True, all I am saying is that an ARMs 2 would do way better than a...1,2,...3? Switch.

I guess my point is that ARMs is a good game and sold well and 1,2 Switch is a bad game that only sold well due to it being a launch title.

But you are correct, from a pure sales perspective 1,2 Switch is a success.

Well true, if you look at its potential to continue as a series, its probably squandered and not as many people will buy it the second time around, whereas they will give a chance to ARMS 2. That way of looking at it makes sense too. In that sense, it can count as a failure.

Though for what the game is (a glorified tech demo for switch, albeit a lazy and rushed one), it did well as a standalone title.

It would be the situation that Watchdogs found it self in: 1st game sold gangbusters, but people were burned on final game, so the second time around with watchdogs 2 people stayed away, even if the game was legitimately very good. 

I think it's a good thing though.
...Remember games like Mario Kart and Smash were all "risks" once upon a time and ended up becoming console selling franchises.

Gotta' keep testing the waters and if something takes hold and becomes big, then all the power to Nintendo.

Not every new IP will succeed. I mean, The Order: 1886 and Ryse: Son of Rome are examples as such.

1-2 Switch is a sales success, despite a rather mediocre critical performance. And, interestingly, it's still selling pretty well. Guess it goes to show, regardless of quality, the game is appealing to new Switch owners, who are not all hardcore gamers for what we like to believe. If it's appealing to these people, then so be it. Nothing wrong with that. What makes gaming cool is that there are a variety of audiences you can reach out to with various tastes.

ARMS is a sales success and had a decent critical performance. 2+ million copies is nothing to scoff at. Is it the next Splatoon? No. But I would have to believe Kosuke Yabuki, who directed Mario Kart 8, is pleased regardless and, hopefully, this will encourage him and Nintendo to experiment in other new ideas to create new IPs. Hopefully, they can build upon ARMS and expand upon the characters' and their personalities.

Nintendo Labo is an interesting case as there has not been a product that is similar to it. Developed by Tsubasa Sakaguchi, one of the co-directors of Splatoon, Kouichi Kawamoto, who developed games like 1-2 Switch, Brain Age, WarioWare, and Miitopia, and Yoshiyasu Ogasawara, it revolves around Nintendo's toy-making mentality and history, using cardboard products and apply them in a gaming environment. Is it a sales success? Hard to tell as it shipped around 1 million from what we last heard about it's sales status (prior to the third kit releasing), but some were expecting it to drive Switch sales while we were waiting for Smash, Pokemon, and Mario Party. On that end, it didn't do the job. Regardless, Labo is an intriguing product and I hope Nintendo does not stop being creative in gaming.

Arms did absolutely fine...
If we hold Splatoon as some sort of standard for success for new IP's then most IP's are failures...
The fact that the Arms comic is finally getting published starting next month is a strong indication that Nintendo isn't ready for it to disappear just yet...

I think the bottom line is people can't really call the likes of Arms or 1, 2 Switch failures when they've sold over 2m units and counting while franchises like Metroid and Xenoblade are averaging 1.5m and are seen as successes.

Not just that, but generally a not so good talent is paired with a veteran as a mentor o team them to get better. A great young talent, is probably given some freedom to come up with some qwerky new IP idea to see if Nintendo like it or not and at times they may release it to the market to see if some untapped market will buy it. 

Testing the waters is all it is. People shouldn't be afraid to call those tests failures compared to Nintendo's usual franchises.

Hell even within franchises, people have called certain Zelda's failures because well they didn't do as well as others in terms of content or something that didn't work quite well, which meant It wasn't up to the magical standard the set with some Zelda games. Next Zelda game has a lot to live up to. It could sell well, but still be considered a failure if it misses the mark.

As far as I know, not a single Fire Emblem game has hit even 3 million, yet they release spinoffs, remakes and new games as if it was a "high class IP". 

I don't think developing games anticipating that they will sell 5 or 10 million copies is a sustainable business model, as we have learned with the number of studios that have closed in the last several years...
I think any model that requires such sales will result in a serious drain in innovation...