burninmylight on 15 May 2017
| RolStoppable said: The OP has most things completely backwards, but that's because the failure of the Wii U isn't properly understood, just like every success of Nintendo isn't properly understood either. That's how an analysis of a sufficient amount of facts can lead to a completely wrong conclusion. Here is the key point that throws off people: Both Wii U and Switch don't have much, if any AAA third party support. This serves as the common link and the basis for faulty evaluations of the two systems. Here is why Switch is not repeating the same mistakes as Wii U: 1. Wii U was intended to get all the AAA third party multiplatform games. 2. Switch was not intended to get them. This creates greatly different premises for both systems. If Wii U doesn't get the games, then Nintendo's plan gets crushed. If Switch doesn't get the games, then Nintendo's plan is still perfectly on track; this means the lack of AAA support is not detrimental to the system's chances for success. In a nutshell, Switch flips the whole premise. What is perceived as a glaring weakness (lack of AAA support) is turned into a strength. Switch would not be able to exist in this form if AAA support had been on the list of things it has to have. What Switch is is the reason why Switch sells. |
You're almost onto something.
Wii U = launched with a tired ass 2D Mario that nobody wanted by that point and ports of flawed AAA games at least half a year old. Took damn near a year for the first must-have first party title to arrive.
Switch = launched with a mold-breaking 3D Zelda that everyone has been praying for, for years and Mario Kart a month later. Splatoon to come soon as well.
