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
Snoorlax said:

...

3DS was far from blue ocean it wasn't even close this starts off with the pricing debacle just because they use the same branding doesn't mean the approach is the same it's this mode of thinking that caused Nintendo problems, people bought the DS because not only was it a accessible, new and appealing concept it was vastly affordable those are the main things the blue ocean work on 3DS just used the same branding and went down a different road thinking that if they threw out a token release it would yield the same result but they soon found out token releases aren't really catering to an audience. This is why the 3DS ran into trouble early on (also why Wii U flopped) and why they abandoned their plan and shifted the way they handled it and dropped 3DS entirely from the marketing by the time Vita arrived 3DS was already saved it had its price cut and focus had shifted to its software one of the biggest weeks for 3DS came during Vita's launched as that was the week Monster Hunter released on 3DS.

WiiU is more powerful than PS3/360 that's not even debatable as running one of the same games of the gen at 1080p highlights this it's an objective those were the consoles out at the time for the good part of the year until the rest of Gen 8 launched this is relevant because Wii rather than outmatch prior gen stuck with in the same level of its predecessor to push a concept graphics was never its goal where as Wii U's HD performance was parroted by Nintendo when the platform was announced it was a complete shift. You link Miyamoto here's Reggie's own words when the platform was unveiled.

"It's a system we will all enjoy together but also one that's tailor-made for you"

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/5/5970787/wii-u-nintendo-bad-name

This was also a reason given as to why Wii U wasn't called Wii 2 or Wii HD as the concepts and goals were different Wii U was a successor not a continuation so no my point still stands, what actually went wrong with the platform was Nintendo not knowing what they wanted the platform to be, who they were aiming for and not doing their own thing like they normally do. People ended up not caring because they weren't given reason to care the casuals weren't being catered to, the cores already had their choice of platforms set, Nintendo fell into the trap of chasing the crowd of other platforms by trying to mimic other platforms which reduced the value of getting it as why get an imitation when you can get the original.

With the Switch they did what they wanted to do, knew what they wanted the platform to be, who they were aiming for and as such were able to handle the platform far better.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
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.

Sony is not consistent. You forgot the portable side, now extinct 



Alcyon said:

"I don't like the Switch so the whole World is wrong"

He's not the only one who thinks like this around here lol.

barneystinson69 said:
I thought the Switch would flop big time...

Whoops.

hey, Nintendo thougt the Wii U would sell at least 100 million so no worries.

Dulfite said:

Xbox Series X - Right now...!!!

Actually, i've heard it's going to be called just Xbox now.



Agente42 said:
Dulfite said:
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.

Sony is not consistent. You forgot the portable side, now extinct 

Fine let's talk about them. PSP is PlayStation Portable. So they stuck with the naming convention. And guess what? It sold well.

Vita bombed. Confusing name. Simple as that.



Snoorlax said:
Alcyon said:

"I don't like the Switch so the whole World is wrong"

He's not the only one who thinks like this around here lol.

barneystinson69 said:
I thought the Switch would flop big time...

Whoops.

hey, Nintendo thougt the Wii U would sell at least 100 million so no worries.

Dulfite said:

Xbox Series X - Right now...!!!

Actually, i've heard it's going to be called just Xbox now.

Yeah. My question of "wut" still stands. Everyone is going to be confused when this thing launches. Aneconda would have been a less confusing and more marketable option.



Around the Network

1. Positive reveal/execution of an appealing concept. This lead to really good word of mouth and a positive buzz.

2. Launched with one of the best games if all time supplemented by a steady stream of great software.





Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Wyrdness said:
Snoorlax said:

...

3DS was far from blue ocean it wasn't even close this starts off with the pricing debacle just because they use the same branding doesn't mean the approach is the same

3DS just used the same branding and went down a different road thinking that if they threw out a token release it would yield the same result but they soon found out token releases aren't really catering to an audience.

This is why the 3DS ran into trouble early on (also why Wii U flopped) and why they abandoned their plan and shifted the way they handled it

WiiU is more powerful than PS3/360 that's not even debatable as running one of the same games of the gen at 1080p highlights this

 You link Miyamoto here's Reggie's own words when the platform was unveiled.

"It's a system we will all enjoy together but also one that's tailor-made for you"

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/5/5970787/wii-u-nintendo-bad-name

This was also a reason given as to why Wii U wasn't called Wii 2 or Wii HD as the concepts and goals were different Wii U was a successor not a continuation so no my point still stands

what actually went wrong with the platform was Nintendo not knowing what they wanted the platform to be, who they were aiming for and not doing their own thing like they normally do.

The 3DS initially cost the same as a Nintendo Wii which could be considered pricey for a handheld device but when you compare it to the Vita's initial price of 300 and 250 dollars or high end tablets of the time it's not expensive at all for a then modern dedicated gaming handheld.

That is what i've been saying the whole time and the same applies to Wii U.

Yup that's what i've been trying to tell you.

You can keep saying that but the Wii U's competitors were PS4 and Xone not PS360. So it was not surprising at all for the WiiU to be more powerful than 7th generation consoles however it couldn't compete with PS4One, the same scenario with the Wii.

Sorry, but Miyamoto was involved on Wii U's development, Reggie wasn't. And regarding Reggie's comments on the Wii U... What is that supposed to mean? It can be interpreted in multiple ways honestly, nothing that indicates that it was aimed at core gamers like you said first. Anything Reggie said about the Wii U was purely for PR. 

