The Nintendo Switch has now more games than the Xbox One

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Otter said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

It's actually one of the few objective measures.  Hardware sales, software sales, and number of titles in a library are objective measures.  Review scores are not so objective, because people can tamper with those.  Review scores get inflated by critics and then review bombed by users.  But number of titles?  What you see is what you get.

PS vita had more games then the 3DS and the Dreamcast more than the N64. Sheer number of games is of course and interesting metric to look at but it doesnt really tell you much. As a consumer it's not valuable. 

There are actually more 3DS games than Vita games.    The entries in wikipedia are misleading, because they only include physical games for 3DS but they include both physical and digital for Vita.  Wikipedia used to indicate which vita games where digital only, and you can see it from the internet archive.  (Link to IA is screwing up my post formatting, but I will post it if anyone wants it.)

There are actually 865 physical Vita games from that archived list.  Since then Wikipedia has added 71 more games.  Even if all of those were physical it would still only have 936 games.  Meanwhile the 3DS has 1337 games.  3DS has significantly more games.

Having a huge library of games is a huge advantage.  More games leads to more hits.  The PS1 is the system that proved this.  There is another thread made recently about how the N64 is the least trashy system.  It has the smallest amount of shovelware.  It was stomped on by the PS1.  The PS1 was full of shovelware.  PS1 had 3070 games and most of them are crap.  N64 had 388 games with very little shovelware.  But it's not the shovelware that counts.  More games means more hits.  Take the top 10% of N64 games and that is 39 games.  Take the top 10% of PS1 games and that is 307 games.  Just going by that measure PS1 had about 10 times the amount of good games, and that is a more of a measure of what counts.  Hell even if you compare the top 20% of N64 to count it's top 10% of PS1, the PS1 still had a ton of more good games on it.  PS1 simply had more good games.  It had more good games, because Sony just let everything onto their system.  Even if only 10% are really good, that still leads to more good games.

Having the biggest library of games is a massive advantage.  Good games are what matter.  However the most effective way for a system to get good games is just to get a lot of games.  A lot of them will be shovelware, but some will be really good.  Gamers mostly just want to play the good ones anyway.  We are used to looking over a sea of stuff we aren't interested in to find the gems.  But the most effective way for a system to get good games is simply to have a lot of games.  That's why having largest library is a big advantage.

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 06 July 2020