By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
couchmonkey on 08 June 2017
Edit Thread
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

Sony and Nintendo have different approaches, Sony tend to announce game few years in advance while Nintendo is looking to have less time between announcement and release.

Yes, Switch is huge succes and Nintendo cant keep up with demand, and more big and system seller games or on way that will continue momentum and increase demand for Switch on market. Switch is selling better than GC in same time, and GC never had sucha demand that Nintendo couldnt keep up with it, and Nintendo very clever scheduled their big and stronger games, so that we have one stronger or bigger Nintendo game every month.

If talk about 3rd party, after Wii U most of 3rd parties take "wait and see" approach with Switch, they waiting bigger instal base and to see how much exactly success Switch is. I expecting to see much more 3rd party games around E3 next year.

You speak as if Nintendo always wanted to show things that were ready to come out soon.
When they had stuff to show in advance, they showed it (E3 2014) and when they didn't have (E3 2015), they didn't show it.

But this was not my point.
My point was that doing things like Sony's - and even MS - way is doable and when i try to understand how NIntendo went and did something different, i realise that they didn't do it because they couldn't.
I'm not against doing things differently, i'm surely not against doing things in a short time frame, but i'm not blind: Nintendo did not have enough to show in 2 presentations (the focus on 2017 games at this E3 shows that). So what do they do? 1 presentation before launch and that's it.

I may be wrong, but i honestly don't see anything that clearly shows how doing what Sony did could have been a serious option for Nintendo. That's all.

 

From what i remember reading, GC actually had a good start: good price, good 1st party support... until that support kind dried up.
It's too soon to determine if Switch won't go the same way even if Switch has way more demand than GC. If the support isn't there next year (we don't know that yet), sales will fall.

 

Big userbase won't necessarily mean more 3rd party support.
Just look at how 3rd parties pretty much avoided bringing their best games to Wii. Why? Because, despite the size of the userbase, the audience for their games simply wasn't there.
Naturally, the bigger the userbase is, the more people can buy your games.

This has been Nintendo's problem since GC: grow userbase and 3rd parties will come.
It just doesn't work that way.
Nintendo needs to show that 3rd parties can sell their games, but to do that, they need to bring those customers first (1st party shooters, racers, etc.; exclusive titles in popular genres, for example.).

On GameCube: the system came out right at Christmas and had drougts right after; not to mention Sony had a much more popular machine with tons of momentum (including full 3rd party support behind it) before GC even launched.  Lastly! it's not a handheld.  I don't think there's a good comparison here at all.  Nintendo has already addressed softwarefor the first8-9 months of release.

 

On 3rd parties! I do believe building a big user base will pull them in! look at DS.  Wii might be the counterexample! but I think the industry had a  bit of an agenda against Wii! and in fact! it did have more million selling 3rd party games than the competition - at least for a couple of years.

 

But I agree proving third parties can sell is a bonus which is probably why we're seeing the "weird" lineup that we are.  Who knewBomberman could push 500000 units.  Dkyrim should do great