RolStoppable said:
This thread is pretty much what I expected it to be. You even managed to mess up the easiest point of them all, the games.
3. Marketing of a console is a subsequent factor, not a decisive one. The typical analyses on gaming forums conclude that marketing is front and center, so a console that sells well is considered to have good marketing while a console that struggles is perceived to have bad marketing. But what's really going is that the console itself is either good or bad, so the appropriate conclusion for Switch and Wii U, respectively, is that Switch sells because it's a great console and the Wii U failed because it sucked. The marketing, regardless of its form and quality, doesn't change those fundamental things. And while the two SKU at launch strategy of the Wii U was stupid, it wouldn't have changed the fortunes of the console if there had been only one SKU at launch.
2. The typical arguments about core audience tend to miss the point by a huge margin. When you take a serious look at the bestseller list of the NES (which is what defines Nintendo's core audience), you'll see virtually all of those games that the modern gamer defines as casual and non-core. The NES had a mixture of bringing arcade games into people's homes (so games that were understood quickly and could be played in short bursts) and creating games that had longer play sessions. Does Wii Sports on the Wii really qualify as non-core when the NES had Tennis, Golf and Baseball as multi-million selling games? And what about the Virtual Console that the Wii had from day one, was Nintendo trying to appeal to casuals? What about New Super Mario Bros. on the DS, is that a non-core game?
All too often the modern gamer has the idea that Nintendo's core audience are the people who bought the Nintendo products that led to ever-declining sales, but that's completely backwards. Those failed Nintendo consoles actually show that Nintendo didn't properly cater to their core audience. The games that Nintendo's core audience likes shouldn't be looked down upon; while the modern gamer pretends that those people want easy to win games instead of real games, the reality is that it is about games that cut the bullshit that wastes people's time.
There's this messed up idea that the Wii U catered more to core gamers than the Wii, an idea that is based on assuming that the core gamer is the person who plays FIFA and other stuff that the AAA industry churns out. While that audience is the core audience of Sony and Microsoft, it's certainly not Nintendo's core audience because Nintendo was never the place to play those multiplats. Pretty much all hit games on the NES were exclusives and that carried over to the SNES; the Genesis/Megadrive was the console that housed the precursor of today's multiplat gamer and from there it moved on to the PS1.
Switch's signature title is Breath of the Wild. With Switch Nintendo did indeed return to cater to their core audience and Breath of the Wild's core is the original The Legend of Zelda, not Ocarina of Time. This is something that should make people think. For the longest time Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess (based on OoT) had been the best-selling Zelda games of all time, but now that the original vision for the Zelda series got its first modern interpretation, it's blowing the sales of OoT and TP out of the water. Not only individually, but also combined.
1. You close out your post with the implied importance of AAA third party games despite Switch's success clearly not being based on them. It's one last effort of yours to make the puzzle fit that AAA third party is core despite their sales matching indie games at best. Nintendo's core audience does not need a more powerful Switch, because the core gamer of a Nintendo console is very different to the core gamer of non-Nintendo consoles.
EDIT: I wrote my own thread why Switch is a success.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=225876
It was posted about three weeks before Switch launched.
|
OK so my points have met your awfully low expectations. I'm not gonna lie, I am honored that you're not dissapointed with this thread as you still took the time to write and post and i guess in your mind the average Nintendo fan is a simple minded sheep that praises Nintendo's farts and everything else Nintendo pulls out of their ass, but not you, oh no because you're just so much smarter than the rest and have an actual well thought out opinion or you're just an edgy contrarian, I really don't know, but i still got your attention to read my weak minded views in a long post. Either way it's your views and you have every right to express yourself but you don't have to apply my views on your own so keep breathing and RELAX.
