NightlyPoe said:
We're not totally on different pages. However, my contention is that with mid-tier releases in May and September, Switch sales could have ridden on the 2017 previous system sellers without a perceived loss of momentum. What you call "filler" I consider to be value-added. Kirby and Yoshi-type games actually do very well out on their own. Years later, mid-tier games often become some of the most cherished on a system. Would Kirby have done as well if it had been released a few days away from Mario Odyssey? Probably not. In fact, I long argued that releasing Fire Emblem Warriors in that slot was a mistake and relegated that title (which was pretty fun) to limited sales figure. With a few more games to tide Switch owner over while they dreamed of Smash, I don't think people would have had much of a problem. Instead, we basically got 3 games until November. It doesn't leave much room for variety in case none of those appeal to you. It made all the difference in the psychology of waiting for Smash. Thankfully, next year that won't be a problem. |
I wrote "filler" and not just filler, because i didn't want you to take it literally.
Of course those games have value, but they sell to people who already own a console and not a console to those who don't have it. And that's where Nintendo failed in 2018.
Momentum of a console is specially drive by system sellers. That's why games like Pokémon, Mario, Mk, etc, are so important for Nintendo. And when things go south (Wii U), those are the titles that help Nintendo fight.
Again, it's great that Nintendo has these type of titles, but to actually succeeded, they just don't cut it.
Honestly, i don't think that more of these titles would have made a big difference. In perception? Probably a little bit (more is always better), but for overall sales, i doubt it. Not to mention how bad it would be for the later years when all those IPs had used up their usual userbase.
