DélioPT said:
Peach_buggy said:
Your point is that Nintendo won't be able to keep up the momentum with the Switch after releasing 4 big hitters this year. My point is a pokemon mainline game will keep momentum singlehandedly for a whole year if necessary and singlehandedly increase the baseline. After that there are plenty enough big hitters left in Nintendo's locker to keep momentum for another 3 years, then if a slump starts, there's always the possibility of sequelsof their huge games and by that time... more pokemon! I can see Nintendo themselves managing to keep momentum going for the Switch quite comfortably for 5+ years, or even at the larger end, even possibly 8! Handhelds tend to last longer, so, wynaut?
|
No, my point was that it will be hard for Nintendo to have a year like they are having now.
StarDoor said:
1.) The GBA didn't sell all of its 81.5 million units in four years. It sold over fifteen million units after the DS was released. At the end of this fiscal year, (March 31, 2018) it will be 72 million 3DS to 81 million GBA.
Likewise, GBA software wasn't all sold in its first four years. In fact, the 3DS (369M) will be virtually tied with the GBA (377M) at the end of this fiscal year.
I used first-party software sales earlier because Nintendo makes much more money selling first-party games than third-party games. So the 3DS generation will have Nintendo sell slightly less hardware, an equal amount of total software, and much more first-party software. This is beneficial to Nintendo, because it shows that their first-party games are actually more popular now than they were during the sixth generation. More people are willing to buy Nintendo hardware specifically for Nintendo software, and the Switch is on pace to have one of Nintendo's best first-party lineups ever. You even acknowledge this by saying that this year has a great lineup while listing just four games.
By the way, saying the 3DS hasn't been able to outdo "even" the GBA is ridiculous. The GBA did exceptionally well, selling much faster than the original GB, which only made it to 118 million because it didn't have a successor until its 13th fiscal year. On the other hand, the GBA had a successor in its 5th fiscal year.
2.) That doesn't make any sense. The "concept" of the Switch isn't going to disappear after this year, and it's not going to suddenly become less appealing. Furthermore, even if 2017 has a great lineup (which is a hilarious tone-shift from the beginning of the year, when people were saying the Switch had a garbage lineup,) Nintendo cannot possibly meet all of the accumulated demand from this year. Sales that would have otherwise happened in 2017 will go to 2018 and beyond because Nintendo can't produce much more than 10 million units during this fiscal year. If you want a comparison, look at how the Wii sold in 2008 versus 2007. Unmet demand plus new system sellers like Animal Crossing, Smash Bros, and Pokémon will easily maintain momentum over the next few years.
3.) Okay, so what do you call a portable video game console that will absorb 100% of the software support that Nintendo gave the 3DS?
Also, how does the Switch have more pressure on it in the coming years if it isn't even a 3DS successor? If you just consider it a Wii U successor, it's already a massive success.
|
You are right, part of GBA's figures came after DS launched.
But i don't see that changing my point, which was, 3DS, to reach GBA like figures will have spent more time in the market.
And the reason for that is, to me, that mobile has had an effect on the handheld gaming segment.
Not gonna question your view on 1st party support importance, just want to add that despite that, GBA ended up with a vastly superior library of games (in terms of quantity), very cheap games to make, a number of NES and SNES ports (Mario games... actually there was no original Mario game, was there).
So, 1st party titles might be more important now than before - with reason - but what console made them more money at the end of the day?
I honestly don't know, but given the amount of games and low cost productions, i would bet on GBA.
Why is so weird to think that Switch's concept will become less appealing? Didn't that happen with Wii and Kinect?
It's only natural that the concept looses "value" in comsumer's eyes, over time.
I'll still call it a home console with portability added to it.
The support being more or less, has no say on what a product is.
The pressure comes from the fact that Nintendo only has - so far - one product to carry them over.
Also, Nintendo already said they weren't working on a 3DS successor. Which means that in the coming years, Switch cannot fail.
And it's not just that, in terms of revenue - or profits - it makes a difference in having 1 or 2 products on the market.
I do consider Switch, when compared to Wii U, a success... so far.
I believe that they still need to show they have what it takes to keep Switch significant in the coming years.
|