The WiiU being a good or bad console is highly subjective and frankly a stupid reason to point as a cause of failure. The WiiU was underpowered? Yes, but so is the Switch and especially when the next generation of consoles launch yet it's not bad because it's selling well? The Dreamcast failed, Gamecube failed, PSVita failed are all of these consoles bad according to you? They were among the most powerfull consoles/handeld of their time and are still fondly remembered by many. Of course marketing alone does not guarantee a succesful product as it's a combination of factors but neither do the rest of the factors alone guarantee success. Marketing is essential in making the target audience aware of your product and to specify what's it got in store for them whereas Nintendo failed with WiiU because most people did not even know that it was a new console and why they should buy the thing, what makes it worth a purchase? I remember seeing Nintendo putting a side by side ad of the Wii and WiiU and their differences because the WiiU was virtually unknown and people were uninterested in another Wii console targeting children. That is the first thing Nintendo fixed with Switch marketing, focus on young adults then the children will follow the adults not the other way around.
I think you're complicating this way more than it is and again, sorry but you bringing up the NES is a terrible example. The NES days were way too different from todays videogame industry and i don't think i need to explain you all of it's differences. But to repeat the examples i mentioned games like Wii Sports, Wii Fit are fun and innovative multi million selling games but those are not the type of games Nintendo's core audience or "Nintendo Nerds" were looking for. And here is where you're horribly wrong or just purely in denial... YES, Nintendo fans wanted more 3rd party games like Assassins Creed, Dark Souls, Battlefield, GTA the games every other console got but the WiiU because these games in most cases simply wouldn't run on the U and more importantly wouldnt sell so why would 3rd parties waste their time on it? This has been the oldest and most vocal criticism of Nintendo consoles coming from Nintendo fans, the Gamecube actually managed to get decent third party multiplats but again it had it's hardware limitations which also limited it's third party support just like the N64. The fact that games like Tekken Tag, Injustice or Assassin Creed 3 underperformed on WiiU doesn't mean Nintendo fans don't want them it's just that these games in most cases were inferior ports, ported too late when people already owned these games on other platforms and the fact that the WiiU sold terribly, you can't expect third party games with next to no marketing to get decent sales on a console with next to no marketing. Why would Nintendo even try to convince 3rd parties if they knew they wouldn't sell? They tried to please both audiences with the WiiU and ended up losing both.
Please, take your time and reread my post as i've never specified nor stated that AAA 3rd party games are a huge success or define Switch's success. I clearly said 3rd parties, either indie or AAA, are getting more ports on Switch which in of itself is a success for the Switch and Nintendo because you know damn well that the WiiU wasn't getting this many 3rd party support not from Bethesda, not from From Software, not from Capcom and again yes these are mosltly safe bet ports but the Switch is doing something right which attracts 3rd parties, WiiU didn't. Nintendo needs 3rd parties whether you agree with this or not.
You wrote your own thread? Before Switch released? God it must be so good i'll be sure to read it when i've got the time okay? Just like you dedicated your time to read my weak minded post, again i'm so happy that you're not dissapointed.
Wman1996 said: 1. The Switch is a hybrid. Both Nintendo's home console and handheld markets are now merged. While we have yet to see the full benefits of this, it's apparent. Nintendo handhelds were always guaranteed to succeed once a new generation of Pokemon came out. Pokemon Sword and Shield is a big success on Switch, as is the spin-off "Let's Go". The Switch's hybrid nature also gives more incentive to play first and third-party ports. Even if third-party games can't match the specs of other consoles, you have the option to play them anywhere. 2. Marketing. The marketing with the Switch has been mostly great. There are still some kids and families shown, but it's mostly teenagers and under-35 adults. If you market to adults, kids will likely show an interest too. If you market largely to kids, adults will back away. 3. Strong 2017. For all the faults the Switch had for 2017, there were a lot of strengths. There were a lot of heavy-hitters in exclusives and multiplats. Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Splatoon 2, Mario+Rabbids, Stardew Valley, Super Mario Odyssey, Skyrim, and Xenoblade Chronicles 2. Switch's 2018 certainly didn't match 2017, and 2019 may not have either. 2020 will likely be Switch's best year financially, and may get its best games. Hard to say, though, since we still don't know a lot about this year. |
The portable/hybrid aspect is one of the reasons i had considered to include it's the best thing Nintendo has done bringing 3DS and WiiU owners together and just focusing most of their resources on one console.