Why do Nintendo's new Switch IPs get called "failures"?

[AngryLittleAlchemist]

TheMisterManGuy said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
I don't think a lot of people really consider them failures from a financial perspective. A lot of PS3 exclusives sold in the 1.5-3 million range, and had cutting edge high end budgets. I do think that there's a general sentiment that these games are failures from the perspective of launching a new IP that can becoming a long lasting franchise, because well ... the signs are already there that that is in fact the case. Arms has had so little fanservice despite the fact that it was one of Switch's major releases in 2017. It shipped 1 million in two weeks but it's last shipment number was just a little over 2 million despite having an entire year, a holiday season, and a month or two to spare.

ARMS only needed to last as long as it needed to, Kosuke Yabuki confirmed that the plan was always to get to Version 5.0 within the first year. It wasn't meant to be a long term game in the same way Smash Bros. And Splatoon are. Besides, ARMS has a loyal following, and is still being supported by Nintendo through Party Crash events. Which are a cheap way to keep the game relevant with its players for a while, and gives the development team ample time to work on a sequel. Nintendo's made sequels to games far more niche than ARMS before, so don't be surprised if we see ARMS II in the near future. 

Never said it needed to be a long term game. Nintendo has plenty of games that have great legs despite no long term plans. In fact they are kind of known for that. The game's hype simply died out incredibly fast. Of course it has a loyal community, as do 99% of games. It's just a very niche one. 

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised at an Arms 2. I think the sentiment that Arms is a failure mostly comes from the fact that many people just don't like the game. Or rather their interest died out fast.