@Wyrdness

This is such a dumb argument. You're certain that ARMS has outsold Tekken 7 at retail while I'm not.

Fuck it. It doesn't matter. No hard feelings

Are you deliberately playing coy? VGC have retail numbers look at the original post you replied to and read your own posts you know it's about the retail sales compared to Arms' total you even talk about it in point 2 yet ask why compare them this flat out proves you have no point here as in your own post you highlighted you know why.

2. You need to prove that VGC is off with their data saying it could be above isn't backing your argument so therefore I'm not wrong until you do so so what I've said isn't false until you yourself provide something concrete, across Steam/PS4/X1 the digital sale can very well be what VGC indicates you need to prove that they're off otherwise what I've said is not false.

Of course, the concept needs internal logic and has to be something that consumers can enjoy too. But my point is that Nintendo doesn't kill an IP just because it's not the next Mario or Splatoon. ARMS sold 2 million copies, and made a nice profit considering its modest budget. It didn't blow away Nintendo's expectations, but it did as well as they wanted it to, thus If Yabuki ever wants to do a sequel, Nintendo will most likely let him. Nintendo is a very profit-driven company, but not really in a scummy EA or Activision (for the most part anyway). They're willing to peruse anything so long as it makes money and the consumer likes it, especially more so now since they already have a staple of guaranteed mega-hit properties.

Omfg
Not once did it occur to me that we're comparing only the retail sales of SFV and Tekken 7 with the combined retail AND digital sales of ARMS. Sorry. I haven't slept for 2 days. I'm a zombie.

I guess, part of the reason why it didn't occur to me is because I fail to see why ARMS necessarily "exceeded expectations by miles" just because its combined retail and digital sales might have outsold two underperforming fighting games if we're limiting them to retail sales only. By ignoring digital sales, we're completely writing off PC sales as well as a chunk of sales through PS and XB Store.
It doesn't matter though. Nintendo's future actions surrounding the IP will tell us a lot about their feelings on its success and whether ARMS really did "exceed expectations by miles" as you claim.

As said, no hard feelings. Have a nice week

Fair enough then same we'll leave this argument in the past and not acknowledge it even took place, have a good day.

Give more customizable surrounding motion controls, the punching was backward in ARMS.

Expand the gameplay a little beyond 1 vs 1 fighting to 2 vs 2 arena fighting, and the 2 or 3 other "sports" modes that can be done.

Put a fitness training mode.

They're in a difficult position though, where they are responsible for pretty much single handedly drive hardware sales because unlike Sony and MS they can't rely on third parties to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. As such, there is immense pressure on EPD to produce games that sell gangbusters and move consoles. Under these circumstances, committing one of their flagship teams to make a sequel to a game that sold only modestly and didn't shift hardware is unwise.

Thing is, Nintendo games rely heavily on evergreen sales. Their games routinely top charts and sell consoles even years after release. This is one of the reasons why their games take forever to climb down in price compared to most publishers. In Nintendo's eyes, Super Mario Odyssey is as much a system seller now as it was almost a year ago. So while they do need to provide the system sellers themselves, it's not to the point where they can't afford to develop anything but the most surefire mega-hits, especially when the console is successful. If the console is a big success, then Nintendo can afford to experiment with games that have lesser sales potential because the user-base is big and diverse enough that somebody will like it. Nintendo still regularly promotes ARMS all the time, so they do consider it a success, maybe not to the extent of Splatoon, but it still made a good profit, enough for a sequel to be made if the team wants to. I'm going to make a wild guess and say that the team is working on ARMS II as we speak for a 2019 release. I mean, why else would they cut updates for the game less than a year after its release, when the game was a success? 

It's still sinking the same resources into a 3 million seller as could be spent on a 10 million seller, which just isn't good for business. Nintendo still promoting ARMS occasionally doesn't tell us much; as of the last quarterly report sales have slowed to a crawl, it's on track to sell less than 1-2 Switch and in the eyes of the general audience it's already forgotten. That's the thing about rolling the dice on a new IP, sometimes you get a new breakout megaton hit like Splatoon, and other times you don't. Honestly, rolling the dice again on a Nintendo FPS along the lines of Paladins or Overwatch would probably be a better use of their resources, that could have far more sales potential than ARMS 2.

But again, Nintendo never goes into new IP thinking they're going to be Splatoon-like Megahits. They set a base estimate of around 1-2 Million copies for major titles, and if the game meets those expectations, then it's worth doing again. The only exceptions to this are the golden boys  which can blow well past 2 million copies (Mario, Smash, etc.), or small niche one-shot projects developed usually with a external partner just for fun (Sushi Striker, Snipperclips, etc.). There are Nintendo IP that sell far less than ARMS ever has, yet Nintendo still at least keeps them in mind anyway. Pikmin has never been a Mario-like phenomenon, yet it's already on 3 main entries plus a spin-off, with a fourth game on the way. Metroid Prime has never sold beyond 2 million copies, yet Nintendo is making a 4th installment anyway. Star Fox had been struggling since the GameCube, with the recent Wii U entry being a giant critical flop, but Nintendo still hasn't given up on the IP

I'd say the fact that Nintendo doesn't enforce a "Blockbuster only policy" should be considered a good thing. It shows they're willing to take creative risks and not adhere to conventional AAA publisher standards, its refreshing in an age where most big Japanese publishers like Capcom have become more risk-averse. Besides, Imagine how boring Nintendo's yearly output would be if they did what you describe. That is, gutting teams and locking them into only making guaranteed system sellers. We'd have less games AND less variety from Nintendo as a whole.