Nintendo Switch has become the fastest selling video game system of all time in the US

[DonFerrari]

SuperNova said:

DonFerrari said:

Sure thing... and sure MS or Sony if launching a hybrid wouldn't have 3rd party support right? PS1 and X360 could become runaway success even with little first party content and still managed to get third parties onboard.

What you are saying is basically that Nintendo is the only one who could make Switch successful despite not having good relationship with 3rd parties, while the initial point was that Nintendo is the only company that could have made a hybrid console which then changed to be the only one that could make it sucessful and now the first one to make it or the only one that could do it only with 1st party... you are changing the goalpost as much as SpokenTruth is accusting quickrick of.

Well, it's not neccessaryly my point, even though I agree with it, but Rols in the first place. That being said, again, that's not what I'm saying. Not sure why you're bringing up 360 and Ps3 either, as those two are about as traditional as homeconsoles get. There was never a reason for third parties not to jump on board.

The whole point is that third parties would be sceptical with jumping on board of a hybrid console no matter who brought it to market.

So yes, if Sony had announced the Ps4 with Switch specs (already unrealistic since the chip wasn't even out yet, but bear with me) as a hybrid and brought it market in 2013, with no traditional homeconsole in sight, third parties absolutely would have been highly sceptical. Especially if Sonys two competitors came to market with largely traditional and vastly more powerful consoles. It's even worse if you reverse the situation to MS, who don't even have any experience in the Handheld market at all. 

Sony has a lot of goodwill from third parties, while Nintendo has a damaged relationship with a lot of them, but my point was that the individual companies standing with third parties is laregly incedental to the third parties being sceptical of new concepts.

Nintendo has a history of know-how and success in the handheld space, aiding that aspect of development greatly, and has the IP and money to survive without full third party support, wich neiter MS nor Sony do.

It was never 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a Hybrid console', it was 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a hybrid console work'. BIg diffrence.

If you think sony could have pulled it off, fair enough. I personally have my doubts seeing the less than stellar support the vita recieved and MS would straight up have not survived trying the hybrid concept, they don't have the neccessary hardware expertise or IPs.

The point was about PS1 and X360 being succesfull even thought they didn't had much 1st party content which nullifies the notion that Switch-like HW could only be sucessful with strong 1st party games. The point of they being skeptical isn't valid since the devs have put games for consoles and HH before, so the fact that it's hybrid shouldn't make it impossible when the companies have good relationship.

The companies could be skeptical, but that is what relationship and bringing aboard is about, and presenting the project in a way to entice they

There is a difference between could have and did. Sony pulled PSP good and screwed PSVita... doesn't mean their hybrid would be either of the cases.

If we were to put the failures as a mean of impossibility than Wii and Switch shouldn't be good sellers since N64, GC and WiiU were hard floppers. And GBA and DS should also be bad since Virtua Boy.

 

RolStoppable said:

DonFerrari said:

He made a single sentence...

Very pretty your explanation for trust on PSP and not on PSVita, and the trust for PS1 came from?

Nope no flaw in saying Apple could make a succesfull HW. And also there wouldn't be much flaw in saying Nintendo could make a phone (except that their good part is on SW not HW)

So you really do look only at a single sentence despite his follow-up post that should have removed all ambiguity for what he meant.

The trust for the PS1 came from the distrust for Nintendo and Sega. Many third parties were unsure about the PS1 at first, but as soon as the console presented itself as a viable alternative to Nintendo and Sega, things got really rolling for the PS1. Other competitors in the early '90s (3DO, CD-i, Pippin, Jaguar) had failed spectacularly. Sony being an electronics giant didn't mean all that much in the big picture, because companies like Apple or Philips couldn't take advantage of their successes in other fields. For third parties it was clear that they had to find an alternative to Nintendo and Sega, but it wasn't until the PS1 that a serious opportunity arrived. Nintendo had strict policies to prevent a repeat of the Atari crash, Sega ultimately wanted to be like Nintendo; that's why Sega wasn't the savior that third parties had hoped for.

If you believe that Nintendo could make a successful phone... I don't really have an answer for that.

Nope I looked at his full post... and on the later posts he moved the goalpost.

And Sony couldn't pull a hybrid like they pulled PS1 because?

Why couldn't Nintendo make a successful phone? Didn't say it's likely or that they would even try, still a lot of companies come from 0 and bring something disruptive and win market without even being know.