By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - So Far, Nintendo's Arms Does Not Have Legs - What?

That's a pretty stupid article.

It's a new IP, and while not as immediately impactful as Splatoon was, it's still very much holding its own.

Let's see come Christmas if the game is still selling to a reasonable amount of new system adopters. Then we can talk about the LEGS of ARMS.



Around the Network
Podings said:
That's a pretty stupid article.

It's a new IP, and while not as immediately impactful as Splatoon was, it's still very much holding its own.

Let's see come Christmas if the game is still selling to a reasonable amount of new system adopters. Then we can talk about the LEGS of ARMS.

It's not really holding that great in Japan or the Switch eShop charts. Which is fine, not every game is going to be a hit IP, those are so valuable because they are rare even for Nintendo. 1+ million for a new IP is never that bad, it's just was never going to be a huge hit. People are over the whole "games tha define their marketing/gameplay identity largely around motion gaming" thing. It's an idea that's 10 years past. 

I think 1,2 Switch and ARMS were Nintendo's way of trying one last ditch attempt to see how much of the Wii market might be left, so at least they would know very early on in the Switch lifecycle exactly where in the paradigm of Nintendo systems it sits and I think they've been given their answer. Motion-heavy games have a place on the Switch, but certainly not in the driver seat (as with Wii) or even in the front passenger side (as with Wii U), but firmly in the backseat once in a while. 



Soundwave said:
Podings said:
That's a pretty stupid article.

It's a new IP, and while not as immediately impactful as Splatoon was, it's still very much holding its own.

Let's see come Christmas if the game is still selling to a reasonable amount of new system adopters. Then we can talk about the LEGS of ARMS.

It's not really holding that great in Japan or the Switch eShop charts. Which is fine, not every game is going to be a hit IP, those are so valuable because they are rare even for Nintendo. 1+ million for a new IP is never that bad, it's just was never going to be a huge hit. People are over the whole "games tha define their marketing/gameplay identity largely around motion gaming" thing. It's an idea that's 10 years past. 

I think 1,2 Switch and ARMS were Nintendo's way of trying one last ditch attempt to see how much of the Wii market might be left, so at least they would know very early on in the Switch lifecycle exactly where in the paradigm of Nintendo systems it sits and I think they've been given their answer. Motion-heavy games have a place on the Switch, but certainly not in the driver seat (as with Wii) or even in the front passenger side (as with Wii U), but firmly in the backseat once in a while. 

I think in some of the notable ARMS tournaments, players are mostly using traditional controls over motion controls so you have a point there. 

They will probably continue to experiment with motion controls, HD rumble, IR sensor, etc. for the Switch as its life continues on, but I agree its probably not gonna be as prominent unless they use it for a major IP and it is utilized well.



Kai_Mao said:
Soundwave said:

It's not really holding that great in Japan or the Switch eShop charts. Which is fine, not every game is going to be a hit IP, those are so valuable because they are rare even for Nintendo. 1+ million for a new IP is never that bad, it's just was never going to be a huge hit. People are over the whole "games tha define their marketing/gameplay identity largely around motion gaming" thing. It's an idea that's 10 years past. 

I think 1,2 Switch and ARMS were Nintendo's way of trying one last ditch attempt to see how much of the Wii market might be left, so at least they would know very early on in the Switch lifecycle exactly where in the paradigm of Nintendo systems it sits and I think they've been given their answer. Motion-heavy games have a place on the Switch, but certainly not in the driver seat (as with Wii) or even in the front passenger side (as with Wii U), but firmly in the backseat once in a while. 

I think in some of the notable ARMS tournaments, players are mostly using traditional controls over motion controls so you have a point there. 

They will probably continue to experiment with motion controls, HD rumble, IR sensor, etc. for the Switch as its life continues on, but I agree its probably not gonna be as prominent unless they use it for a major IP and it is utilized well.

I think Switch will kinda be more of a return for Nintendo to software sales more like they had in the late 90s/early 2000s (in terms of types of game driving hardware success), now that the motion fad has worn off and touch gaming is basically dominated by free smartphone games. Think kinda like if the GameCube had the Game Boy Advance's userbase (as Switch is also a portable) roughly. The Wii/DS era is definitely over though, motion centric games like 1,2 Switch and even ARMS are no longer going to be a driving force for Nintendo hardware. 1.5-2 million in sales are OK, but for Nintendo this is relatively small potatoes and both games had relatively low amount of competetion. 



Soundwave said:
Podings said:
That's a pretty stupid article.

It's a new IP, and while not as immediately impactful as Splatoon was, it's still very much holding its own.

Let's see come Christmas if the game is still selling to a reasonable amount of new system adopters. Then we can talk about the LEGS of ARMS.

It's not really holding that great in Japan or the Switch eShop charts. Which is fine, not every game is going to be a hit IP, those are so valuable because they are rare even for Nintendo. 1+ million for a new IP is never that bad, it's just was never going to be a huge hit. People are over the whole "games tha define their marketing/gameplay identity largely around motion gaming" thing. It's an idea that's 10 years past. 

