RolStoppable said:
DélioPT said:
As far as i remember, sacrífices weren't small: Nintendo did in fact decreased support for two platforms only to have a small increase over Wii U's 1st party titles in the first 10 months.
For the first semester Nintendo has two original titles: Kirby and Mario Tennis, plus ports.
I don't see how MS was a fluke. Their strategy for Xb360 worked really well and now, despite making several mistakes with XB1, sales show that despite them, they have a good fanbase and if correct their mistakes nex-gen, they can increase HW sales. I highly doubt they will go fully digital. They don't have the 1st party library required to pull it off. If you use MS's service on PC, why not just use Steam? If you use it PS4, for exemple, why not just buy the PS4 version?
I'm not overestimating the importance of 3d party support. If you look at PS4's top ten games, 1 in 10 is a 1st party game. If you look at the top 20, 3 in 20 are 1st party games (2 IPs: Uncharted and The Last of US). Xbox One's library shows a similar pattern, with more 1st party games in both top ten and top 20 (some IPs appearing twice).
What i'm insisting in is this idea: 3rd party games will be important to reach a certain plateau of HW sales and increase it's HW life cycle. Why? Because 3rd parties sell consoles. And if Nintendo can get those games, it increases the chances of widening it's userbase, thus remaining more relevant over time.
People aren't buying Switch with a handheld mindset, so that argumente that handheld consumers won't care about Switch's success might be as strong as you think. Different proposition leads to different expectations.
|
You remember it wrong. Additionally, Nintendo has four all-new games for Switch in the first half of 2018.
Microsoft has had only one console that could be called successful. Nowadays they don't make Xbox-exclusive games anymore and that's a clear sign that they aren't interested in selling as many consoles as possible. It annoys me greatly how Nintendo, who have had more successful consoles than anyone else in the video game business, are portrayed as being in trouble while Microsoft, who haven't really won anything, are used as an example that Nintendo should be striving for. It's so damn backwards.
In a previous post I already pointed out that Nintendo is not like PS and Xbox. You can talk about third party sales on PS and Xbox all you want, but the only thing that can help your argument is proof that those third party games are important for the success of Nintendo consoles
I know what you are insisting. I argued against that mindset for years. It's why I predicted success for Switch while people with your mindset predicted failure for Switch. Of the people who bought Switch so far, there's no sizeable group that did it with the expectation to play AAA third party games because Switch has barely gotten any of those games in 2017 and there are no announcements that suggest that that will change. Your assertion that Switch owners and prospective buyers place importance on AAA third party games is unfounded.
|
I wouldn't call dropping support for it's two platforms as something small.
That's actually very big, if you ask me.
I saw your other comment about the other two games.
Glorified demos aren't even comparable to actual games. So, no, i can't really agree with you on this and say that Nintendo has 4 games for the first semester.
So, in your eyes, MS is shooting itself in the foot on purpose? As in, "let's leave a bad impression on our consumers, so that when we change our business model or come up with a new console, people will be upset and boycot us?".
Their lack of 1st party offering has got nothing to do with them not wanting to sell consoles. It's just really bad planning on their part.
People view MS as someone who can deliver the games the mass market want. And despite their recent mistakes, that hasn't changed.
Unlike them, Nintendo has failed to send a clear message to these same consumers, that they can and will appeal to their tastes.
Also, it's very true that Nintendo went through very, very rough moments in recent years.
That's the difference; Again, perception!
But in my mindset, I never predicted failure for Switch.
Speaking about who bought Switch, all i have seen is people clamoring for ports of games like GTA, Overwatch, Resident Evil and other 3rd party games.
But even if they didn't specifically buy Switch with the absolute founded expectation of getting those games on Switch, this same userbase is the same that buys those games on PS and Xbox.
And that's my point: Nintendo has a grasp on this gamers and should work to provide an ecosystem where buying a Nintendo console for CoD, Battlefield, GTA, etc., isn't an unreasonable idea.
Miyamotoo said:
"i want to know if Nintendo decisions turned out to pay off or not" Are you serious!? Look how Switch and games for Switch are selling, Switch sale are making records and Nintendo made huge profit and FY 2017. will year when they made biggest profit from around 2009, also Switch lineup doesn't have any drouths compared to huge Wii U drouths in 1st year (you constantly ignoring that fact), so its obvious its paying them off big time.
Yes you are, you still acting like Switch yet need to be launch and to prove itself, totally ignoring clear facts like that Switch and Switch games are selling great and that constantly have games compared to Wii U, also constantly questioning Nintendo Switch decisions even its obvious that Nintendo Switch decisions are gaving great results, with all that you constantly pushing negative tone.
|
How many times does history have to show you that nothing is written in stone? For better or worse, just because a console/game starts one way, doesn't necessarily mean it will end the same way.
So yeah, Nintendo had a great 2017. And then what? Consoles are automatically going to fly off shelves for years to come because it sold really well in 2017?
Switch has a lackluster first semester. Period.
When you compare it to last year, the difference is just enormous.
Sorry if i don't take things for granted and ignore how Nintendo managed to sell Switch in it's first year.
Sony sold PS4 on the promise of a great machine and games (best games, best deals). And it delivered year after year.
Nintendo sold Switch on the promise of portability and to also sell the console it had to use not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 of it's best franchises to sell the console. Not to mention that two of these IPs (Zelda and Mario) were a breath of fresh air for their respective franchises, which yielded very good results.
So, to do this well in 2017 it had to use a lot of ammo. And why is that relevant? Because Nintendo is too dependent on it's franchises to sell it's systems.
So exactly does that mean for it's future, when Nintendo did so much in 2017? For a machine that needs 1st party offerings so much, can it pull it off like Sony and be consistent? Remains to be seen.
But for you, of course, those questions are wrong.
How can i doubt Nintendo's ability to sustain Switch's success in the years to come? I'm just negative, crazy, etc., etc.
Looking back at past consoles, if Nintendo hadn't fail so much, i'd probably agree with you.