By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 11 March 2018
Edit Thread
DélioPT said:
Lonely_Dolphin said: 

More from a business perspective.
The release schedule is something that pre-dates Switch's success. This is what would be happening even if Switch wasn't such a success. Glad it was, though.
Actually, frontloading is something that they have been trying to do since the GC. It worked this time, but it left a really big hole in their 2018 line-up.
Again, thankfully, they were lucky that people embraced Switch they way they did.

MK8D is the exception in the ports because it does sell HW. Pokken is one of those titles that sells to the existing userbase. Kinda like FE. 
From the sales i have seen (haven't checked all), despite the great success for the recent FE games, those games did little to nothing for HW.

Thing is, people aren't, from what i can tell, ojectively looking at what Nintendo is putting out, they are mixing Switch's success with the line-up and then making their arguments.

zorg1000 said: 

But the problem with those games is that they only sell to the existing userbase and as such, most of 2018's line-up can't be used as a selling factor in 2019 and beyond. Which means that Switch could have becomed more attractive this year and the next ones, but it probably won't because Nintendo didn't plan right.

They might keep momentum for the existing users, but what about the other consumers who haven't bought a system? Those consumers we'll have to wait?

Nintendo should be in a position where they could indeed offer something meaningful every quarter. Offering Kirby and Mario Tennis doesn't cut it. 
Labo's potential remains to be determined.

I look at your list and i'm recalled of what the PS4 has to offer.
It's ports/Indies+a few new games+Smash vs Indies+every single new game announced for consoles/the most wanted/wished for games.
Which console shines to you and which one pales in comparison? 

I never said sales would go down, but i'll say that they aren't higher because Nintendo didn't prepare itself as it should.
My point is that Switch could have done better, could be doing doing even better if...
The later Nintendo comes up in full force (not just one year, but as new standard), the more sales it will lose and become less appealing than it could be.

 

There's no random luck here, the sales are a direct result of Nintendo's actions, hence they are the sole determining factor if Nintendo is making good choices or not when talking from a business standpoint. You simply can't give an objective take without factoring in the numbers, only a misinformed/biased one. Now with your response to Zorg, you just admitted that you'd have concerns no matter how well Nintendo sellls since they could always sell better than they currently are (be it 200k a week or 2m). This is also why that point is moot. What matters is that they sell well, which they undeniably are.

About your claiming smaller games have no effect on system sales, the single greatest system seller is not any one game no mattter how big it may be, but a huge library of games, as not everyone likes every game, and most don't buy consoles solely for one game. Thus the smaller games are very important. For instance, Mario Odyssey by itself might not get everyone interested in the game to get a Switch, but it plus Bayonetta, Kirby, and Tropical Freeze will entice more people to jump on board. That's just one of many many examples that could be made. Oh and needless to say, expecting a 5+ million seller every quarter is pretty unrealistic. 2017 is not going to be the norm, and as Nintendo is proving, it doesn't have to be for them to sell well.