I think 1,2 Switch and ARMS were Nintendo's way of trying one last ditch attempt to see how much of the Wii market might be left, so at least they would know very early on in the Switch lifecycle exactly where in the paradigm of Nintendo systems it sits and I think they've been given their answer. Motion-heavy games have a place on the Switch, but certainly not in the driver seat (as with Wii) or even in the front passenger side (as with Wii U), but firmly in the backseat once in a while. 

Well I would say Arms was never a go at the Wii audience.  The advertising tone made that enormously clear.  It was, I think, more of a go at the new found home motion has found with core gamers thanks to VR.  Obviously, Arms is not VR but they likely felt that the growing comfort with motion controls would be a boon to the game.  And I would say it has, honestly.  Given it is a new IP released on such a young platform with the limited content with free updates later model, being on track to pass 2 mil lifetime is pretty good.  The big limiting factor is really the fact it's a 3D fighter.  Fighters in general are in a bit of a rut, but there's VERY few 3D fighters even out there, much less successful ones.  All things considered, I would say Arms' performance is actually pretty good.  It's certainly not dead like the article suggests.  I can name several games that died after a decent launch.  Battleborn comes to mind.  Shoot, Dead Rising 4 is more legless than Arms :P

The interesting thing to see will be how the updates affect things.  Splatoon updates helped alot not just because of the added content but because Nintendo did a whole second marketing push later down the line.  We'll see what happens with Arms.



Around the Network

It is too hard for super casual play (Splatoon 2 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe) and I don't think it is gaining much traction in the competitive scene.
I hope the free updates can push the game past 3 million but at this state it may be hard.



The sales of a game depend on the platform it is released on. The Switch had sold about 4.7 million units by the end of June and would probably be around 5.2 million by the time July ended. Arms sold about 1.2 million units on the Switch in about 5-6 weeks. That gives it about an attach rate of 23.1 percent to 25.6 percent which is fantastic for a new IP and a new exclusive in general. My estimates are probably off for the amount of Switches sold... but I'm still willing to bet that the attach rate for the game is still about at least 20 percent. Also these sales only account for around 1 month for the game's lifespan. Lifetime sales can easily land around 3-4 million. To give a somewhat similar comparison. Horizon Zero Dawn sold 2.6 million units both physical and digital on its first two weeks of release. The PS4 had sold around 57 million units by that point. On its first two weeks, Horizon Zero Dawn was able to muster up around a 4.6 percent attach rate which is decent. I would guess for the next 4 weeks... Horizon would be able to get its attach rate closer to 6 or 7 percent with both physical and digital sales and PS4s being sold alongside the game. Keep in mind that these are based off of MY very rough estimates... but Arms is still a relative knockout in terms of sales success.



 

 

Soundwave said:

Motion-heavy games have a place on the Switch, but certainly not in the driver seat (as with Wii) or even in the front passenger side (as with Wii U), but firmly in the backseat once in a while. 

You're probably right that they exist as tests for whether a motion control audience still exists, and how large it is.

I'd imagine "optional motion controls" like Zelda, Splatoon, and apparently Skyrim is going to be the standard on Switch. It is with ARMS as well, but when played with a regular controller, it's not that riveting of an experience.

Ultimately I think the whole idea of motion controls is moving in the right way. Motion controls are now available for the cases in which they're actually preferable now, like aming a reticule, or rotating an object you're holding. There was a five-ten year period with PC as well where all games had to support both keyboard-only and keyboard+mouse options. And during the PS1 days analog stick control was mostly optional. Maybe one day will will all agree on what motion controls to keep and which will bow to history.

On the case of ARMS though, I think it will keep selling reasonably, and that a sequel of some form won't be out of the question.



Green098 said:

A recent Kotaku article called "So Far, Nintendo's Arms Does Not Have Legs" - http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/08/02/so-far-nintendos-arms-does-not-have-legs

What? First off it's been out for less than 2 months, and second of all, how has it's performance in that time in anyway lead you to think that?

Quotes from the article:

"Nintendo’s new fighting game Arms has struggled to stay relevant since its release back in June."

"Arms sold 1.18 million copies between its June release and late July. Right now, Arms is the Switch’s 13 best-selling game in its eShop. In part, Arms’ comparatively low install base (Splatoon 2 moved over half that many copies in three days) seems to be a branding issue: Arms doesn’t know who it’s for, and neither do Switch owners."

"It’s clear that Nintendo’s fostering faith in their long-term support for the game’s competitive future, but I’m not sure how many players are viewing it as a true fighting game and not an underdeveloped launch title."

First of all that number of copies sold is from June 17th to June 30th not late July (2 weeks instead 1 month and a half). Splatoon 2 is an established IP, why don't you compare ARMS to the original game and tell us how bad it did. It might be a good thing your saying ARMS is not being viewed as a true fighting game considering the sales of those have been like recently. Overall the article just seems bad. Especially considering the figure it's going off is false. Aswell as the game hasn't even been out 2 months it's legs could be much longer than that especially considering new characters and stages etc. are still come.


Of course it doesn't have legs. It has ARMs. Thats why it's called Arms instead of Legs.