AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Triggered? I'm not "triggered"; i'd simply expect someone to understand what "arguable" and "niche" means before commenting with them.
Your point is incredibly bad and I can not agree with it. In part because most Nintendo franchises don't have direct competitors even on other platforms(What competes with Zelda on a serioius triple A level? Horizon???) but also because you're acting like people buy Nintendo consoles, go "wut do i does with dis hunk of plastic", and then just randomly buy Nintendo games because that's all there is. That's incredibly backwards logic. People buy Nintendo consoles *for* their games(which you mentioned but didn't seem to understand). And while I do think that more games would be bought on Wii if it was a more 3rd party oriented console, I don't think more games would directly lead to a sales decline because there aren't 3D Platformers with the marketing or praise of Mario, there aren't Kart racers as popular as Mario Kart, etc. In essence , if Nintendo had more third parties, what would *more likely happen* is that there would be an increase in sales for all games. Nintendo's exclusives would still be bought because they're unique. Mario Kart doesn't get sales because of a lack of competition - it's because it's Mario Kart. Super Smash Brothers had competition once and look how that turned out. And that competition was an exclusive too with no direct competition on it's platform. Sony exclusives don't get less sales because there's more competition. It's because they just aren't as bought. So how could you say that Nintendo's games are niche and not Sony's? I can understand saying Star Fox or Metroid is niche(even that's a bit overboard though) but most Nintendo franchises? No.
In the end sales don't matter anyways when saying what is arguably better exclusive-wise. It's an opinion. I'm not even arguing that Playstation has worse exclusives. Their lineup *is* better so far but to say it's not "arguable" that Nintendo's IP's are better than Sony's is ludicrous, especially when you fall back on sales figures to make a point. You can say "butthurt" all ya want but almost anything is arguable as long as you have a good point to make. But your largely unfounded points don't make the case. I feel bad now knowing Uncharted 4 is soooo niche, now I know why they have to cash in with Lost Legacy. Poor Naughty Dog.
I'm not trying to be rude man, I just don't think what you're saying makes sense. I mean, most triple A's aren't niche. It's funny cause if you were just talking about indies on Switch you'd literally be 100% right. |
You call my points bad but they went over your head, apparently. So please try to reread what I wrote and pay special attention to those numbers.
I'll give a hint though. The software sales numbers in connection with the total games on each console explains why there's more sales on individual games on one console and not the other.
I didn't call you butthurt or imply it but you're overreacting to me saying that nintendo tailors towards a niche market because I didn't say it in the way you took it (nintendo games are niche). I'll explain it to you so it's crystal clear hopefully.
"Nintendo's first party is tailored towards a niche part of the market and they absolutely love those games but the rest of the market does not"
What was I calling niche? Games or people?
Hmmm perhaps you see why I said don't get triggered by the word "niche". You leaped right on "niche" and went with it in a way you wanted it to. If you mistook just that little part, what else did you not get?
