By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 06 August 2018
Edit Thread
TheMisterManGuy said:
curl-6 said:

I'm simply looking at it from a logical business point of view. Gaming is a business.

Any competent management will look at how rapidly ARMS slipped from the charts and the public eye and see sinking resources into a successor as a poor investment. The only way it can happen if it Nintendo's execs are bad at their jobs.

Yes gaming is a business, but a business can be okay with modest success. Not everything needs to be the next mega hit phenomenon. Nintendo again, doesn't play by typical gaming executive rules. Nintendo values success not just on how much money or sales it made, but on how much players enjoyed the game. ARMS may not have had the shelf life of some of the Switch's other titles, but it still sold quite well for its first year, and still retains a healthy player-base. Nintendo still somewhat supports the game as well with regular party crash events, they even celebrated its one year anniversary. It's obvious they don't consider ARMS a failure. 

And I don't think green-lighting a sequel means Takahashi (head of EPD) is bad at his job. If anything, it shows he's willing to take creative risks, letting a property sustain itself or grow, and won't just kill a series just because it's not the next Splatoon or something. 

At the end of the day though, Nintendo's lead teams exist to drive their hardware and software business, and ARMS 2 doesn't really achieve either objective. There is a place for the modest success, but that place isn't one of Nintendo's flagship teams.