RolStoppable said:
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. |
3.) The XBox 360 did start regularly outselling the Wii once they released Kinect, their take on the Wii concept, which must've been a magical coincidence I guess. Switch and PS4/PS5 are not directly comparable as they're very different types of hardware, one is a home console only the other is a hybrid console with a large part of the appeal being it can function as a portable device. The SNES and Genesis were both stationary home consoles that were directly comparable, to make a relevant comparison to that era, you would need to compare a stationary Nintendo console to a Sony or Microsoft one. If Nintendo released a home console with no portable component, you think they would easily put up 120+ million sales and dominate Sony? Obviously probably not. The competition in stationary consoles is much more fierce, with the Genesis, Sega for at least a few years did a tremendous job marketing it, selling it, and even against all odds pulling a Mario-competitor out of their ass in Sonic.
People who shit on the SNES for "losing" marketshare to the Genesis don't understand how hard Sega came at them, frankly Microsoft could learn some lessons, they are too passive in competing with Sony, Sega was incredibly in your face about it.
And then they started making dumb management decisions which killed them. Which is basically to say hardware only goes as far as good management decisions will take it, a hardware concept or spec sheet is only one part of the equation.
4.) Are you speaking for all Nintendo shareholders now? Some wanted, some wanted that, some wanted 800 other different things. Shareholders being upset when Nintendo's business was falling off a cliff isn't shocking or surprising. Nintendo does what they want to do, but I'd also bet "reaching some arbitrary hardware number so Nintendo fanboys on the internet can have meaningless bragging rights" is not even on their list of priorities, certainly not anywhere close to stock price or shareholders.
Their current internal focus at this stage is likely the Switch successor, that is what their management has to be most focused on because if they are not making the right decisions on that now (honestly probably before now, going back into last year if not sooner), that is the future of the company and it will impact their business massively in 1-2 years from now.
