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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo's Success Is Your Greatest Enemy!

For the record, I'm not actually trying to keep this thread going lol...

Anyway, here we go!

curl-6 said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

Bayonetta 3 is coming a massive 8 years after Bayonetta 2 (and by gawd have I been such a begger for a sequel!), and I'm guaranteeing you it was greenlit despite poor sales of the Wii U and of Bayonetta 2 during the Wii U's ending lifespan KNOWING it would release on Switch (though I personally think it got delayed, but not publicly as no release date or window was ever placed, for it to be coming this far into the Switch).

In order to support the theory that Nintendo makes more/better decisions during success (this isn't exactly what you're saying, but it's implied in this thread), it would have had to be greenlight DURING the start of the Switch era in which they watched the sales success and chose to make the decision, and then decided to greenlight Bayonetta 3 (though, I admit that COULD have been possible given the time windows even though it's confirmed not to be the case).

I, too, have lived through Nintendo. That's kind of the issue: the signs have always been there. The first sign of it was when the NES and SNES (albeit less than its predecessor) did so well and Nintendo would enforce things on third parties like limiting game development quantity and signing forced exclusivity contracts. A lot of that vanished as their consequent hardware not only sold poorly, but third parties decided that wasn't worth the trouble. I said above, Nintendo made mistakes during down periods, too, but those periods are what saw fundamental shifts. The N64 and GameCube was their attempt to win back third parties (though, considered largely unsuccessful), decisions made as console sales slumped and lessons needed to be learned.

As for naming off travesty releases, I'm pretty sure the Switch is beating the Wii U in a shorter lifespan with milked/mid games. We'll have to disagree on Metroid Dread being a big step up, though: not only is it more an upgraded and expanded Metroid Samus Returns, but I just can't agree with that in the face of Metroid Prime. Prime was the big, BIG step up, and is largely regarded as such by and large, too. Dread was the fan service, a bit of filler to give us Metroid fans something to chew on while waiting for the obvious big hitter, Metroid Prime 4.  I honestly can't see otherwise when I have three Prime games that vastly outdo Dread.  I actually LIKED the motion controls on Wii in Prime 3, I thought that was rather immersive and impressive...

I think we're just going in circles, no one's saying the Switch isn't succeeding, but that it's success is going to lead Nintendo to continue more and more towards the path of greed. What was once the Nintendo fandom's "quality over quantity" has suddenly conveniently reversed to "quantity, look how many exclusives!" when many of those are of the same quality as many games found on other systems not on the Switch, or in some cases lower.

Besides, I said it a long time ago, different thread and video, but a large part of the Switch's success is that it's grabbing the handheld DS/3DS crowd. After the 3DS, the Nintendo handheld crowd has nothing except the Switch, so the Switch has essentially combined the console and handheld fanbases. The other part is that 25% of Switch sales are to existing Switch owners, and also in said other thread I mentioned that the Switch is more seen as a personal device while PS5s and XSXs are seen as household devices. There is more "one Switch per kid" than there is "one PS5/XSX per kid".

That, and winning over people with stronger software is a whole different discussion since the attach rate is ostensibly worse for many titles that should see much larger numbers. This would indicate that many people are likely buying one game for multiple Switches. Many games still don't see "sales success" on the Switch: Metroid Dread selling 3 million on 110 million Switches as an exclusive IP is a bit rough. It is my belief that Metroid Prime 4 will do better if the game is made to the quality I'm expecting and hoping for so that it grabs more of the non-Metroid fans.

"Quality over quantity" only gets you so far when you end up with systems like Wii U that have a small number of great games, but very little else to play besides them. 

What the Switch offers is quantity of quality; it has tons of excellent games from both first and third party developers. The droughts of the Wii U and for that matter the N64 and Gamecube are solved now because its sales are enough to bring in copious third party support.

That's the fundamental difference between successful Nintendo and struggling Nintendo; the former has games from other developers to fill the gaps between first party releases, while the latter has to depend on only their own games which leads to terrible droughts.

Your central premise is that Nintendo's success is my "greatest enemy", when in fact, as I've explained repeatedly, it actually benefits me greatly.

When Nintendo succeeds, I have more to play, and am therefore happier as a gamer. It's as simple as that.

Also, while this is a tangent I won't go into in depth, Metroid Dread is already the highest selling game in the history of the series. It's just a relatively niche franchise and always has been.

I disagreed with it earlier, the Switch isn't getting "copious" third party support, not when you're missing the vast majority of major releases and getting old ports. This is the "quantity" thing that's not quite representative of what's happening. I get that I wrote novels, so maybe you missed it, but I talked about that third party support still being pretty bad, especially when Nintendo spearheaded getting Resident Evil exclusivity with 4 which would later become its core and most popular template (and remake template!) and yet, the Switch barely got RE5 TEN years after its release, and then RE6 SEVEN years after its release... as ports, not even proper remasters. I can list so many major third party games that are well received that just outright skipped the Switch. Some franchises of which, like RE, were on Nintendo stuff before. So to say you have SOME third party support moreso than Wii U, sure, I can agree, though that's STILL not the topic at hand, here, since that is truly a massive whole discussion on its own. Nintendo has always struggled in this arena...

I mean, you don't have any of the modern RE titles (VII, VIII, RE2R, RE3R), you didn't even get DMC5, and these are games coming from a company that DOES support the Switch. I start naming off other big games like Elden Ring, FFVIIR, CP2077, none of the CoDs after Ghosts (and this one is more important than some want to admit because CoD DOES actually sell big numbers), etc., let alone the games I mentioned in the previous reply that would have done GREAT with Nintendo fans (like Tales of Arise, Code Vein, Scarlet Nexus, etc.). I can't pretend that somehow the Switch's better 3rd party support is anything more than a tiny step, but still leaves the system rather high and dry and its fans have to seek out lower effort titles to fill these gaps. This doesn't mean that you can't ENJOY those games, but if you look at what someone's choices are when Elden Ring released, even Sony couldn't touch that with HFW. Third party support is as important as ever, and again, we ARE on a tangent topic here about 3rd party support, but I'm still not going to run around and pretend Nintendo's got good third party support. Also again, many of the "bigger" titles come to the Switch later, though I was someone who gave credit to WB for bringing MK11 to the Switch AT LAUNCH. Probably one of a very low number of AAA games that launched alongside everyone else.

We will truly have to disagree about third party support.  You would agree "quantity does not equal quality", but I can't say the third party support is both quantity AND quality when some of THE highest quality games skipped the Switch, let alone the quantity where the efforts match indie games coming to other platforms that, again, also don't always come to the Switch.  I'd agree more with you if you said the Switch has copious indie support, but I can't say 3rd party.

Though, semantics: I refer to indie and 3rd party separately (as most people do).  If you're including indie in your definition of 3rd party, then it skews it a little in your favor, but still doesn't quite match up with anything close to the 3rd party support that every other platform gets along with said indies.

JWeinCom said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

For the record before this goes on, I'm losing track of all these quote trees, so if a response is somehow in the "wrong" spot, I apologize hahaha

Iwata had a tendency to focus on end-user experiences, likely because he was a game developer moreso than a company suit. Since this is all predictive, there's a reason I said "think".

But I do think he cared about our gaming experiences, and I'm willing to bet he would have handled online services very differently. Do I think he would have pulled off getting voice chat built into the Switch after its release? I can't tell on that, but I'm willing to bet he would have understood forms of communication in games far better than what we ended up getting (I even tried that Nintendo Online app, gawh don't get me started on that, either... I really shouldn't need this app just to track my Splatoon 2 stats, put that shit IN the fucking game!).

Let's not forget, and this is something I'm going to be talking about in my Steam Deck video: the Wii U actually came BETTER EQUIPPED for communication than the Switch. Ironically, he likely had a hand in the Switch's development, but how we went from a Wii U that could, in and of itself, do video chat and had its own social community (Miiverse) to literally NONE of that is baffling. I think Iwata might have spearheaded Miiverse migration of some sort at the least instead of just axing it so that people could have their own Nintendo social space like the Wii U era.  I don't have an inkling (har har) of how he'd have handled Virtual Console, though...

Remember: Miiverse led to some impact in social spaces beyond itself and led Xbox to attempt their own form of it on the Xbox One (Xbox actually still has community posting where you can even do posts and LFG for games that don't have matchmaking, so they actually KEPT it moving forward).

Again, key word is "think", as I'm basing this on perceived personality from interviews, etc.

Kai_Mao said:

I think Nintendo is in a healthier place now than they were in the Wii U/3DS era and I think most would agree on that. Let’s not forget that they were losing money for a few year during the Wii U/3DS era. You can complain about their current issues, but they were struggling during the previous era and kind words aren’t gonna suddenly make your business healthy.

In regards to “anti-consumer” tendencies, it wasn’t as if Nintendo never had those during their down years.

Whether you think their latest sports games are lazy or not, they’re likely just following the Splatoon playbook of updating games to keep consumer engagement. That’s part of the reason why Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will continue to see surges in sales even beyond 2023 with its DLC.