It's a successor that tried to replicate the Wii's success. The article's i've provided you clearly say so.

So first, you said Wii U failed for aiming solely on Core gamers now you say Wii U failed for not knowing who it's target audience were. The articles i gave you clearly say otherwise.



Snoorlax said:

...

- Vita having a higher price doesn't debunk the point as for one Vita was never aimed at the blue ocean so the was different thinking behind its pricing and the fact the 3DS' inital price wasn't far off from it highlights how far from the blue ocean 3DS was in handling.

- WiiU's performance to 360/PS3 is relevant because it highlights the difference in approach down to the hardware, PS4 and X1 were more powerful because they are from bigger companies delving in other industries, you thinking WiiU was underpowered by choice in comparison to them is flawed as that's as powerful as Nintendo could go for in order to remain profitable with their business model and being a gaming only company.

- Yet Reggie is the one who the concept of the platform is explained to as he has to convey this to consumers hence why he had to unveil it, want to know what he said means it means the same thing I pointed out to you earlier in WiiU focusing on the player's personal experience it's pretty easy to figure out what he is saying.

- Replicating success and doing the same approach are not the same thing that's the major flaw in your thinking here neither of these two platforms followed the same path your only claim to saying otherwise is people thinking that because it has the brand name on it that it's the same approach when that is far from the truth. Everything from the hardware choices to the type of games promoted changed WiiU is a successor but not a continuation it was a jump right back into the same red ocean they left behind.

- Yes it failed for aiming at the core audience that's why they handled the platform in a wayward manner the articles you've posted only show Nintendo assumed Wii owners would automatically by WiiU with out them trying they don't debunk what you've been told or back what you claim when Nintendo saw the Wii userbase didn't automatically jump on board they panicked and didn't know how to shift gear. The result was down the line the not being a clear message of who the platform was for as they had geared up to aim at the core but had no contingency plan for if the blue ocean never followed through



Wyrdness said:
Snoorlax said:

...

- Vita having a higher price doesn't debunk the point as for one Vita was never aimed at the blue ocean so the was different thinking behind its pricing and the fact the 3DS' inital price wasn't far off from it highlights how far from the blue ocean 3DS was in handling.

- WiiU's performance to 360/PS3 is relevant because it highlights the difference in approach down to the hardware, PS4 and X1 were more powerful because they are from bigger companies delving in other industries, you thinking WiiU was underpowered by choice in comparison to them is flawed as that's as powerful as Nintendo could go for in order to remain profitable with their business model and being a gaming only company.

- Yet Reggie is the one who the concept of the platform is explained to as he has to convey this to consumers hence why he had to unveil it, want to know what he said means it means the same thing I pointed out to you earlier in WiiU focusing on the player's personal experience it's pretty easy to figure out what he is saying.

- Replicating success and doing the same approach are not the same thing that's the major flaw in your thinking here neither of these two platforms followed the same path your only claim to saying otherwise is people thinking that because it has the brand name on it that it's the same approach when that is far from the truth. Everything from the hardware choices to the type of games promoted changed WiiU is a successor but not a continuation it was a jump right back into the same red ocean they left behind.

- Yes it failed for aiming at the core audience that's why they handled the platform in a wayward manner the articles you've posted only show Nintendo assumed Wii owners would automatically by WiiU with out them trying they don't debunk what you've been told or back what you claim when Nintendo saw the Wii userbase didn't automatically jump on board they panicked and didn't know how to shift gear. The result was down the line the not being a clear message of who the platform was for as they had geared up to aim at the core but had no contingency plan for if the blue ocean never followed through

It's not just the price, the Vita is twice or more as powerful as 3DS so even though the 3DS eventually recovered and won the battle it was underpowered compared to it's competition. So again it's the same strategy Nintendo took with the DS, Wii and Wii U so yes, your point is debunked.

No, nope and seriously what are you even typing. Wii U vs PS360 is not relevant, PS4X1 are it's competitors and it failed to make an impact. Sony and MS are indeed bigger companies with more resources but the SNES was more powerful than Sega Genesis, N64 was more powerful than PS1 and Gamecube was more powerful than PS2 and on par with Xbox, ever since the Iwata era Nintendo went blue ocean and it worked at first then it failed with the Wii U. Nintendo has over 10 billion dollars in the bank, there's no reason why Nintendo couldn't produce hardware with similar specs to their competitors other than Nintendo not wanting to take any risks and keep their systems affordable for families. Sure, Nintendo systems are more innovative than they used to be and this goes well with their gaming philosophy but they have been making severely underpowered systems since the Wii.

That's because Reggie was the President of NoA... He's supposed to unveil it and make it sound as cool as possible. As far as the technical side of things, Reggie probably didn't knew shit about what the Wii U was capable of. Miyamoto knows the ins and outs of Nintendo systems so no, Reggies remarks on the Wii U doesn't tell us anything other than it's another Nintendo console, and personal experiences doesn't mean that it's solely aimed at core gamers like you've claimed.

The Wii U tried to follow the Wii's path with a different approach, that approach was a new gimmick and targeting both casual and core gamers and it failed.

The articles clearly say that Wii U was designed with both audiences in mind, not just one so your argument falls apart as soon as that was stated and especially since you're now just flip flopping.

Last edited by Snoorlax - 6 days ago

Zelda BOTW also played a huge role that gave a positive outlook of the system launch line up after being rated as the highest rated game on Metacritic and subsequently fired up switch momentum right of the bat.