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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What's causing Nintendo's software sales on the Switch to be so good?

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

"The problem with this is that the camera in Galaxy changes wildly to suit whatever the developers intend for the player. If they wanted to do a Ball guiding level they made it top down. If they wanted to have an underground zone that made it from the side. But it is mostly in a similar view to Sunshine, and 64, for the majority of the game. The main difference is that the camera is just farther away. The camera in 3D World is almost always from an Isometric view, or a NSMB-like side view. 3D World is just a traditional 2D Mario game with the addition of being able to move along the Z axis in a very limited fashion. I would point out all the similarities, between 3D World, and 2D Mario games, but I think you are smart enough to see them for yourself. "

I would guess that the top down view actually represents a pretty large portion of Galaxy. Either way, the only reason we got to talking about cameras is because you were making a point that Galaxy is closer in design to Odyssey, Sunshine and 64, which you more or less have already conceited to ... at least from a gameplay standpoint, so this is kind of besides the point. 

"Instead of defeating the bosses in the same old manner you are now doing something different each time you face a boss."

? Quite a lot of the bosses in Odyssey have nothing to do with possession. Not only that, but 3D World does have varying activities in bosses - like shooting back projectiles, scaling a massive tower and then using a pow block, or dodging a collapsing floor while a boss tries to crush you. But yes, on a moment to moment basis the bosses are more generic and Odyssey's are generally more varied. Not sure why you said "dynamic" though, because that's what I was arguing against. The bosses in pretty much any of these games aren't dynamic in the slightest, maybe there is an exception or two, but generally they all come down to repeating an obvious pattern - usually three times. Try to understand what you're arguing before you improperly communicate it. 

"Right, so we've established that Nintendo saying something is true about one of their games doesn't always make it true. I love Nintendo, but they are very often full of BS. "Switch won't replace 3DS!" "3DS won't get an XL model!" "

This is incredibly disingenuous and honestly just lazy. You don't bring up a point in a discussion, find no way to tie it back to the main point, and then sloppily try to repeat it as if it's profound. No one said anything about always trusting Nintendo, your original stipulation was incredibly misguided because what I was referencing was a statement from Nintendo that made complete and total sense in terms of the games - something you even acknowledged. 

 "Putting 3D World onto Wii U, and trying to pass it off as a mainline console Mario was not fine, because it was lazy. "

Not any lazier than 85% of the moons in Odyssey. 

"It is generally accepted that 3D Mario is better than 2D Mario. 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games. I assumed that everyone would be able to read between the lines here. Somebody not understanding, this implied argument, immediately was just something I could not have possibly imagined.

Your failure to grasp this, implied argument, comes off as clueless. But maybe it isn't clueless. Are there any other users out there that didn't get what I said? I'd like to know. "

Keep being condescending while you can't even grasp most of the points you're trying to make and have to backpedal about how you haven't played in 11 years or how you meant this completely other thing

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I can't see how you'd dislike a game that takes more from the 2D styles, it doesn't matter whether or not you think 2D Mario is worse than 3D Mario, because what I was commenting on was how unsubstantial your original reply was. If you said "3D World was more like 2D Mario and I don't like 2D Mario as much, therefore 3D World is not a great 3D Mario game", that would mean something. But just saying 3D World is not a proper 3D Mario game tells me nothing. It's not an argument, it's just a statement without anything supporting it. And it could mean many things, not just that it's too similar to 2D Mario to be a "real" 3D game, it could mean it isn't creative enough, or that it's too buggy, or that it doesn't have enough levels - because the statement again isn't specific and presents no real arguments. What is a "proper 3D Mario game" varies from person to person and people have different criteria, so it tells me nothing.

Besides, this isn't even true. I mean, I suppose that 2D Mario games certainly haven't gotten the acclaim of the 3D ones in a long time, but that's mostly because of a shift in priorities at Nintendo. The NSMB series is cheaper to produce, sells a lot, and for a while was a big driver of systems - there wasn't much reason to put the effort into those titles that the 3D games got because they sold on nostalgia and simplicity. But if you talk about 3D Mario games vs 2D Mario games and just ignore stuff like Super Mario Bros 3., Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros., The Land Series, or even SMW2: Yoshi's Island (if you include that) ... then you're just purposely being ignorant. Sure, maybe the amount of 2D titles that have stood the test of time, or have gotten the same level of acclaim as the 3D games is limited (arguably just 2 games, maybe 3 if you include SMW2). But then again, Sunshine/3D Land and 3D World are nowhere near as acclaimed as 64, Galaxy 1-2 or Odyssey ... but by your own criteria you couldn't even include Galaxy 1 or 2, leaving us only Odyssey and 64. And again, the reason the 2dgames have not gotten that attention to detail has a lot to do with technology and priorities - 2D has only been the king for 2 Nintendo home console generations. I've never heard it implied, as you just did now, that 2D Mario games are just inherently worse than 3D Mario games. Seriously, that just sounds really ignorant. I've heard people say they prefer the 3D ones, or that there are more top tier 3D games, but not that 2D Mario, or the inspiration it provides, is just inherently worse. 

