By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 05 April 2017
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Mummelmann said:

Like you've said yourself a few times during the last few months; we have little to no historical data of use when predicting the world's first hybrid console and its prospects, this is a sentiment I agree with. That leaves us with suppositions and assumptions. While your suppositions and assumptions are based on parallels to an older console that released in a completely different market than today and the belief that a combined library will lead to higher combined sales than Wii U+ 3DS, mine are based mostly on the fact that the home console market is currently undergoing a fairly large contraction, the handheld console market is suffering what could easily be labelled as a collapse and the mobile market is growing faster than any other market segment in the past 2-3 years. And before you or anyone else go there and use the age old "Nintendo aren't competing directly so this doesn't apply", I need to remind you that they're the ones who are feeling the burn more than anyone else in the 8th gen, relative to their past performance, the console market contraction is mostly on Nintendo directly and it's reasonable to assume that if the 8th gen ends up selling about half of the 7th gen (!!!), that's about 250-260 million short, Nintendo can be attributed with a large part of that loss, no less than 160 million at least, which is a complete disaster no matter how you choose to spin it.

We can't rule out a title like Pokemon causing a sales surge, but it's not that cut & dry to define from where we're sitting exactly what this would entail, nor is that in and on itself any reason to talk about 100% yoy increases or Wii like lifetime sales, especially given the massive shifts in the market since the beginning of the 7th gen. Stating that the Pokemon Go craze that caused a 3DS sales bump is some sort of guarantee for the Switch to sell outrageous amounts is ludicrious.

Look, we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. From where I'm sitting though, with the current and likely future market movements, the fact that the 3DS is still around and seemingly for at least another year or so, combined with what is once again looking like drab 3rd support and a release schedule that isn't exactly knocking my socks off (relying on a refurbished Wii U game to carry momentum until Splatoon 2 is risky) and still showing signs that Nintendo are having issues getting software output to match their ambition, little wiggle room for pricing strategies and a mobile/tablet sector that is growing stronger every month, I just find my own suppositions and assumptions a lot more logical and grounded. They could still be wrong, but anyone versed in analysis would be hard-pressed to claim that yours make more sense in this setting.

"the conclusion is correct, if we exclude everything that contradicts the conclusion" could very easily be flipped towards yourself, seeing as neither of us have historical, relevant data to lean on and your suggestions and arguments rely mostly on comparisons to products and market factors more than a decade old. In addition, you seem unable to grasp the potential weaknesses the Switch as a concept has and might have, from its form factor to its reliance on physical media and severe lack of functionality, thinking that motion gaming will have some huge comeback is also pretty far-fetched, all things considered. As for software; software didn't keep the Wii U and 3DS from losing the vast majority of Nintendo's 7th gen installed base. And the Switch is still a really pricey handheld console for all intents and purposes.

Combining software for handheld and home console, when this eventually happens, is no more a guarantee of selling amounts equaling 3DS + Wii U, any more than the 3DS and Wii U offering DS and Wii software equaled the same sales total, so assuming beforehand that this is a huge incentive for consumers doesn't make much sense, especially for a product that is willingly putting itself in the direct line of fire of the most successful line of products in consumer electronics history and simultaneously picking up the torch from two separate platforms that each signified an era of severe reduction and loss of market influence and presence. Yes, the Wii U was a terrible disaster but the 3DS has done quite well, and there are few things to go on in assuming that the Switch will beat the 3DS by default, the new form factor might just as well work against it as for it when all is said and done.

Quite frankly; you're not making much sense to me and you're relying on arguments that work just as well, if not better, against yourself. I get the feeling that you realize yourself that you have very little to base your case on for now, at least I have some actual, tangible market precedent that is observeable right now to back up my statements. I'm basically saying that things will keep on going more or less the way they have since there is no apparent and logical catalyst for major change, while you're saying that huge things will happen, more or less on the grounds that they happened before and can't be ruled out entirely.

You are assigning a bunch of arguments to me that I have never made, not in this thread or anywhere else. I can agree with you that such a string of a nonsense arguments doesn't make much sense, but they aren't my actual arguments, so large chunks of your post are moot.

An analysis of the failures of the 3DS and Wii U is enough of an indicator that Switch won't follow the same trajectory. What sank the 3DS and Wii U was expensive hardware features that were not well received. Switch isn't cheap, but its functionality is desirable. Being able to use a device where you want is the reason why phones and tablets have cut into the sales of laptops and desktop PCs. Switch is on the correct side of a trend here, because portability is valued by consumers.

The other major shortfall of 3DS and Wii U were software droughts, most notably first party games because those are the titles that really sell the hardware. Switch's software release schedule is significantly better and will have already two huge system sellers within its first two months on the market. The fact that those two games are also available on Wii U matters little, because the Wii U didn't sell and nobody is going to buy a Wii U now. Beyond that, Switch is getting a new first party game almost every month and of higher pedigree than what the 3DS and Wii U had during their respective first years.

See, this is my actual argument. Switch is going to have better momentum because the hardware is better and the software is better. The momentum is also going to be much better in the long term because Switch uses an off-the-shelf architecture and is supported by several widespread engines for software development; third parties will be able to bring games to the system fast. On top of that, Switch will inherit the developer support of Wii U, 3DS and Vita. That's commonly brushed off as non-factor because it isn't AAA third party support, but it's support that makes the library a lot more robust, and probably an absolute powerhouse when it comes to RPGs.

The fundamentals for the Switch differ greatly from the 3DS and Wii U, so a different outcome is a lot more probable than the same outcome. And since Switch differs in a positive manner, the logical different outcome is going to be positive, not negative. Your problem is that you analyze Nintendo first and foremost on the most superficial level, so you are possibly not even able to tell a difference between Skyward Sword and Breath of the Wild because both are called The Legend of Zelda.

If you run an honest analysis of all Nintendo systems, you can only come to the conclusion that Nintendo rises and falls based on what Nintendo does. It's always first and foremost Nintendo's own software that sells the hardware, and the hardware will sell as long as the games are coming and live up to expectations, and the hardware itself is not off-putting. There are always outside factors, sure, but for the most part Nintendo controls their own fate. That Nintendo could still sell over 80m units of hardware in a bad generation full of big mistakes should be proof enough that Nintendo games are still in high demand.

3DS and Wii U were badly hurt also by Nintendo relying on the Wii/DS fad crowd to show up. 

Nintendogs + Cats was supposed to be the evergreen huge hit that Nintendogs was on DS. Nintendo didn't just randomly choose that game. They thought that would be just as successful and bring in casuals like Nintendogs did on DS, in fact they probably resisted doing a sequel on the DS to save that game specifically for the DS successor. They figured with Nintendogs, they had a good launch for the 3DS in the bag ... they were very wrong. 

NSMBU and Nintendo Land ... same story. 

Nintendo badly got burned trying to rely on this audience, because that audience ditched them. 

With Switch they are giving the core Nintendo fans what they want ... a big, epic Zelda game with modern game play stylings that can compare to other modern games like Skyrim and a system that isn't overly marketed towards soccer moms or kids. Mario Odyessy looks to be following that by returning to the sandbox Mario style, and moving away from the more casual style Mario games.