By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:

1. Nintendo already has revised their own forecast down to 18 mill because their holiday season had soft sales, so 19 mill is pretty much out the window. They had revised down to 19 a few months ago from 21 million, so this is the second time they've had to revise downwards. 

2. If a Switch Pro was really releasing, it almost 100% would be releasing with Zelda: TOTK. I don't think people really properly understand how hardware development works either, this isn't like ordering lunch at McDonalds, hardware decisions have to be made years in advance and chip R&D has to be paid for. Nintendo can't just decide this year they need a Switch Pro and have Nvidia whip one out. I think if they were making a Switch Pro, that pretty much needed to release when the Switch OLED did. Otherwise it's what ... Switch OLED ($350) in 2021, Switch Pro ($399?) for 2023 and Switch 2 for 2025 ($399+?) ... I mean this is really overkill and getting into a release schedule that looks like a 90s Sega type of thing with expensive hardware being stacked together. Beyond that, I think Switch OLED IS the Switch Pro (or DSi XL or New 3DS equivalent), likely it was too expensive to change the hardware under the hood so they just chose to emphasize the improved display instead. 

3.) The SNES didn't sell less than the NES because the "graphics improved too much!" (literally a complaint made by no one, ever) it sold less because Sega put up tremendous competition and put them into a real fight. With the N64, Nintendo shot the poor system in the foot, the N64 would've easily outsold the SNES if Nintendo had used CD-ROM and not lost 90% of their 3rd party support straight to Sony. GameCube's success was basically tied to the PS2, Sony had to make mistakes to give Nintendo an opening and they simply didn't give Nintendo anything to work with. The problem with any of those systems wasn't with the chipset being powerful, it was a litany of poor decisions by Nintendo which then got pounced on by hungry competitors (you wanna censor Mortal Kombat? Great for Sega. You wanna kill all your developer support and give it to us by going cart-only? Great for Sony. You want to make a purple console that looks like a child's lunchbox, cell shade Zelda, and hand over your market leadership in the FPS genre? Great for Sony and Microsoft ... none of that is the fault of the chipset inside the machine being powerful or not). 

4.) "Stock prices don't matter" ... I mean yeah, they don't matter to a poster on an internet forum, lol. I'm pretty sure it does matter though to someone running a publicly traded business (of any kind). No company listens to everything every investor wants them to do, but in Nintendo's case, they probably are able to recognize they are likely on a decline pattern of this product generation, nothing "wrong" has happened, time doesn't stop for anything and we're getting up to 6 years, any hardware system is going to struggle to keep sales at peak levels. The issue centrally to Nintendo is they really only have this one hardware outlet now, it's not like there's a new home console and new portable to alternate between to boost business in the interim, so of course they are going to hear more from shareholders when the decline phase of a product cycle starts to become more obvious. 

Nintendo's stock price circa 2013 was in the shitter because it deserved to be in the shitter. They weren't delivering profits or sales. It would be the same if they were PepsiCo. or Nike or whoever. They did also cave to shareholder pressure and did agree to start making smartphone games which they previously said they would never do, so it isn't some factor that has no impact, it obviously does. 

1. I was comparing calendar years.

2. I don't think you are in the position to explain to others how hardware works. The people we have here that do know what they are talking about usually have, to explain things to you. This already shows with your comparison to 1990s Sega where you liken revisions to add-ons that had their own games.

3. The argument I made was not "Graphics improved too much, so sales suffered.", it was "Graphics didn't make people buy the new hardware."

The excuses you make for the SNES, N64 and GC fail the test of logical consistency. Tremendous competition from Sony couldn't stop Switch, nor did the lack of the vast majority of third party support Sony and Microsoft had, nor did anyone else have to mistakes in order to allow Switch to become successful. The same things hold true for the Wii.

4. It would be so nice if you could be intellectually honest for once. What shareholders demanded was that Nintendo's classic games get put on smartphones, Nintendo declined because it would hurt their core business. What Nintendo eventually did with their smartphone games was something else entirely. That's also why all the people who wanted Nintendo to do the same as the shareholders demanded don't call it Nintendo going third party even though that's what Nintendo technically did; they all know that those apps aren't the real Nintendo games.

If you want to insist that shareholders have an influence on Nintendo's decisions, then you have to prove it. But Nintendo does what Nintendo wants to do. It was true back then when their stock was very low, and it will be even more true at the current time where their stock is still very high.

Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.