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

[FarleyMcFirefly]

vivster said:

TheMisterManGuy said:

Just look at this forum alone. I made an ARMS topic a while back, and 90% of the posts made were about the game being a supposed failure, and that Nintendo should move on from it or farm out a sequel to a third party so they can focus more on the safe AAA franchises. It didn't matter that the game did 2 million copies worldwide, the fact that it didn't reach the highs of Splatoon 2 or Mario Odyssey was enough for people to write the game off. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/dev2016/thread.php?id=237192&page=1

Anytime Nintendo introduces a new Switch IP and it does immediately do 5 million in a year, then it's deemed a bomb and a total failure by Nintendo fans, Even if Nintendo considers 2 million a success. How many "Failures" is it going to take Nintendo to get it through these people's heads?

The curse of success I guess?

All I can see is people saying that the new IPs failed to have the big impact its predecessors had. Nothing wrong with that. If your regular high class IPs sell upwards of 5 million and even breach 10m then an IP that sold 2m and definitely has no widespread appeal and will certainly not build a legacy then that IP certainly failed at being the next big IP of Nintendo.

I'm not actually sure what you're even trying to defend against here. Nintendo made a new IP, it didn't reach the heights of old IPs or even Splatoon and people noticed. An original IP of Nintendo is a big deal and of course it's gonna be measured against other Nintendo IPs.

If you feel the need to defend a game, doesn't that mean it already failed to speak with its own success?

As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP".