HoangNhatAnh said:
Remove all Vita first party games and everyone don't care, they bought it for third party JP games |
And the vita was a success?
Last edited by Green098 - on 04 February 2018
RolStoppable said:
Yes, it is true that Switch had the best lineup ever for a console in year 1. Is that even in doubt? What history shows us is that it's difficult to support two consoles at the same time without having any glaring gaps of multimillion-selling software. But now Nintendo doesn't have to go back and forth between two consoles anymore. There is only Switch, so that makes it a lot more feasible that Nintendo alone can sustain momentum. I concede that having third party support is beneficial, but here it is important to focus on third party games that actually matter. You make the big mistake to assume that games that are big on PS and Xbox will be similarly important for Nintendo, but that's simply not the case based on historical sales data and the already available sales data for Switch. The reason why there is such a gap in importance is that third parties specifically tailor their software to gamers who avoid Nintendo, so on the flipside you get the result that people who buy Nintendo consoles aren't showing much interest in those third party games because they weren't made for them. An obvious example of this is that an M-rating is perceived as something valuable by PS and Xbox gamers while Nintendo gamers shrug their shoulders and tell you that a game is going to be good or bad regardless of its rating; in other words, glorification of violence is little to non-existent in the minds of Nintendo gamers. Most of the M-rated games don't offer much beyond violence, that's why they fail to gain traction on Nintendo consoles. The Resident Evil IP is one of the few M-rated series that manages to provide actual substance in its gameplay, that's why it is doing notably better than other M-rated games. Additionally, video game history shows us that during the times Nintendo pursued the third party support you ask for, Nintendo's sales levels were at their worst. Both the GameCube and Wii U flopped hard and that's no coincidence when you take the above paragraph into account. Nintendo put more emphasis on games that their customers don't care much for, so customers turned their backs on Nintendo. Should Nintendo pursue that path again, they'll inevitably rush out a Switch successor that will predictably fail, because the vast majority of Switch owners will not be interested in moving on. |
The thing is that - at least, so far - Nintendo's 1st party output is either equal to what they had on Wii U or less, on a 1st year context.
Last time i checked, for the first 10 months (Switch's 2017), Nintendo did not make more games for it than they did for Wii U, despite not really supporting both Wii U since 2015 (?) and 3DS (for some time; can't honestly say since when).
I was one of the few, alongside Soundwave and others, that praised that scenario. But so far, it's not really come into play. And if it happened once more, how sure can we be that it won't happen again in 4-5 years when Nintendo prepares for another console?
It's true that Nintendo consumers don't buy your usual 3rd party games. But shouldn't be read as "no buy = no interest". It could very well be that they prefer to buy on a different console.
On a side note, that's why i have been defending that Nintendo should make exclusives similar to 3rd party's ones as to create a userbase and really regain those consumers.
The data that we have about users age is only related to the US, so it could change a little, but it clearly shows that the biggest age group is in the 16-35 range. And 60% of the total being 16-45 and up.
If i'm not mistaken, in, there, is the core PS and Xbox consumer.
I have little doubts that people who own a Switch already have another console and could enjoy non-Nintendo games.
The only thing stopping that is Nintendo's ability to give them a reason to do so.
GC failed as much as XB (a direct competitor to PS2). 3rd party wasn't a reason for it's sales.
Wii U... well what worked there? XB360 and PS3 did very well with both devs and gamers. Nintendo tried to changed that, but it failed, and it wasn't just by not securing 3rd party games.
Why should have XB360 and PS3 owners had to opt for a Wii U? Or, why should they choose an inferior platform in pretty much every regard?
I was expecting this to be the case.
---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---
DélioPT said:
The thing is that - at least, so far - Nintendo's 1st party output is either equal to what they had on Wii U or less, on a 1st year context.
|
Well you must not have checked in awhile
Internally developed Wii U & Switch games first 10 months
Wii U
Nov 2012-New Super Mario Bros U
Nov 2012-Nintendo Land
June-Game & Wario
August 2013-Pikmin 3
Switch
March 2017-Breath of the Wild
March 2017-1 2 Switch
April 2017-Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
June 2017-ARMS
July 2017-Splatoon 2
Oct 2017-Super Mario Odyssey
Dec 2017-Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Not only is the total number higher but the size and scope of the Switch games are significantly greater than the Wii U titles.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
I think people are missing the point here, just because Nintendo plans on supporting the Switch for more than 5-6 years doesn't mean there won't be hardware revisions in between just like the handhelds have gotten. Im pretty sure that Nvidia and Nintendo are working on the upgraded hardware as we speak and will probably be the main focal point for their Xavier chip coming out.
