IcaroRibeiro said:
The point to gamers who already own the base version of the same games. If Switch had backwards compatibility with Wii U Mario Kart 8, Super Mario Bros U, Pikmin, Tropical Freeze and others would have a smaller cumulative sales. If I have the standard game who runs almost identically as the "remastered" version then I have no reason to buy it again. Of course new players are another thing entirely, but Switch is HIGHLY successful, I doubt Switch 2 userbase will have that of a big turnover in the userbase, indeed Switch 2 is likely to be composed mostly of Switch owners Blocking Switch 1 game on Switch 2 games will obligate people to buy again if they want to keep playing Switch games on Switch 2, kinda shady but it is what it is. Need to point though that this is just a theory, Nintendo can surprise us and release a console with backwards compatibility, I personally will not complain lol About Nintendo cutting the support for the old hardware, that's because Nintendo relies 90% on Nintendo studios to give some life to their hardware in their first years. One of reasons why Switch manage to do well was because Nintendo killed Wii U and take every team making games for Wii U to work for Switch instead. There is no point in making hybrid support. Phones and PCs have a very clear scheduled obsolescence, Windows and Android become unusable after years of update unless your hardware was beyond the standard in the industry. Console games are used only to play games and as long they still playing that game smoothly there is no point in changing your hardware, if it was such a issue no console would be their prime years 3 to 4 years after its release Most customers just wait some few years to see the games that get actually releases in the new platform. For a Nintendo hardware that barely gets 3rd party in the first years delaying the exclusivity of their own games is pretty much signing the death certificate for the new hardware Are there exceptions? Yes, but then you need to make a hardware that is so attractive that people will buy it regardless of its tame gamelist. That's what Nintendo tries to do when they introduce a new hardware mechanic, but sometimes it just doesn't work well. But overall I see the strategy of making a Switch 2 just a clone of Switch 1, making it backwards compatible and releasing cross-gen games is basically setting up Switch 2 to live its first 2 years in the shadow of original Switch. |
Would sales decline? That only works if gamers follow the pattern you dictate. If NSMBU was available at Switch launch, it might be potentially at 20M+ right now if scaled up and pushed as software during release. If there was a remaster, it'd likely be on Switch 2, not Switch 1, and people buy remasters even when they have the old game. In short, there's no gap in sales, so sales would be higher, not lower; and there'd be no extensive need to waste dev resources in porting since it'd be a simple tier setting.
Mario Kart 8, I don't think there's anything to suggest revenue would be less from a greater number of people purchasing a Deluxe Expansion pass for the modes, content, and features.
There's no point in arguing the merits of Nintendo going to a more predatory practice: that's against industry trends, and more relevant, Nintendo's. While they've never had perfect backward compatibility, they've done what they can to keep have that feature in a reasonable way since the days of GBC. The flawed implementation wasn't by design or strategy, it was by necessity; nothing suggests they wouldn't implement a graduated platform if it was within their capability.
You're arguing Switch did well because Nintendo killed Wii U to support it. That's only half true, the Switch did well because Nintendo supported it, killing the Wii U had nothing to do with it. Releasing Breath of the Wild on both consoles didn't make it any less of a killer app on Switch. On the other-hand, killing support for Wii and DS did massive damage to Nintendo's financials, and they didn't recover from it the following generation.
Explaining how mobile/PC software cycles work differently than existing console strategies isn't an argument against my post, that's what I'm arguing.
And I'm not arguing for a Switch 1 clone. I'm arguing for a next generation Switch with an expanded ecosystem with new and improved software. We're looking at a substantially more powerful machine with better screen tech, better storage, battery and power efficiency. We've seen other hardware using the update and expand model, and they don't live in the shadow of their predecessors.
My original post already refutes Switch 2 living in Switch 1's shadow. My last post refutes that with the GBA SP and DS Lite upgrades, both immediately became the primary focus. We see similar behaviour in hardware companies which maintain and expand their ecosystems: we've seen a general expansion of brand, market value, and revenue over the last 10+ years. In fact, the consoles that DID live in the shadows of their predecessors were N64, Gamecube, and Wii U, consoles that came after a slash of momentum of the previous console and either A. Couldn't play prior generation software (N64 and Gamecube) or B. could play it, but worse than the previous generation. What I am advocating for with Switch 2 is a BETTER version of Switch 1 included with next generation hardware; significantly more of an upgrade than DS Lite and GBA SP were over DS and GBA.
To sum it up:
* Stronger software sales because there's no generational decline.
* Far more effective use of dev resources because there's no need to spend time lots of time on porting.
* Killing previous gens is unnecessary for the next gen to be successful.
* Flawed transitions between generations has always done by necessity, not design. Flawed transitions would no longer be a necessity, and Nintendo won't do it by design.
* Predatory strategies are not a plus, and something Nintendo shown they try to avoid when possible
* Sales velocity maintains, recovers, and expands.
* Next generation will never live in the shadow of the previous generation (unlike the Wii U)
* Slashing support of old hardware and replacing it with new hardware is about 50/50 hit and miss for Nintendo (N64, Gamecube, Wii U, and 3DS were all failures relative to their previous generation). New hardware that improves the experience over old hardware is a consistently successful strategy.
Conclusion, even a lousy next generation of gaming software can have its losses mitigated because the next generation is also a significantly better way to play old generation software. While there will still be a decline, it will be less than it would otherwise be - case and point: the Wii U. Had the next generation been Wii HD instead, which instead improved the experience on all Wii games while including its next generation offerings, do you think it would have done worse than Wii U? The generation may have still bombed, but I'd estimate Wii HD sales would have been at least twice as successful and would have replaced the Wii immediately as the primary console; plus many more active gamers would exist on Wii because there'd be much better software in those later years: had Nintendo kept full steam on Wii support, we'd have seen hundreds of millions of more games sold. Now Switch has an advantage here, it already includes the architecture of the future - it benefits from the largest battle in technology today. The Wii and Wii U used a problematic and dead architecture that might have made the sort of model I suggested impossible - it's not impossible on the Switch, and Nintendo should absolutely do it.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