Not only that, didn't you literally just admit a second ago that Galaxy was very similar to the 2D games in terms of design? And you have been speaking highly of it this whole time ... so ... doesn't that disprove your own point completely? 

I would guess that the top down view actually represents a pretty large portion of Galaxy. Either way, the only reason we got to talking about cameras is because you were making a point that Galaxy is closer in design to Odyssey, Sunshine and 64, which you more or less have already conceited to ... at least from a gameplay standpoint, so this is kind of besides the point. 

Uh no. The top down view only appears in a select few levels. I think you are confusing when the camera pulls way back at a non-90 degree angle, as Mario walks on a small planetoid, with top down. Like this...

Top down is when the camera is direction overhead Mario at a 90% angle. 

All I conceited to was that getting individual stars in Galaxy was linear. Having linear sections does not make two games like 3D World, and Galaxy closer in design than Galaxy and 64. There are a myriad of gameplay elements, in different games, far beyond whether or not goals are linear. By your argument a racing game, with a start and finish line and a single track that you can't deviate from, is closer in design to Galaxy, because racing from one starting point to one ending point is linear. Nevermind that racing a car is completely different than running around as Mario. Nevermind that you don't kill enemies in a racing game. Nevermind nearly every other element of game design. Ignoring those other elements is just as stupid as ignoring the 90% of Galaxy that is completely different than 3D World. 

This is incredibly disingenuous and honestly just lazy. You don't bring up a point in a discussion, find no way to tie it back to the main point, and then sloppily try to repeat it as if it's profound. No one said anything about always trusting Nintendo, your original stipulation was incredibly misguided because what I was referencing was a statement from Nintendo that made complete and total sense in terms of the games - something you even acknowledged. 

I acknowledged that 3D World and Galaxy both have linear goals. That's about it. But like I said before having linear goals doesn't make two games more similar than two other games. It's not profound, it's just common sense. You don't accept something as fact just because someone in a position of authority said so. If said authority's reasoning is flawed, then they are still wrong. Nintendo's reasoning is that since both games have Mario doing rather linear things, that they have more in common with each other than the other games. Again, this ignores virtually all other elements of gameplay in the Mario series. Two things having a single element in common with each other does not make them more similar to each other, than another thing that shares multiple elements in common with one of the original comparison. It's also common sense, not to accept something that somebody in a position of authority is saying, if that someone has ulterior motives. Nintendo saying that Switch wouldn't replace 3DS, was all just a lying attempt to keep 3DS sales up. Nintendo saying that 3D World and Galaxy are more similar to each other than the other Mario games is just a lying attempt cover up their lazy game design. They want people to think of 3D World as a Galaxy-type game because if people think of it as a lazy throwback then that makes them look bad.  

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I can't see how you'd dislike a game that takes more from the 2D styles, it doesn't matter whether or not you think 2D Mario is worse than 3D Mario, because what I was commenting on was how unsubstantial your original reply was. If you said "3D World was more like 2D Mario and I don't like 2D Mario as much, therefore 3D World is not a great 3D Mario game", that would mean something. But just saying 3D World is not a proper 3D Mario game tells me nothing. It's not an argument, it's just a statement without anything supporting it. And it could mean many things, not just that it's too similar to 2D Mario to be a "real" 3D game, it could mean it isn't creative enough, or that it's too buggy, or that it doesn't have enough levels - because the statement again isn't specific and presents no real arguments. What is a "proper 3D Mario game" varies from person to person and people have different criteria, so it tells me nothing.

Got it. I need to be more specific. I assumed that you would understand immediately a lot of implied things. 