I think e3 2019 would be a great time to show this upgrade off!
| zorg1000 said: Switch March 2017-Breath of the Wild March 2017-1 2 Switch April 2017-Mario Kart 8 Deluxe June 2017-ARMS July 2017-Splatoon 2 Oct 2017-Super Mario Odyssey Dec 2017-Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Not only is the total number higher but the size and scope of the Switch games are significantly greater than the Wii U titles. |
MK8, Splatoon and even Zelda are ports from WiiU than newly developed games for Switch...
| Hustensaft said: MK8, Splatoon and even Zelda are ports from WiiU than newly developed games for Switch... |
Splatoon 2 is not a port what are you on about? Even when you remove Zelda and MK NS still has a higher first party output of in the first 10 months.
Hustensaft said:
MK8, Splatoon and even Zelda are ports from WiiU than newly developed games for Switch... |
Splatoon 2 is a port of Splatoon 1? News to me.
Also Zelda wasnt a port, it was a cross-gen title that released the same day as the Wii U version. It 100% counts as a new game.
Mario Kart is the only one that is a port.
When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.
zorg1000 said:
Well you must not have checked in awhile Internally developed Wii U & Switch games first 10 months
Wii U Nov 2012-New Super Mario Bros U Nov 2012-Nintendo Land June-Game & Wario August 2013-Pikmin 3
Switch March 2017-Breath of the Wild March 2017-1 2 Switch April 2017-Mario Kart 8 Deluxe June 2017-ARMS July 2017-Splatoon 2 Oct 2017-Super Mario Odyssey Dec 2017-Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Not only is the total number higher but the size and scope of the Switch games are significantly greater than the Wii U titles. |
You forgot about New Super Luigi U.
And both Zelda BoTW and MK8 are Wii U games that were ported to Switch.
If we look at only original games, Switch has 5 and Wii U has 4.
The comparison doesn't really favour Nintendo much.
Although, something different should have happened.
RolStoppable said:
Switch's first party output is comfortably better in quality and quantity than what the Wii U had in its first twelve months. Switch also beats the 3DS's first year handily, so any late life sacrifices Nintendo made for the Wii U and 3DS certainly paid off this time around, unlike a generation before where the Wii was left dry and neither the 3DS and Wii U had a healthy first year. It's a fallacy that Nintendo has to regain consumers because they've never really had those consumers in the first place. That type of consumers emerged before PS and Xbox came into play when Sega ran marketing campaigns for their Genesis to attract such consumers. The fundamental trait of such consumers is active refusal of Nintendo products, so it's pointless for Nintendo to fight that when the pool of consumers who don't have such an attitude is far, far greater. Since you have... 1. ...little doubts that Switch owners already have another console to enjoy non-Nintendo games... ...why does it make sense for you that Nintendo should fight a losing battle? Isn't it clear to you that you are advocating for another Wii U situation? |
But the sacrífices weren't small, were they?
Not only they "abandoned" their platforms for quite some time, they are already showing holes in their release schedule in the first half
And speaking of sacrífices, they didn't stop supporting one platform, but two. And when we see the amount provided by Nintendo, did it really pay off? In terms of (original) games, the difference is minimal. In terms of quality, i don't think more time developing explains quality differences that we can see. It's also about what games you choose to develop.
But Nintendo did have those consumers.
They started losing them to Sega and Sony, and even MS. So, i don't see how they can't try to regain what they had once.
If MS could gain those consumers from Sony, how can't Nintendo? The consumer is buying a Switch. What Nintendo needs is to find a way to show them that 1st party Nintendo + 3rd party is the best combo possible.
But i'm not advocating that Switch can become another Wii U.
For the first time in decades, Nintendo has managed to really grab those consumers on the home console front. Now, comes the time where Nintendo makes them stay.
Gamers are more than willing to sacrifice certain aspects to get the console they desire, but they aren't willing to sacrífice a lot or even important things.
And that's why it's important for Nintendo to get as much 3rd party support as it can as soon as possible.
Getting back to the original point, Switch's strengths will only hold the fort for so long. If they can get real 3rd party support (big names and not watered down multiplats), combined with continuous Nintendo support, people might just see Nintendo as a place they can have the best experience (Nintendo games + 3rd party games).
HW revisions that don't increase the gap between Switch and PS5/XB4, are a step in that direction.
It's a big if. But it can happen.
Aww man, Nintendo Land was so much fun in multiplayer it's crazy. The Metroid mini game was absolutely amazing and is everything Federation Force should have been and I just realized that...
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
