Fewer Games is Never a Good Thing

[bdbdbd]

Soundwave said:

Because the Nintendo ecosystem does lack diversity and availability generally speaking of a lot of key genre types. Sony consoles generally serve a wider demographic of tastes. 

This was not the case during the NES/SNES eras, Nintendo cornered themselves into the situation. 

It's likely too late to change it now, honestly Nintendo probably never really was *that* great at making consoles. It was easy when it was just Sega to compete against and they had a virtual monopoly on third parties. Ever since Sony showed up, Nintendo's never been able to really have control over the console market, if Sony had made a 16-bit system, who knows maybe they beat Nintendo there too. 

Portable is better for Nintendo because people don't expect as many games and for whatever reason, on a smaller screen people seem more accepting of cartoony style games (this extends to smartphone and iOS games too, most of the hit games are in that vein). 

Really looking a the console market as it exists now and looking at Nintendo, they just don't have it in them to connect with that market has become. Hate to say it, but Sony kinda deserves the console market, they're the most "stable" of the three and make the most straight forward decisions and are most intuned with what the market actually is. 

Generally speaking the "we have less games, but we really have some real good ones" formula has never really worked well in the industry. The Sega Master System had great 1st party games but was easily trounced by the NES. The Saturn and N64 tried this against the Playstation and got trounced. 

The only system in like 40 years of home consoles that went on to sell like gangbusters without really high level third party support is the Wii, and that was on the back of a very unique situation with the controller that I don't think can be replicated (certainly not at the snap of a finger). People just don't want to hear the whole "we have fewer games but ours have this specific quality" arguement, they just tune that right out and go buy a Playstation. 

I believe zorg had a point that in a posts like this you just go from one end to another.

Looking at Nintendo consoles, not only did the Wii had huge success, so did Nintendo handhelds - sans 3DS. 

Wii isn't the only console to have a breakaway success without third parties - NES did that too. Third parties generally arrived only late of it's life.

The thing with consoles is, that it's the games that matter. You console is only just as good as the games on it. You see a success like Wii when you have console with games as good as Wii had.

Intrinsic said:
Gotta agree, kinda silly when you think about it. Unless I am missing something.

The NS was first acknowledged by Nintendo since way back in 2014 right? Meaning the have been working on this for at least 4 years.Now the WiiU was no doubt a failure. Why didn't Nintendo just make the the switch BC with all WiiU software? But not just that, digitally have available remastered (even if its just a rez and performance bump) versions of all the best selling WiiU games day one?

Obviously there re a LOT of people that hasn't played them being how poorly the wiiU did, so why not?

The obvious reason why Wii U did so bad is because of the games it had. Wii U BC would sell Switchs as much as Gamecube BC sold Wiis. Also, making the system backwards compatible would just make it more expensive, and it would also require the system to use two screens.