Besides, this isn't even true. I mean, I suppose that 2D Mario games certainly haven't gotten the acclaim of the 3D ones in a long time, but that's mostly because of a shift in priorities at Nintendo. The NSMB series is cheaper to produce, sells a lot, and for a while was a big driver of systems - there wasn't much reason to put the effort into those titles that the 3D games got because they sold on nostalgia and simplicity. But if you talk about 3D Mario games vs 2D Mario games and just ignore stuff like Super Mario Bros 3., Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros., The Land Series, or even SMW2: Yoshi's Island (if you include that) ... then you're just purposely being ignorant. Sure, maybe the amount of 2D titles that have stood the test of time, or have gotten the same level of acclaim as the 3D games is limited (arguably just 2 games, maybe 3 if you include SMW2). But then again, Sunshine/3D Land and 3D World are nowhere near as acclaimed as 64, Galaxy 1-2 or Odyssey ... but by your own criteria you couldn't even include Galaxy 1 or 2, leaving us only Odyssey and 64. And again, the reason the 2dgames have not gotten that attention to detail has a lot to do with technology and priorities - 2D has only been the king for 2 Nintendo home console generations. I've never heard it implied, as you just did now, that 2D Mario games are just inherently worse than 3D Mario games. Seriously, that just sounds really ignorant. I've heard people say they prefer the 3D ones, or that there are more top tier 3D games, but not that 2D Mario, or the inspiration it provides, is just inherently worse. 

Damn, I need to be more specific. 

"It is generally accepted that (modern) 3D Mario is better than (modern) 2D Mario (because modern 2D Mario doesn't move the series forward in a game design sense). 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games, (because those games move Mario forward in game design (or at least in the case of Sunshine stay still), while going back to the 2D style puts the game design car in full reverse).

I really felt that the implied parts in parentheses above were self explanatory. 

If you don't believe me take a look at my list of Greatest Games of all time from 2018. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8948914

Notice how 64, and Sunshine are absent from the list, while SMB3, and World are on it? That's because I rank SMB3 and World above Sunshine, and 64. Sure, 64 was better than World when it first came out, because it moved the series (and much of 3D gaming) forward in game design. But (many not all) 2D games from the SNES/Genesis era have aged better than many (not all) games from the PS1/N64 era. And sure, maybe in the future 3D World will hold up better than Odyssey, because of its simplicity (or maybe it will be looked down on even in twenty years). But even if 3D World (hypothetically) manages to age better (again, not saying that it will) than Odyssey, that still wouldn't change the fact that at the time of release it reversed Mario game design, instead of moving it forward. 

By my own criteria we wouldn't include Galaxy 1-2? Why not? Because you still think Galaxy counts at a top-down Mario? Oh well, that's beside the point. 

Not any lazier than 85% of the moons in Odyssey.

There are 880 Moons in Odyssey vs 120 Stars in 64. Had Nintendo added in an extra 760 Stars to SM64 that you could find after beating the main campaign would you have called SM64 a lazily developed game too? (This is a rhetorical question btw.) These easier Moons being in the game in no way takes away from all the hard work that was put into the more creative Moons. Adding in 760 more stars to SM64 for the post game, would have in no way taken away from the massive accomplishment that was moving Mario into 3D and showing literally every other game developer how 3D is done. And yes I realize that not all of the lazy Moons are in the post game. That doesn't matter though. You are comparing the lazy side dishes of one game, to the lazy main course of another game. Odyssey isn't lazy at it's core. 3D World is. 

And don't get me wrong here. I like 3D World. I would recommend it to anybody that has a Wii U. But I would also remind them to temper their expectations. It's not a grand over the top adventure. Merely a great (but lazy) retread. And yes, games don't necessarily have to constantly move forward to be fun. Sometimes a good formula like Pokemon, or pre-BotW Zelda will work great for years. But that is not the same as putting the game design car in reverse. Stagnation should not be confused with regression. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 08 September 2019

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:

Yeah ... I think at this point the discussion is done. You're just not representing what you're trying to say well at all. Not only that but I think you're losing track of the conversation ... I didn't say Galaxy was a top-down game (???), I said it was top-down at parts, but even then we already agreed that the camera point was mostly moot a few replies ago ... so why even keep bringing it up? I thought that when you conceded that Galaxy was linear, that you were more or less admitting that Galaxy is more similar in design to the 3D Land/3D World games then the other titles. Apparently, you weren't conceding that, but you really haven't brought up anything against that since, so I'm not sure where you want the discussion to go ... it's actually somewhat ironic, you're criticizing me for using the linearity of course design as my main point because it's "just" one element of game design (nevermind the fact that it's one of the biggest distinguishing factors in game design for 3D Platformers) but you aren't bringing up any substantial arguments from a game design standpoint that would make Galaxy more similar to the other lineage of exploration-based 3D Mario titles. You seem to really want to say that these games are completely different and that Galaxy is more similar to the other games then it is to 3D World, but the only point you're repeating is that I shouldn't take what Nintendo has to say at face value just because it comes from a position of authority, even though that's not what I'm doing ... and you already agreed with Nintendo's assessment on the course layout? Again, stop being lazy. Don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. No one is shilling Nintendo and saying that consumers should just listen to what companies have to say all the time and agree with it. That's ridiculous. Making a point out of that isn't constructive because it's so out of reality with the conversation, and it's already been corrected many times.

