EricHiggin said:
mountaindewslave said:
they really are though, you don't realize the headache it is for a company like Nintendo to SEPERATELY develop games for TWO systems at a time. They have to set up differenet manufacturing processes for two systems, two mediums (cartridges 3DS, disks Wii U), split up their development teams to work on totally different systems, they can't push software out anywhere near as quickly for systems, etc.
Ask yourself why Sony completely abandoned pushing first party games out for the Vita early on? its the exact same reason, logistically its a nightmare to split up your first party dev teams to work on two different ecosystems (at least with serious investment)
You are asking all the wrong questions and seem to be under the belief that any console manufacturer can just snap their fingers and have a handheld and home console ecosystem in place without massive investments. Just the design and creation phases of systems is a lot of investment.
Not to mention if you have 75 million people on one console (hypothetically) and are capable of pushing out high quality software at a much quicker rate on a unified platform- guess what? you are likely to sell a lot more software. One of the biggest problems why the Wii U and 3DS at times had underwhelming software sales were because of game droughts.
One platform helps alleviate that issue.
Its quite obvious why Nintendo has decided to potentially go with one platform, because its a massive amount of work to strongly (essentially exclusively) hold up two platforms. Sony failed miserably at doing it with the VIta, despite the PS4's success, and Nintendo was the opposite, succeeding with the 3DS, but failing on their home console. Literally the flip of the coin. And exactly why you probably won't see Sony bother with another handheld. (before someone brings up Sony VR, comparatively speaking they aren't really developing a lot of software for it, it was just an obvious accessory creation to cash on the craze since they knew that a lot of their PS4 adopters would find it easy to just get the Playstation version of VR)
but yes, Nintendo is way better off with one platform rather than two assuming they end up with roughly the same userbase. having like 75 million people on one platform rather than a weird division like 20+55, is preferable because they don't have to spend as much money and time CREATING an extra device and also marketing said extra device. And make no mistake, marketing all of the different 3DS and Wii U bundles add up.
Simplicity and straight forwardness is they key. I think a big part of why the Switch has good word of mouth and is off to a good start is BECAUSE its a unified all-in-one device for handheld and home gaming. People have wanted this from Nintendo for quite some time and its just business wise a mess to perpetually have two platforms and to divide your fanbase
|
Read the sentence in bold I wrote in my earlier post above. Either you didn't read through my post or missed that line based on your response.
Yes, a larger user base can lead to higher overall sales. I never said that wasn't possible or won't happen, just that taking into account the entire NiN user base right now, they may have to sell around 75 million units to actually "start" bringing in new users. Obviously the entire NiN handheld user base won't transfer over, unless NiN decides to make Switch the only available hardware or makes a dedicated Switch handheld.
Yes, having 75 million users only on Switch hardware and software will make NiN more money overall, but is that success? If they simply bring all of the NiN users into one community, without growing that user base very much, can that be considered successful? If it is, then why isn't NiN being considered an overall success right now? The user base is more likely to grow with that type of position, correct, but how many new users will be drawn in is questionable given the many factors and options in play.
The poor sales of Wii U are not solely because of the fact that NiN had a few platforms with different hardware and software. There was much more to it than just that.
The XB1 was also an "all in One" device, but it had its problems at launch, just like every system does, and look how things turned out for XB. I'm not saying XB1 is a total failure, but it could have been so much more. However, they have been working hard to try and turn things around and have been gaining lost ground. Launch is an indicator, but only a small piece of the overall pie.
|
considering the last few gens have had the best selling sytems MAX out at like 100 million sales, then, yes, a 70 or 80 million sold Switch would be a success for Nintendo considering they likely would be able to push MORE software sales by having all of their development teams working in unision to release for the one platform.
It means they don't have a load of exclusives stuck on a, say, 10 million userbase (cough Wii U). Imagine if something like Mario Maker had released on a 50 million userbase instead of 10 or 12 million or whatever it came out on.
That's the real difference here- the concept of having one unified userbase that will be able to buy every exclusive when it comes out. Rather than the past where you might have to port games back and forth from home console to a downgraded handheld version, or where the two wouldn't mix at all.
the failure of the Wii U is that it was MARKETED terribly. I am a massive Nintendo fan but it wasn't on my radar. By the time it had built more traction and slightly more awareness to gamers it had other problems- limited third party support, a slow release schedule from Nintendo (which could be correlated to having two platforms to support obviously), too few 'must have' titles, etc. And while (for some strange reason), people DO like the Wii, I think using the Wii name was part of the marketing confusion to casuals and marketing damage to hardcore gamers (i.e. traditional gamers don't generally like the Wii)
your Xbox analogy is terrible because it isn't an 'all in one' gaming device in terms of portability and then home gaming. The fact you even brought up that comparison is bizarre. Even if we talk about it being an all-in-one MEDIA device for home, that isn't really the case, Microsoft is the only one trying to convince people of that. Make no mistake, the majority of people buying an Xbox One are buying it simply and exclusively to game on
you're just spewing out nonsense based on NOTHING. a good launch is a good launch. The concept that its healthy to go on a forum and say "omg this good launch doesn't mean anything, and it wouldn't necessarily be good if Nintendo had an 80 million userbase" is just crazily desperate.
In the end a good launch is of course a good thing and certainly not a given (the Wii U did not have a particularly good HOLIDAY launch, the Vita did not have a good launch, etc.). Anyone who comes on here with the argument that a Switch at like 70 million would still not be a success for the big N is impossible to argue with because they're unhealthily negative towards Nintendo.
