In terms of software quality, which transition did Nintendo handle better, 3D or HD?

[Jumpin]

LegitHyperbole said:

Jumpin said:

If we're talking commercial - it's easier to show because it's more based on data
The transition to 3D was rough, and not as commercially successful as their past 2D efforts on the NES and SNES, nor was it as successful as their present 2D efforts on Gameboy and GBA - so the decline became so bad that the home console front represented just a small fraction of Nintendo's revenue, despite being its biggest cost - and was the cause of Nintendo's first financial quarter to dip into the red for the first time in 50 years. While Wii U in isolation was a larger failure than the N64 (landing Nintendo in the red for the full year), it was also their shortest generation. And (unlike the N64) did not mark a true collapse, as the Switch was a swift and massive recovery. But not only did the N64 end Nintendo's decade of dominance and forever ruined their brand power (before being synonymous with video games), but Nintendo continued to struggle and decline for another five years on the home console front. Nintendo was 2 for 2 in the 2D era on home console, and 2 for 2 on handhelds. It really took Nintendo 10 years before they found commercial winner since the transition to 3D, as both N64 and Gamecube were losers. Nintendo had a winner in its second generation of HD.

As far as software goes
Nintendo has 21 games on Switch that have exceeded 10 million sales - and that number will continue to grow. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Animal Crossing: NH have a combined sales of over 110 million units.
Nintendo only has 10 games above 10 million for the entire 3 generations of the 3D era, and only one of those games (Super Mario 64) is not a Wii game.


Then there is the handheld front
Nintendo managed a hybrid console that had HD graphics within 4 years. That hybrid console is close to becoming the best selling video game console in history.
It took Nintendo twice as long, 8 and a half years, before 3D was a thing on handheld - and while it was a great success (far more successful than the N64), it was an additional 2 years, 10 years total, before they got hot. But Switch was hot out the gate. While the 3DS was a winner, it was also Nintendo's least successful handheld console.

Let me clear, my personal opinion is that the 3DS was a great handheld, but it had a lot going against it: anti-3D hysteria (like weird press freaking out), and mobile gaming coming out strong around this time, Nintendo also miscalculated the launch (a lot because they had their eyes off the negative 3D press and outside industry competition). But numbers are numbers.

To us hardcore gamers, Nintendo Switch outpacing PS2 as a console will never count. You can't combine handheld with console and expect to say you neat the competition. Ps2 and Ps3 needs to be combined with PSP for comparison. DS + WIi kills all on those terms still but I'll never accept the Switch as a home console.

That's as flawed as saying PS2 sales shouldn't count because it doubled as a DVD player. It's not a valid argument to disqualify a console's sales numbers based on a key feature that contributes to its success. Being "hardcore" is irrelevant.