the_dengle said:
That makes even less sense. The end goal of this new product is to avoid another Wii U situation. It is a risk reduction strategy. The Wii U was such a failure that it detracted from the profitability of the 3DS. From Nintendo's perspective "3DS + Wii U" doesn't even make sense because the Wii U was a net negative. The Switch could be much more profitable for them than the 3DS and Wii U "combined" were even selling less than the 3DS. It's an interesting comparison in a "hey these numbers look kind of similar" way, but utterly meaningless in the end. By focusing on a single platform, Nintendo hopes to create a single strong product rather than two strong products. Theoretically it should aim to surpass the 3DS, Nintendo's only strong platform last generation, because they no longer have to worry about some other platform. But the amount by which the Switch should aim to surpass the 3DS is unrelated to any number associated with the Wii U. It's as nonsensical as saying Mario Odyssey should aim to outsell Mario 3D Land and 3D World combined. This is not an additive equation. |
That just sounds like a pre-made excuse, to be honest. They're attempting to merge two markets, not disolve one so they can focus on the other. What you're saying is that they're embracing retraction but there is no business--or investor--that would be happy with that as an outcome. They need growth and they need it badly. They've said as much in the past.
The home console market is clearly not dead. The Wii U was a failure, not a new baseline. I doubt anyone at Nintendo really believes that they couldn't do better.
No, they have to culture growth over last generation and they know it. It's not just about margins, it's about long-term brand health.
