Financially, was ARMS a flop?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Mar1217 said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Ok, I just want to reiterate that I wouldn't call Arms a success or failure.  Having said that:

It's not really a success, because of opportunity cost.  Sure they made some profit, but they would have made a lot more profit if they made a game that would move hardware.  I don't want to call Arms a failure either though, because at least they are trying out new IP, which is something that Nintendo needs to keep doing.

But Kirby and Yoshi games are much better examples to use when talking about opportunity cost.  These games really should never be made.  Why?  Because people buy them because they like 2D platformers.  But 2D Mario and Donkey Kong Country are 2D platformers that always sell a lot more than Kirby and Yoshi, and more importantly Mario and Donkey Kong move hardware.  They are wasting resources making Kirby and Yoshi, because Nintendo gets much better returns when they make Mario or Donkey Kong.  So these Kirby and Yoshi games might technically make a profit, but Nintendo is leaving a lot of money on the table by making them.

But HAL is making Kirby games not Nintendo, so it takes no ressources for Ninty to make these. Except for the generational Smash Bros we get, Kirby is their most popular franchise, escpecially in Japan. So you're technically wrong. Same for DK since it was made by Retro. The first one on Wii sold bollocks, the 2nd one did disappoint though, but mostly because of the low userbase of the WiiU.

 

Nuvendil said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Ok, I just want to reiterate that I wouldn't call Arms a success or failure.  Having said that:

It's not really a success, because of opportunity cost.  Sure they made some profit, but they would have made a lot more profit if they made a game that would move hardware.  I don't want to call Arms a failure either though, because at least they are trying out new IP, which is something that Nintendo needs to keep doing.

But Kirby and Yoshi games are much better examples to use when talking about opportunity cost.  These games really should never be made.  Why?  Because people buy them because they like 2D platformers.  But 2D Mario and Donkey Kong Country are 2D platformers that always sell a lot more than Kirby and Yoshi, and more importantly Mario and Donkey Kong move hardware.  They are wasting resources making Kirby and Yoshi, because Nintendo gets much better returns when they make Mario or Donkey Kong.  So these Kirby and Yoshi games might technically make a profit, but Nintendo is leaving a lot of money on the table by making them.

The fallacy in your logic is the assumption that the resources and personnel used in the production of these games is interchangeable with the resources spent in Mario.  Which is quite untrue given Hal makes Kirby, Good Feel makes Yoshi, Retro was making Donkey Kong, etc.  And rerouting all these to Mario and DK would just result in brand fatigue.  

No fallacy.  The resources are essentially interchangeable.  If Nintendo wanted HAL to make a 2D Mario game, for example, then HAL would make a 2D Mario game.  And they would be happy to do so, because 2D Mario would make them a lot of money.

And why is brand fatigue an issue?  There isn't a new 2D Mario or Donkey Kong on the Switch yet.  Just a Donkey Kong port.

And of course the main thing we are talking about here is Arms, which actually is made by Nintendo proper.  It was a good idea for them to try out this new IP, but since it wasn't a wild success, then their resources are better spent developing another new IP instead of Arms 2.  It's about opportunity cost.  Arms 2 may make them some profit, but they are better off trying to develop a new IP that will be a wild success like Splatoon was.  The main goal of first party games is to move hardware since that is where the big money is.