The irony here is that if you just said that what made Odyssey more like the other 3D games was that it was more creative, or adventurous, or innovative, I would have agreed with you. In fact, I was the one who brought that point up first! I did the work for you! But instead you mostly decided to continue arguing about pointless things. My main point all along was about course design and linearity, because it's one of the biggest facets of 3D platformers. I think an argument can genuinely be made that Galaxy is more similar to the 3D series, even if the 3D series is a gross oversimplification. You kept arguing on these grounds, which looking back on it - I think is the problem. At any moment you could have said "I agree with that but what makes Galaxy more like these games is x, y, and z" but for the most part you didn't do that. I mean, to be fair you almost did, you agreed with me when I said the other titles were more creative than the 3D Series, and that Galaxy was more similar to the other titles in that regard, but you didn't use that opportunity to redirect the discussion ... you continued arguing over points that truthfully I don't think you have much of a counter to. That's fine, but the only reason I kept engaging in discussion on those points is because I assumed you had a counter for them ... but it doesn't seem like you do. It's kind of frustrating because it was such a waste of time. Oh well, guess it was my decision to waste it.

Either way, no harm done. I was genuinely getting pretty mad for a minute there because I felt like my stances were being completely misinterpreted, and truthfully you still misinterpreted them in your last reply ... but I think that comes more from confusion than anything, so it's fine, even if frustrating. Wish you a good day and happy platforming!

By the way ... errr ... I see your thread with the poll. Cheeky Just to be clear, I definitely think 3D World is closer to the 2D games than they are even to Galaxy. Also ... I would argue the vast majority of moons in Mario Odyssey are just awful. Most of them. So while I can understand your argument about extra content being extra ... most of the main ones aren't riveting either. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 08 September 2019

Link to the VGChartz Discord server: https://discord.gg/2uMTaYtv

Someday you will die somehow 

And something's gonna steal your carbon 

KungKras said:
The software is good.

It's that simple.

This.

I've had my Switch for 10 months and have more games for it than I do for my WiiU, which I've had since 2014. For me, there's just a lot more compelling software on the NS than there was on the WiiU.



It uses cartridges and that's just fun. :)



Barkley said:
Sixteenvolt420 said:
For most people, probably the portability and accessibility. I pretty much only buy Nintendo exclusives, as i only play my Switch hooked up to the tv and with a pro controller. I'll get multiplats on Playstation.

210m Total Software sold as of June 30th 2019, a whopping 115m+ of that is Nintendo. Over 50% of games sold on the Switch are Nintendo Games. So I think a good number of people only buy Nintendo games and almost nothing else.

Edit: Out of interest looked up 3ds figures.

Total 3DS Games Sold : 379.6m
Nintendo Games: ~205m (54%)
3rd Party Games: ~175m (46%)

Interestingly those percentages are almost exactly the same as the current Switch.

Total Switch Games Sold : 210m
Nintendo Games : ~115m (55%)
3rd Party Games: ~95m (45%)

A lot of people forget that download exclusives are not counted in this number. Download exclusive sales seem pretty high on switch with so many indie games selling like crazy.



Around the Network

Several factors: The melding together of Nintendo's home console and handheld console audiences, appeal to all regions, Wii U ports that a lot of people missed, more core titles than the Wii

There's still a lot they can improve, but they've done a lot towards profitable software.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 125 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 122 mil (was 100 then 130 million) Xbox One: 50 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Nintendo are just being Nintendo. Where Xbox and PlayStation have to force bundle to achieve greater sales and fluff there numbers, Nintendo tends to actually sell there software without or very little game bundling. That's what makes Nintendo software sales even more impressive.

Also there games are sold mainly to a bigger audience of gamers with there games normally for everyone. That does help also.



Amnesia said:
Jumpin said:

I don’t think NES/SNES fans are a major factor. It’s more the Wii fans. It was with the Wii that Nintendo gained a significant female audience, and this has continued with the Switch.

