Does It Really Matter How Much Switch Sells?

[Soundwave]

RolStoppable said:

Soundwave said:

No basically this thread is saying AAA support is never coming to Nintendo consoles ever anyway, so who cares about what the sales are. 

As long as they're good enough for Nintendo to make a decent profit, what benefit is there really from the POV of a Nintendo fan to "market success". 

The whole song and dance we were sold here was that more sales = better support = better software library. Well that's never going to happen likely ever, as you yourself are so keen to point out. 

In that case, why the fuck should I give a shit really? 

I get to play Zelda in 900p and portably this March instead of it being suck on the Wii U in 720p and confined only to my living room. That's a win for me and most Nintendo fans really. 

The arguement then becomes "well you should feel bad because Nintendo isn't making enough money", well looking at their recent financials, they seem to have no problem making plenty of money anyway, and now with mobile here they'll make a lot. So really I don't see why we as Nintendo fans should care so much about this. It's not as if Nintendo shares any of that money with us anyway. As long as they're making a healthy amount of money, I really could care less if it's the "maximum" amount. 

It doesn't change my enjoyment of the games. 

But more sales do mean better support from anyone who isn't a AAA third party developer. That obviously doesn't matter to you because you scoff at anything that isn't AAA (be it from third parties or Nintendo), but you aren't even close to representative of the majority of Nintendo's customers. And if your entire argument relies on subjectivity regardless of how hard you try to pass it off as something that is objective, then you don't have much of an argument.

You want shorter lifecycles because you want to chase after graphics. The majority, however, wants more games for the hardware they buy. So naturally people are going to care about how much Switch sells, because more sales mean a longer lifecycle which inevitably results in more games.

Which "A-AA" games are you really worried won't be on Switch? Here's a not so little secret, most of these games are on every platform under the sun, and they will be on Switch so long as it sells even 30 million units and isn't a total pain in the ass to program on, but most devs are fine with Nvidia CUDA core based GPUs and ARM CPUs. 

I'm not really that enanmoured with a lot of these so-called "indie" or "smaller" titles because they largely try to ape play styles that Nintendo already does (and does better quite frankly). I'm sure Fast Racing RMX or whatever that is might be cool, but I'll probably be thinking about how much better a real F-Zero would be when I'm playing it. So no, I don't really go bees knees for these games, but I don't really think there's much chance most of them won't be on Switch. As long as it sells even 30 mill it will get most of these games, so what exactly is the drama here? Oh no, maybe Switch wasn't going to get Shovel Knight or Super Meat Boy?

But my game tastes are probably more eclectic than most here ... I'd gladly for example take a new Advance Wars over a new Zelda, and a new Wave Race over a new Smash Bros. anyday, but when it comes to developer support I'd simply rather have games that Nintendo just isn't ever going to make (like say a Madden game or a Batman game) than so-called "low budget" games, most of which are kinda like nostalgia throw backs (nice) but without the top tier game play to back them up (not so nice). Like "I Am Setsuna" I mean it looks obviously like it's aping Chrono Trigger, but it's a 7/10 type of game instead of the 9/10 game Chrono Trigger was for its day. Maybe that's good enough for some, it's not my personal cup of tea though. 

I don't mind shorter life cycles because I know I will buy every Nintendo system and don't go through the whole pretense of needed to be "seduced" by Nintendo every time. C'mon, you should know by now if you're a Nintendo fan and you know you will have to buy their next hardware to get future installments of their franchises. Why do we always act like we need to be "sold" on this? This is just one continuous generation basically, it's not as if I'm some how going to stop enjoying Mario games, so I'd rather get the better hardware sooner because it enables better Nintendo games. 

Do you think Breath of the Wild would be possible on the Wii hardware? Nope, not without huge sacrifices. So whatever, 4 year life cycles are fine with me, people just feign dissapoinment anyway, I said this months ago that people would bitch and cry about Wii U getting phased out and then all it would take is like 10 seconds of new Mario footage for them to be all over NX. Pretty much happened right on cue. 

New hardware is exciting, always has been, always will be, I'm just dropping the whole supposition that we should be "offended" by new hardware somehow. Meh. I'm a grown adult not a 10-year-old that is upset over new hardware because it means having to beg the parents for a new Nintendo. Bring on the new hardware. Just as Switch is exciting now, the successor will be exciting too. I know I will buy the new Nintendo hardware anyway so why should I as a gamer want longer cycles on aging hardware? There's no benefit to me as a consumer to have a longer life span, especially when Nintendo "really" only supports their consoles for about 4 years anyway.