success for the Switch and Nintendo because you know damn well that the WiiU wasn't getting this many 3rd party support not from Bethesda, not from From Software, not from Capcom and again yes these are mosltly safe bet ports but the Switch is doing something right which attracts 3rd parties, WiiU didn't. Nintendo needs 3rd parties whether you agree with this or not.

You wrote your own thread? Before Switch released? God it must be so good i'll be sure to read it when i've got the time okay? Just like you dedicated your time to read my weak minded post, again i'm so happy that you're not dissapointed.

The reason why your attempts at an analysis fail is because you already struggle to determine that the Wii U was a bad console. And yes, the Dreamcast was bad, the GameCube was ultimately bad too and of course the Vita was terrible.

Nintendo put out a Wii vs. Wii U comparison sheet because they couldn't believe that the Wii U was perceived as inferior to the Wii.

A great argument in favor of AAA third party games you have there. "Nintendo fans very much want AAA third party games, it's just that there's no proof for it."

Indies don't need a more powerful Switch, so your closing paragraph in your original post can only refer to AAA third party games. Nintendo doesn't need AAA third party support and there hasn't been anything essential that has changed since the NES days. The same basics of back then still apply today. That's why Nintendo's future can be predicted, and yes, that's why my thread from three years ago is good. Three years ago the people who expected Switch to sell more than 50m lifetime were considered nutjobs because of the lacking AAA third party support, but today we look at the frontpage of VGC and see 50m for Switch. What was deemed a longshot has actually been a cakewalk.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Slownenberg said:

I don't think marketing is that big a reason. Nintendo commercials and the like have never been a big seller of the systems. Word of mouth is what sells Nintendo. Wii had that, Switch has that. A friend has Switch, other people play it, and are like oh I gotta have that, and word spreads. Switch's marketing is baked into the fact that its got the awesome hybrid design and got must-have versions of the great Nintendo games everyone loves.

The Wii had marketing everywhere even in famous magazines so of course it managed to outsell both PS3 and 360. Word of mouth helps but it did nothing for the WiiU.

The reason why your attempts at an analysis fail is because you already struggle to determine that the Wii U was a bad console. And yes, the Dreamcast was bad, the GameCube was ultimately bad too and of course the Vita was terrible.

Nintendo put out a Wii vs. Wii U comparison sheet because they couldn't believe that the Wii U was perceived as inferior to the Wii.

A great argument in favor of AAA third party games you have there. "Nintendo fans very much want AAA third party games, it's just that there's no proof for it."

Indies don't need a more powerful Switch, so your closing paragraph in your original post can only refer to AAA third party games. Nintendo doesn't need AAA third party support and there hasn't been anything essential that has changed since the NES days.

My definition of a bad console is a console that doesn't work properly as it's supposed to and as it was advertised. The WiiU works, the off-TV gaming works, has quality games and i had some good times with it. Is it underpowered? Yes. Could it have been a better console? Definitely. Is it trash? Nope. Your definition of bad is, "well if it didn't sell enough units it sucks!" Yeah some good reasoning there.

Nope, Nintendo put that comparison out because people were still confused whether WiiU is a ad-on for the Wii or not.

"Everything i say is what matters, i don't care about facts nor any kind of reasoning cause my opinion is all that matters!" That's basically what you're saying the whole time. BTW if you are a Nintendo fan you would know that fans have been complaining about no 3rd party support on Nintendo consoles ever since the N64 days, you would know this unless you were born yesterday.

If Nintendo wants to compete with Sony and MS, like they should, then yes they do need a beefier iteration of Switch. Do i need to remind you that we are not in 1985 anymore when Nintendo had a complete monopoly on the gaming industry and there was virtually no competition? It seems to me like you want the Switch to be another WiiU where it suffers of multiple months long droughts until the next first party game releases. I'll say it again, Nintendo needs 3rd party games, Nintendo got away with the Wii but it didn't work out for the WiiU, nor the GC and N64. Where the hell were you during the WiiU days? Switch getting more 3rd party support is a good thing and one that Nintendo needs to keep sales growing.

javi741 said:

3.Marketing- The Wii U's marketing was completely garbage, a good portion of people still don't know that the Wii U exists or is a controller add-on for the original Wii. The name didn't sound like a whole new next gen system, it sounded more like an Add-On and too many of the advertisements focused on the gamepad controller rather than the console making people very confused to what it was. Even for the few who did know what a Wii U was, the advertisements made it seems like a children and casual family system, when casual families moved onto smartphones and tablets and children were in the very small minority of gamers worldwide. making the Wii U appeal to very few gamers. However, Nintendo's marketing all changed with the Switch, they removed the cancerous Wii name from the Switch which let consumers know this was an entirely new system from Nintendo and the advertisements made the Switch's concept clear that it was a console you can happen to play on the go anywhere in a multitude of ways. And Nintendo started finally marketing to adults in their commericials, making the Switch's image seem more accepted by the adult crowd, which is the majority of gamers right now.


5.3rd Party Support- It's clear that since the SNES, Nintendo has struggled to gain 3rd Party Support on their home consoles for a variety of reasons. However,now with the Switch, you could argue that this may be Nintendo's best 3rd Party console since the SNES. We're seeing 3rd Party Games that you wouldn't ever imagine would see the light of day on an underpowered Nintendo system, such as the Witcher 3, MK11, Outer Worlds, Doom, ECT...And unlike other Nintendo systems where 3rd party games would struggle to sell due to the market. 3rd party games are selling well on the Switch since the Switch has the added benefit of playing full 3rd party console games on the go. As a result of this 3rd party support, many non Nintendo gamers are purchasing a Switch to play their favorite 3rd party game anywhere. Also Switch is full of exclsuive Indie and JRPG games you can't find anywhere else, also helping the Switch's 3rd party lineup.

Exactly, Nintendo has finally learned that most gamers today are grown ups and while they do like Nintendo games they also want to try out different games without the need of buying another console. Making the Switch portable and capable of playing other 3rd party games on the go is a good reason the buy 3rd party games on Switch.

And yeah 3rd party games are important the SNES was indeed the last Nintendo to enjoy major 3rd party support and now Switch will hopefully bring this back to Nintendo systems.

Last edited by Snoorlax - on 11 January 2020

Around the Network
Snoorlax said:

The reason why your attempts at an analysis fail is because you already struggle to determine that the Wii U was a bad console. And yes, the Dreamcast was bad, the GameCube was ultimately bad too and of course the Vita was terrible.

Nintendo put out a Wii vs. Wii U comparison sheet because they couldn't believe that the Wii U was perceived as inferior to the Wii.

A great argument in favor of AAA third party games you have there. "Nintendo fans very much want AAA third party games, it's just that there's no proof for it."

Indies don't need a more powerful Switch, so your closing paragraph in your original post can only refer to AAA third party games. Nintendo doesn't need AAA third party support and there hasn't been anything essential that has changed since the NES days.

My definition of a bad console is a console that doesn't work properly as it's supposed to and as it was advertised. The WiiU works, the off-TV gaming works, has quality games and i had some good times with it. Is it underpowered? Yes. Could it have been a better console? Definitely. Is it trash? Nope. Your definition of bad is, "well if it didn't sell enough units it sucks!" Yeah some good reasoning there.

Nope, Nintendo put that comparison out because people were still confused whether WiiU is a ad-on for the Wii or not.

"Everything i say is what matters, i don't care about facts nor any kind of reasoning cause my opinion is all that matters!" That's basically what you're saying the whole time. BTW if you are a Nintendo fan you would know that fans have been complaining about no 3rd party support on Nintendo consoles ever since the N64 days, you would know this unless you were born yesterday.

If Nintendo wants to compete with Sony and MS, like they should, then yes they do need a beefier iteration of Switch. Do i need to remind you that we are not in 1985 anymore when Nintendo had a complete monopoly on the gaming industry and there was virtually no competition? It seems to me like you want the Switch to be another WiiU where it suffers of multiple months long droughts until the next first party game releases. I'll say it again, Nintendo needs 3rd party games, Nintendo got away with the Wii but it didn't work out for the WiiU, nor the GC and N64. Where the hell were you during the WiiU days? Switch getting more 3rd party support is a good thing and one that Nintendo needs to keep sales growing.

Your definition of a bad console doesn't allow for a proper analysis. You keep acting as if you had reasonable arguments and everyone else is a lunatic, so you should do some serious self-evaluation.

Apparently you need to be reminded that Switch is outpacing the PS4 launch-aligned. You also need to be reminded that Switch has seen more than 1,000 game releases in 2019 alone. Yet you act as if Switch is facing an imminent shortage of new games and only more processing power can prevent that. Your comparison with the Wii U is completely ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, Nintendo has a monopoly in the portable console market while concurrently succeeding in the home console market.

Your biggest mistake is that you use the terms "third party games" and "AAA third party games" interchangeably when they are very different things. You are convinced that no AAA third party games on Switch would be equal to no third party games on Switch, but in today's market the AAA industry is becoming increasingly less important because gamers are turning to indie games that come without the bloat and shameless money-grabbing schemes. In a hypothetical future where Switch receives literally zero new AAA third party games, it would still see more than several hundred new games per year.

Lastly, I am aware of the things that Nintendo fans say. Likewise, I am aware that a lot of them lack any skill in market analysis, so not every voice is equal.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Everything was fine except reason two the core audience was why the Wii U flopped because that's who they aimed for the NS is back to aiming at a broad audience again.



Considering the Switch brand now includes both home and portable consoles it would be pretty embarassing if it turned out to not be successful.



RolStoppable said:

Your definition of a bad console doesn't allow for a proper analysis. You keep acting as if you had reasonable arguments and everyone else is a lunatic, so you should do some serious self-evaluation.

Apparently you need to be reminded that Switch is outpacing the PS4 launch-aligned. You also need to be reminded that Switch has seen more than 1,000 game releases in 2019 alone. Yet you act as if Switch is facing an imminent shortage of new games and only more processing power can prevent that. Your comparison with the Wii U is completely ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, Nintendo has a monopoly in the portable console market while concurrently succeeding in the home console market.

Your biggest mistake is that you use the terms "third party games" and "AAA third party games" interchangeably when they are very different things. You are convinced that no AAA third party games on Switch would be equal to no third party games on Switch, but in today's market the AAA industry is becoming increasingly less important because gamers are turning to indie games that come without the bloat and shameless money-grabbing schemes. In a hypothetical future where Switch receives literally zero new AAA third party games, it would still see more than several hundred new games per year.

Lastly, I am aware of the things that Nintendo fans say. Likewise, I am aware that a lot of them lack any skill in market analysis, so not every voice is equal.

lol you're the only one acting like a complete nutjob here. So much so that i even wonder if you're actually trolling or not with ridiculous arguments, looking down on others for having different views from yours, not only that but apparently, you can also read my mind and quote me on things that i've never said. I'm open to different opinions and willing to discuss them with others, something that you seem to have a serious problem with when your views get questioned.

You need to be reminded that PS4 and Xone are near the end of their lifespans while Switch has just started and is up about to face the PS5 and new Xbox that is when things can take a serious turn for the Switch for better or worse. No i've never stated, nor acted like, nor implied that the Switch is facing a shortage of games but it can happen if next gen systems are too far ahead in terms of specs and Switch might end up being ignored by 3rd parties like it happened with WiiU. The Switch is a hybrid console/handheld so it's direct competitors are still Sony's and MS's consoles. You also need to remember that the WiiU kept receiving indie games and none of those saved the WiiU nor werent million Sellers. Look if you're against AAA 3rd party games on Nintendo systems then fine keep buying indie games but the rest of Nintendo fans would like to play non Nintendo games on their Switch as well, as not everybody is as interested in indie games as you are.

Finally, if you want to become the next Michael Pacter then go ahead but don't expect people to shut up and bow down to your voice just cause you think you're so much smarter than the rest, now if you have some people who blindly follow your opinion and praise you for it then congratulations buy yourself and them a cake but i sure wont be one of them especially not with the ridiculous reasons you've provided. 

Wyrdness said:
Everything was fine except reason two the core audience was why the Wii U flopped because that's who they aimed for the NS is back to aiming at a broad audience again.

I don't believe the WiiU was catering to the core audience first, i think WiiU tried to please both audiences at the same time but couldn't convince neither and lost big time.

FragileSurface said:
Considering the Switch brand now includes both home and portable consoles it would be pretty embarassing if it turned out to not be successful.

Yeah i think a big portion of sales come from previous 3DS owners which had lots of support it was indeed the better move from Nintendo.



The simplicity.

NES and SNES made sense.

N64? What the heck does that mean to consumers? And what's up with that wacky non symmetrical controller?

GameCube is more normal, but the handle and size of the device made it look more like a portable plug in device. Not to mention the tiny discs. For the record this was my favorite console ever, but it was a little confusing to consumers based on the sales. They also talked about 3d technology for this which they never did.

Wii. Little internet functions, extremely easy to use for casuals not used to traditional gaming.

Wii U. What the heck? Is this a new system or a new controller? It's HD but not as HD as the HD twins? It has HOW many online functions. What is a Miiverse? You can play on the go, sort of? What does that mean? Too confusing for consumers, if they ever got passed thinking it was just a controller which I doubt many did.

Switch. The name CLEARLY tells you everything you need to know. Simplified UI and UX compared to Wii U. It's meant for games. This is the simplest to understand device, imo, since the SNES from a consumers point of view.

PlayStation is consistent because it's 1-5. MS and Nintendo are hits or flops and it often has to do with consumers not understanding the product.