I don't believe this for the Wii. For me most of the sales of the Wii were a fake and illusionnal success thanks to the many women who really believed that they could keep occupied children while losing some weight, or grand parents who saw an opportunity to share video games with children...The core fan base of Nintendo was still decreasing and the WiiU shown us what really was the state of the core fan base. These 100+ millions were not a real market occupation, but just a brillant marketing trick succesfully performed.
(sorry I have only found an old graph)

So all those DS and 3DS users, and the GBA users before. Those were all fake too?

Your graph fails to address the fact that N64, Gamecube, and Wii U all happen to be Nintendo’s poorer consoles, rife with problems, and lousy lineups. While the N64 had a few compelling games (Mario 64, GE 007, and Ocarina) it had few other games to go with it. The Gamecube and Wii U were both devoid of killer apps. N64 also suffered from extraordinarily high game prices, and a severe lack of selection (also a problem on Gamecube and Wii U which suffered massive droughts). The Wii has a compelling price point and new interface, and software was plentiful from launch: with Zelda Twilight Princess, Wii Sports, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Super Paper Mario, Godfather, Scarface, Resident Evil 4, Wii Fit, Guitar Hero,  Umbrella Chronicles, Tiger Woods Golf, No More Heroes, Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Sonic, Sims, Virtual Console, Simpsons, Spyro, PES, Tomb Raider, DDR, Fifa, Endless Ocean, NiGHTS, Trauma Center, SSX, Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, Far Cry, Red Steel, Bully, Rayman, Need for Speed, and Okami all releasing in the first year. That first year is already stronger than Gamecube’s lifetime.

While it is true that Wii did attract a lot of women to the console, so has Switch, and in roughly the same ratios as the Wii.

Even if the primary age group happened to be children (teenagers were actually the largest demographic) that would have also been true with NES and SNES, are those fake sales too? 920 million pieces of software sold, the highest of any Nintendo console, was that fake too?

Some people...



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
Amnesia said:

I don't believe this for the Wii. For me most of the sales of the Wii were a fake and illusionnal success thanks to the many women who really believed that they could keep occupied children while losing some weight, or grand parents who saw an opportunity to share video games with children...The core fan base of Nintendo was still decreasing and the WiiU shown us what really was the state of the core fan base. These 100+ millions were not a real market occupation, but just a brillant marketing trick succesfully performed.
(sorry I have only found an old graph)

So all those DS and 3DS users, and the GBA users before. Those were all fake too?

Your graph fails to address the fact that N64, Gamecube, and Wii U all happen to be Nintendo’s poorer consoles, rife with problems, and lousy lineups. While the N64 had a few compelling games (Mario 64, GE 007, and Ocarina) it had few other games to go with it. The Gamecube and Wii U were both devoid of killer apps. N64 also suffered from extraordinarily high game prices, and a severe lack of selection (also a problem on Gamecube and Wii U which suffered massive droughts). The Wii has a compelling price point and new interface, and software was plentiful from launch: with Zelda Twilight Princess, Wii Sports, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Super Paper Mario, Godfather, Scarface, Resident Evil 4, Wii Fit, Guitar Hero,  Umbrella Chronicles, Tiger Woods Golf, No More Heroes, Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Sonic, Sims, Virtual Console, Simpsons, Spyro, PES, Tomb Raider, DDR, Fifa, Endless Ocean, NiGHTS, Trauma Center, SSX, Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, Far Cry, Red Steel, Bully, Rayman, Need for Speed, and Okami all releasing in the first year. That first year is already stronger than Gamecube’s lifetime.

While it is true that Wii did attract a lot of women to the console, so has Switch, and in roughly the same ratios as the Wii.

Even if the primary age group happened to be children (teenagers were actually the largest demographic) that would have also been true with NES and SNES, are those fake sales too? 920 million pieces of software sold, the highest of any Nintendo console, was that fake too?

Some people...

I am not an english native, I just don't know which should be the best word to use and that's why I was using "fake". But it is not what I mean, I have never said that Nintendo delivered fake results during the Wii era or that all Wii scores was a conspiracy.



Current PB on Secret of Mana remake : 2h27 (2nd)
Strongest worldwide achievement on TGM : 1st European S13 rank
Fastest TGM3 MASTER in Europe : rank Master V in 5min10
Western record on TGM3 EASY : 1484
Current PB on Power Ranger (Game Gear) : 10min06 (World Record)

Non-geek activity : ThermalHungary

My guess is good marketing, good games and good hardware.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile