Slownenberg said:
lol I'm not "saying shit in hindsight". I gave the actual reasons why certain systems sold less than others. All you are bringing to the table is "it had the same name". You lost this argument as soon as you began it. You're just digging yourself deeper into a nonsense argument. But you're obviously gonna stick to your failed argument of "people don't ever buy the same name twice" lol so have fun with that made up idea. Names are important for describing what something is and building a brand. Assuming a direct successor to the Switch, the name "Switch" will continue to describe the product well and will continue with the powerful branding the current Switch as built up. It'd take a very VERY bad marketing team to decide to move away from the Switch. Keeping the Switch brand name is the one thing Nintendo doesn't even need to spend anytime thinking about, they just have to decide what goes with the brand name: "2", "Super", etc. |
And you keep cherrypicking reasons as to why your arguments should be valid. All the disadvantes of the later consoles.
How about the fact that the NES had to go against a video game crash? A time when retailers in the US didnt want to sell games anymore. Kinda a big disadvantage.
How about the DS had to follow up the Gameboy brand?
How about the Wii being barely more powerful than a GC with motion controls at its core?
How about the GB not having backlit screens and worse graphics than Atari Lynx and GameGear?
You know why they did great? Because they were new experiences that didnt rely on their predecessors. A name will remind you of that. Im not saying everything is in a name, but for Nintendo it seems to be an important factor.