Nintendo is still making great games like Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Kirby and the Forgotten Lands, etc. They’ve published at least close to dozens of titles every year. How many publishers can do that?

If the content is there, then people will continue to buy Nintendo Switch and their software. It’s still selling well in the Americas and Europe and is completely dominating Japan even in year 5 of its lifecycle. Nintendo must be doing something right in that regard.

I just deleted and realized that I'm duplicating what I'm saying to you in a response further down about 3rd party games and attach rates.

But if you end up reading the novel, you'll be inadvertently responded to. The part I didn't delete is:

People always assume if sales are good, then something must be right. It's a strange thing because this exact narrative happened during the Wii era, and yet looking back, despite there also being some quality titles on the Wii (I mean, Super Fucking Mario Galaxy!), the dust has settled and some people realized that sales were not necessarily directly correlated with "great games" because the attach rate showed otherwise. Instead, it proved to be a total casuals and "grandmas bowling machine" system despite how deep that system made Nintendo's coffers.

Hell, I used this example once again: CoD sells like hotcakes every year, even at its worst.  CoD must be doing something right, RIGHT?  Or is that just copy-paste garbage every year...

Bayonetta 3 is coming a massive 8 years after Bayonetta 2 (and by gawd have I been such a begger for a sequel!), and I'm guaranteeing you it was greenlit despite poor sales of the Wii U and of Bayonetta 2 during the Wii U's ending lifespan KNOWING it would release on Switch (though I personally think it got delayed, but not publicly as no release date or window was ever placed, for it to be coming this far into the Switch).

In order to support the theory that Nintendo makes more/better decisions during success (this isn't exactly what you're saying, but it's implied in this thread), it would have had to be greenlight DURING the start of the Switch era in which they watched the sales success and chose to make the decision, and then decided to greenlight Bayonetta 3 (though, I admit that COULD have been possible given the time windows even though it's confirmed not to be the case).

I, too, have lived through Nintendo. That's kind of the issue: the signs have always been there. The first sign of it was when the NES and SNES (albeit less than its predecessor) did so well and Nintendo would enforce things on third parties like limiting game development quantity and signing forced exclusivity contracts. A lot of that vanished as their consequent hardware not only sold poorly, but third parties decided that wasn't worth the trouble. I said above, Nintendo made mistakes during down periods, too, but those periods are what saw fundamental shifts. The N64 and GameCube was their attempt to win back third parties (though, considered largely unsuccessful), decisions made as console sales slumped and lessons needed to be learned.

As for naming off travesty releases, I'm pretty sure the Switch is beating the Wii U in a shorter lifespan with milked/mid games. We'll have to disagree on Metroid Dread being a big step up, though: not only is it more an upgraded and expanded Metroid Samus Returns, but I just can't agree with that in the face of Metroid Prime. Prime was the big, BIG step up, and is largely regarded as such by and large, too. Dread was the fan service, a bit of filler to give us Metroid fans something to chew on while waiting for the obvious big hitter, Metroid Prime 4.  I honestly can't see otherwise when I have three Prime games that vastly outdo Dread.  I actually LIKED the motion controls on Wii in Prime 3, I thought that was rather immersive and impressive...

I think we're just going in circles, no one's saying the Switch isn't succeeding, but that it's success is going to lead Nintendo to continue more and more towards the path of greed. What was once the Nintendo fandom's "quality over quantity" has suddenly conveniently reversed to "quantity, look how many exclusives!" when many of those are of the same quality as many games found on other systems not on the Switch, or in some cases lower.

Besides, I said it a long time ago, different thread and video, but a large part of the Switch's success is that it's grabbing the handheld DS/3DS crowd. After the 3DS, the Nintendo handheld crowd has nothing except the Switch, so the Switch has essentially combined the console and handheld fanbases. The other part is that 25% of Switch sales are to existing Switch owners, and also in said other thread I mentioned that the Switch is more seen as a personal device while PS5s and XSXs are seen as household devices. There is more "one Switch per kid" than there is "one PS5/XSX per kid".

That, and winning over people with stronger software is a whole different discussion since the attach rate is ostensibly worse for many titles that should see much larger numbers. This would indicate that many people are likely buying one game for multiple Switches. Many games still don't see "sales success" on the Switch: Metroid Dread selling 3 million on 110 million Switches as an exclusive IP is a bit rough. It is my belief that Metroid Prime 4 will do better if the game is made to the quality I'm expecting and hoping for so that it grabs more of the non-Metroid fans.

Alex_The_Hedgehog said:

Well... I don't have a Switch, but I'll try to show my point of view.

Nintendo did a lot of right things with the Switch, and they are supporting the console. We have a lot of praised games from Nintendo and some third parties like Capcom, Konami, SEGA, and others. I still think they should be more ambitious when it comes to hardware power, and I don't understand why they are releasing Splatoon 3 on Switch. To me it feels like they are going to cut support to Splatoon 2 to make people upgrade to Splatoon 3 and get some extra cash. But well, any company could do that, it's not exclusive to Nintendo.

What Zyro said applies to all companies. But I don't see Nintendo being the "bad guy" with the Switch. Also, its success don't affect Sony or Microsoft, so anyone that feels like they are being bad for the consumers, they could just don't pay for it, and go to Playstation or Xbox.

Oi, don't get me started on Splatoon. A game I've poured hundreds of hours into, and it's just... hurting me a bit that Splatoon 3 hasn't shown me a whole lot that couldn't be just an expansion for Splatoon 2 (and since it's on the same system, as you mentioned, it literally COULD be an expansion if they wanted to).

Of course, there's the real argument against me once again: I plan on buying Splatoon 3. Ugh... And that highlights your statement about going PS or Xbox: that's exactly what people have done. If Nintendo hadn't pissed off third parties so long ago, then fell behind in hardware so badly with the Wii and up, things might be different, now. Almost everyone I actually know who has a Switch literally has another primary system they "play more" on because the Switch is missing too many third party games (like Elden Ring). Nintendo fanboys will just say, "none of those games interest me", but the truth is that many of those games sell crazy numbers to lots of people who are interested. Nintendo hurt itself with third parties during its successful monopolization of the NES/SNES era, turned away Sony, and gave birth to their biggest competitor. They're recovering and swinging the other way (twice if you include the Wii), but here I am discussing the reality that this may in turn give them the power to corner their own "Nintendo" market instead of playing nice with everyone in order to compete.  And in response, its own fanbase tries extra hard to buy and "support" Nintendo only to find out what kind of decisions happen when you willingly just hand your money over to a company for any game you think is "good" because it's exclusive.

Naturally, based on this thread, I'd rather they need to compete. Then I might actually get built-in voice chat, better hardware, big third party games, etc. etc. lol (the Switch successor will more than likely have it or Nintendo WILL look truly dumb af).  I mean, some part of me can easily imagine how Elden Ring would have led to good times on Miiverse he he he

Kakadu18 said:

Page 2 for me.

The irony of "intellectually honest" is that you conveniently ignore the type of response to a video that actually contained no targeting of anyone except the obvious blind fanboy in two 5 second clips. I mean, this entire thread contains so much "intellectual" irony: now you've got some dude complaining about the length of it (which is hilarious, how in the world does the length of a thread get in his feels lol), saying it's clickbait (which is commonly used incorrectly to define something they don't like, actual clickbait is the use of deception and misinformation to *dun dun dun* get someone to click, the title of the video is what the video is about, that's not clickbait even if it uses hyperbole and offends the whole Nintendo fandom at its worst); and then you've got personal attacks on me by people I don't even know over a video that wasn't about them... You speak of "intellectual", but here you are adding nothing to the thread. You'll probably take the scape goat route of saying it's not worth your time or something (or hopefully nothing at all), but hey, mobbing is easy.

Now if someone made a video about "Why ZyroXZ2 Sucks and is Stupid!", then you'd see me respond like people in this thread, sure. But seeing as how my video isn't about anyone on here, I'm getting a bit of a side chuckle about how some people can get so stirred up without actually being attacked.

"I don't like the texture of mangos"

"Wtf, you're stupid and wrong, mangos are amazing, here's all the reasons why you're so full of shit"

JWeinCom said:

The reason people are acting vexxed with you because your arguments are so profoundly terrible that it appears you are trolling. Yet, despite how absolutely bad the arguments are, you are still somehow condescending and whining that criticism is because of bias.

Case in point, Bayonetta 2. Released in 2014. With a full port of the first Bayonetta. Most likely, the decision came, at the latest, in early 2012 (and even that's a huge stretch), when Nintendo was still swimming in Wii money like Scrooge McDuck. When someone brought up other decisions made during this time, like Nintendo's youtube policies, you attributed those to the Wii, yet somehow this decision, made while the Wii was actually still active, is attributed to the Wii U's failure which hadn't happened yet.  Cause fuck logic and consistency. You could argue it was because they realized the Wii U was going to struggle, but that defeats your whole argument. That would show that even while they're successful, Nintendo does not think they are invulnerable, and still work on deals to improve their offerings.

Moreover, you are cherry picking examples, which is literally all you've done to support your argument. When anyone points out the obvious flaws, your reaction is "well Nintendo made this bad decision while they were successful so HAHA FANBOY I WIN!" Which doesn't actually prove anything, because nobody is arguing that Nintendo only makes good decisions when they're successful, and pointing to individual bad decisions made, on its own, doesn't prove any larger pattern. All you've shown is that Nintendo can make bad decisions while successful, congrats.

Meanwhile, you ignore any examples to the contrary (or make lulzy attempts to attribute them to success or failure to suit your needs regardless of timing or logic). The most obvious here are Wonderful 101, Astral Chain, and Bayonetta 3. Wonderful 101 started development on the Wii. Since it launched in early 2013, you gotta figure Nintendo agreed to the project at 2010 the latest, more likely 2009, earliest 2008. So, at the peak of the Wii's success, they were willing to fund a rather similar project to Bayonetta 3. And in 2019, they again released a Platinum project, Astral Chain. And in 2022, Bayonetta 3 will release. Not to mention Nintendo has published other projects like Ultimate Alliance 3, Triangle Strategy, Octopath Traveller, Bravely Default 1/2/Second, Monster Hunter Tri (in the US), Fitness Boxing, Professor Layton, Yokai Watch (US), Dragon Quest IX, Lego City Undercover, Ninja Gaiden 3 Sigma, Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, Fatal Frame, Baiten Kaitos, etc etc. You can't argue that publishing Bayonetta is somehow caused by Nintendo's failure, because this is something Nintendo has consistently done. Considering the release dates of these games, some of them were greenlit during successful periods, and others during unsuccessful periods. It's kind of like Nintendo is generally willing to pay for the development of games they think will be successful on their platforms, because that's literally their business model. At best your argument is ill-informed, and at worst willfully dishonest.

The combination of the condescension, whining about how people aren't disagreeing with you the right way (there's a report button if they're breaking anyrules), your insistence that anyone who disagrees is a fanboy, and just how utterly bad your arguments are is why you're getting this reaction. Because you come off as a troll. 

So, if you're not, and you're actually interested in honest conversation, here's your chance. You can just ignore the rest of the post, and we can start fresh.

You said that you don't think Bayonetta 2 would have been made if not for the Wii U's failure... which hadn't happened yet. That is one possibility. Another possibility is that Nintendo was more financially stable than Sega and was more willing to take a risk. Another is that Nintendo's success with the Wii made them feel that the Wii U would be a large enough market to make Bayonetta 2 profitable. Another explanation is that Nintendo simply is willing to fund third party projects they think will be successful, and their current level of success isn't directly related to the decision.

So, if you think your explanation is the correct one, what evidence supports that? 

See above about Bayonetta 3, I responded to someone else about Bayonetta. However, if your focus is on Bayonetta 2, assuming one of us didn't make a typo on the number or my memory isn't going bad in this thread, then yes they clearly greenlit something to bolster the Wii U knowing full well their third party support continues to be a sticking point. They also greenlit some other third party titles in an attempt to build better third party support, who said there aren't any games coming?  The thing is, that's not what this is about as we are straying off the topic with third party support being its whole own capable thread/video topic. I never said, "there are no good third party exclusives", either.  But if this is the more important route for you, then look at the Switch's top selling games and you'll very quickly see how much you see the word "Mario" and realize how much they're pushing the branding moreso than library diversity. Then look at the steep dropoff in attach rate as you go down the list. And yet somehow, someone's telling me Nintendo fans would know better than to just buy whatever Nintendo chucks out at full price. Reasonable people call the Switch a "Mario machine", and how are they wrong? Nintendo's all for milking this Mario stuff with lots of low effort titles because y'all keep buying it. Ya know, something I addressed in the video but somehow y'all keep arguing it despite numbers staring you right in the face.

Is this not literally the point of it all? Their downturn with the Wii U led to making more decisions to push third party games (and exclusives), and you're seeing that spill over on the Switch. But INSTEAD of using this success to keep moving this momentum in the forward direction as time moves on, they instead pump out even more half-effort, fast turnaround "Mario" games and low effort exclusives that we can all visibly see spent little time in development on a lower budget than they deserved... while completely ignoring legacy IPs like F-Zero and Star Fox... And let's not talk about how many re-releases the Switch took up. Isn't everything you're saying EXACTLY what I'm talking about?  Then, if you toss in your tangential discussion about third party games... 

Nintendo fans love "quantity" when it's convenient, then talk "quality" when there's not enough games. The thing is, Nintendo's "quality" games have been pretty overall sparse for the Switch's 5 year lifespan, and in some cases are a shockingly successful milkings like Mario Kart 8 or other re-releases which somehow get touted as "now I can play it on the go!" like it totally matters in the grand scheme of things. And the best part is that during that time without the channel, I specifically made sure to buy those better efforts to support that thinking, like Astral Chain and Mario+Rabbids (despite it saying, Mario, I knowwwww), but I know factually I'm not the only one just taking quantity at face value and saying things are great. Nintendo's core offerings have not been as great as Nintendo fans would try to convince you of where every mid to good exclusive game is instead "amazing, great, another banger, Switch exclusives just piling up!".

So no, I don't think it's just them running a business model independent of their success, there is definitely a shift in fundamental choices (and there HAS to be, you really think these suits paid full time to work for Nintendo don't respond to market shifts, financial reports, and projections?). You think my arguments are half assed, too, but I just ignore obvious misinterpretations, mostly by the fools who didn't watch anything and have no idea what's going on in the video and are so adamant about not watching it that they have no choice but to follow the mob. Nowhere in the video do I say the Switch is bad (as for hardware, that's a whole different day!). Nowhere do I say the Switch isn't getting any good games at all. Heck, the entire video is about the warning signs and the idea that Nintendo fans need to more closely choose their purchases as Nintendo grows into corporate greed because corporate greed is always the enemy, but about 75% (OH LOOK, HYPERBOLE!) of the thread responders have NO CLUE that's what it's about because they just rolled with a title that offended them and some dude getting mad about it. And you wonder why I say "mob mentality"...

And your statement about the copyright part is a bit confusing, btw. You say I attributed their heightened response to copyright protection during the Wii era (which I did), then say I attributed it to the Wii U's failure. So either I've got a typo in there somewhere, or you're misinterpreting something. I say that Nintendo chose to tighten their copyright leash during the Wii era, a continual sticking point with them as a larger overall decision made when they felt they could (success). I don't know how you got that I tied that to the Wii U, I tied that to a sign that a company's success is leading them to make decisions like that. That's clearly in the video, even lol... What's worse is PlayStation is starting to show clear signs, and it seems to me they're also heading towards that success point where they start deciding, "hey, fuck 'em, the repercussions won't outweigh the increased profits". Don't be surprised if they do enough over the years and I make a nearly identical video for PlayStation fans, lmfao!... Speaking of which, I am literally working on a video about that $10 increase in game prices because of things like God of War where you're paying an extra $10 to access haptics, 3D audio, and better graphics/framerate which you already paid for when you bought the PS5 hardware. You buy the hardware that does it, then you pay more EACH time to actually have it used in your games? Like, wtf...

In closing, though, stuff like this always gets some chuckles out of me. There's no need for a report button because people calling "bullshit" and that I'm just desperate for clicks (though, I AM desperately trying to make a difference in gaming, and we can all see how THAT's going, hahaha) isn't against any rules. Being toxic towards others isn't generally a punishable offense until it gets severely personal (like mysogyny, racism, etc., obvious offenders), which is why it happens so much when the anonymity of the internet offers protection and opportunity. But if you wonder why I ignore or don't really respond like you'd expect, it's because I can easily determine who's actually trying to disagree versus who's just trying to attack me. Little do they know they are a dime a dozen in gaming, there's actually MORE of them than there are civilized people. That may be true in general, too, but like I said before, gaming has an oddly disproportionate amount. Y'all ever been in public voice chat CoD lobbies? Yea? Then you know what I mean lmfao... Now find some public place in real life where people are behaving like that. The closest you'll get is a bar or club where alcohol is involved, and it still isn't a bunch of dudes talking the weirdest mysogynist shit or name-calling expletives at the top of their lungs over a fucking headshot in a videogame... Something's absolutely 100% unhealthy about a large portion of social behaviors in gaming which is why it earns itself the stereotypes and general disdain by the public.

And it's going to stay that way so long as the behavior continues because it pushes out people who don't want to be around these types of toxic people. The best I can do is decide whether or not I'm going to engage them at all, so you say "lulz" responses, but some of those responses are half ignoring people just looking to attack, not because of a lack of response. Then there's a sub discussion about Wii U sales vs profits, but I responded to that without quoting each response by both because I already saw what happened when I tried to (and you, too) quote everything I could, heh... I hope you realize this sucks up an hour or more at a time, I'm not on infinite time. Each of you is responding to one person (me), while I'm responding to all of you (many).  I have the far harder end to keep track of...

----------------------------------

And to the other guy about the Joy Con: Nintendo could have easily afforded to start rolling out upgraded Joy Con along with the OLED 5 years into this Switch lifespan and slowly sell through into it as well as continue replacements of affected Joy Con WITH said upgraded Joy Con. But to hell with that, right? That would have required effort on behalf of keeping their consumers happy as the problem became more and more prevalent (despite it not affecting me because my old Joy Con had about 20 hours on them total, and my new swoled Joy Con have about 3 hours on them).

I'll address the one part that was at least somewhat on point. Bayonetta 2 would have been greenlit between 2010 and 2012. This is while or immediately after Nintendo was enjoying its most successful period. You claim the that the decision however was unrelated to the success they were enjoying, and was due to a failure yet to occur. Meanwhile, Nintendo started the mass takedown of youtube videos in 2013 and continued to implement anti-consumer policies for several years, while the Wii U was flopping. . You claimed that this decision was not caused by the Wii U's failure, but was caused by the Wii's success. You cannot argue that a decision made in 2013 was made due to the Wii's success, but a decision made in 2010-12 was not. It literally makes no sense. It makes it seem as if you're just pulling shit out of your ass to defend other shit that was pulled out of your ass. 

Your premise is that success will lead to "bad" (to consumer) decisions. But, you have not shown any consistent way to determine if a particular decision was a result of success or failure. I asked you directly how these determinations were made, and you gave a rambling non-answer. That's why I made a response and then deleted it, because it seemed futile. I tried again, thinking that maybe focusing on one clear example would help, but again it's a rambling non-answer. I asked you how you determined Bayonetta 2 was greenlit as a result of failure, and I got some irrelevant nonsense about Mario games, something about Sony, and responses to several arguments I didn't make.

You see, you're just doing the part where you spew out opinions. And opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one, and they're usually shitty. Whenever someone tries to challenge a particular opinion and ask you to demonstrate it is likely correct, you just spew out 10 more. It's like fighting one of those enemies in games that keeps splitting into smaller anyones. I think the level of respect that responses to you have shown is consistent with the quality of your content.

I'll use bold writing to be clear what my point is. Your whole argument is that X (success) will lead to Y (Nintendo making decisions worse for consumers). However, you have not at any point provided evidence to support this. Pointing to individual decisions does not demonstrate this, unless you can actually demonstrate that the particular decision was caused by success or lack there of. Because presumably, since Nintendo is run by humans, they are going to make some bad and some good decisions over any particular time period, regardless of success. 

I think that's as clear as I can be. And at the risk of being arrogant, I'm fairly well credentialed in interpretting the English language and in analyzing arguments, so I'm basically 100% sure the failure in communication is not on my end.

Let's try one last time.

You have claimed that Bayonetta 2 being published by Nintendo was a positive result (for fans) of the Wii U's/Nintendo's failure and that Nintendo would not have published this had the Wii U not failed, or if they didn't believe it would fail. What is the evidence for this claim?

Okay, so I found where you made the error because I said above, I clearly do NOT remember saying Bayonetta 2 on the Wii U unless there was a typo. So before we move on, let's make sure you and I are on the same page because you're going after a misinterpretation, something I had to search these pages for. I said,

"This is kind of the point... When they are doing bad, they rethink their efforts in ways that are tangible. You likely have the Wii U to thank for Bayonetta as I don't think they would have even taken on that project had they not felt they needed to bolster their offerings. It's in desperation that corporate execs start thinking about how to change things for the better because they WANT to turn things around. They did, except just like the Wii days, the success leads to signs of *dun dun dun* greed, laziness, cornering the market, etc. We're almost talking in circles, now lmfao"

This is where it's my fault for lacking clarity, though it is implied at least to me that we're talking the current era, meaning us getting Bayonetta [3] is worth thanking the Wii U for.

Then, I even dove into why I see it this way with the other guy who's being more calm about this all. HE said,

"Nintendo acquired Bayonetta 2 before the Wii U came out, when they were still coming off the massive success of the Wii. Bayonetta 3 is simply the continuation of that established partnership rather than the result of lacking success."

Which is where you dropped off the continuity of it and I replied to him,

"Bayonetta 3 is coming a massive 8 years after Bayonetta 2 (and by gawd have I been such a begger for a sequel!), and I'm guaranteeing you it was greenlit despite poor sales of the Wii U and of Bayonetta 2 during the Wii U's ending lifespan KNOWING it would release on Switch (though I personally think it got delayed, but not publicly as no release date or window was ever placed, for it to be coming this far into the Switch)."

So before we move on, know that you're accusing me of saying something I didn't say and trying to make an example out of something I already suspected was a misinterpretation... I rated Bayonetta 2 very highly, and it's also recent enough for me to remember. BUT, I think we can continue in some form anyway...

Now, if your evidence is defined as a reputable report where I have documents or developers literally saying, "Nintendo greenlit Bayonetta 3 because things were rough and they knew they needed to keep their 3rd party library diverse", of course I don't have that. But if you're okay with looking at the patterns, then let's expand on this particular franchise because you want to narrow this to a single example. Though, for the record, why accuse me of cherrypicking and then cherrypick Bayonetta 2 in particular which we both agree was a good risk Nintendo took. But continuing on despite the fact that Bayonetta 2 was greenlit during the dead drought tailend of the Wii's lifespan...

Successful companies often try to "cut the fat". This is common: they stop putting effort into risks and start focusing on investing more in their branding and money-making cows. Look at Ubisoft, look at Activision, even look at EA. Those companies raked in billions to the point where they just started milking the "big" franchises. Activision starting putting even more developers into CoD, despite the presence of far more interesting IPs they could have worked on (though, we did finally got a new Crash game). These companies have been lambasted repeatedly for doing this, and they've somewhat responded to some extent (Ubisoft not so much... yet), and EA has begun to rethink their process. They took a risk with Jedi Fallen Order, and it was a good thing. A risk they wouldn't normally take, but when you're rated worst company in America and your sales start to slump... ... It's a common pattern that companies branch out when things are looking grim, looking for new sources of "income" [ergo, trying to grab new audiences].

Shifting to Nintendo: the Wii U is selling poorly, despite their already-made investment in Bayonetta 2 and they aren't about to cancel that despite the Wii U doing badly. It releases, and ALSO sells pretty poorly despite people such as myself giving it critical acclaim. So you're Nintendo, doing badly, which is when a company tends to listen. They know (by now) that their third party support continues to remain far from ideal. This is as close to proof as it gets on your particular example: Nintendo chose to greenlight another sequel despite the numbers themselves literally saying to do otherwise. This is in complete contrast to companies during successful periods where their "suits" tend to look at what's making numbers and pour more resources into that rather than "riskier" projects. This is a common pattern in business, and you watched Activision do it, Ubisoft do it, and even EA.

Now you're watching all three of those companies follow the pattern of seeing huge success and narrowing their investments into what made them successful rather than building a larger portfolio followed by the eventual implosion of doing this and now trying to diversify their libraries again and invest in "riskier" projects (like EA now doing a Dead Space remake). Nintendo SHOULD be taking their success and building a larger portfolio, taking on riskier projects...

NOW, if you're willing to step into a counter-example: Splatoon. Yes, this beloved NEW IP was greenlit a year into the Wii U's life, and since you likely know the Wii U sales RAPIDLY dropped off within months of release, was also clearly greenlit during a downturn. It paid off when it finally release, to some extent, as Nintendo admittedly lacked anything in the "shooter" genre. We're five years into the Switch without a new Nintendo IP, though I could eventually be proven wrong with the 3-4 years left in the Switch before Nintendo starts moving beyond R&D on their next system and starts shifting development teams towards their new hardware. If Nintendo starts a new IP in the next 3-4 years, then that will serve as your counterexample to me using Splatoon. It should be noted that new IPs are constantly being danced around within any of these big companies at any given time: many do not ever see the light of day until the higher ups aren't seeing those sales and start "looking for new ideas". Again, just like I said in the video, a lot of what I say can actually apply to large companies that provide hardware/software in general.

You know those cheesy memes those show some management asking people for ideas at a large conference table? Do you notice the common theme for those is that they only ask when something is going badly? You say you want evidence, and the closest thing I can give you is a pattern, but it's a pattern that has existed for a very long time in many industries. Companies simply don't innovate/take risks much when they're sitting pretty at the top. It always takes some sort of struggle and strong competition to get them to invest and take risks (to outdo the competition, but still to our benefit). I once again remind you that Apple is a good, non-fanboy-inflammatory example in which Samsung came in and put them in the hotseat.

Kakadu18 said:

Your arguments are getting more and more disjointed and unrelated to what was actually talked about. The stuff you said about Mario games is so illogical and dumb, I want to hit my head against a wall.

Translation: you can't keep up.

Kai_Mao said:

See above about Bayonetta 3, I responded to someone else about Bayonetta. However, if your focus is on Bayonetta 2, assuming one of us didn't make a typo on the number or my memory isn't going bad in this thread, then yes they clearly greenlit something to bolster the Wii U knowing full well their third party support continues to be a sticking point. They also greenlit some other third party titles in an attempt to build better third party support, who said there aren't any games coming?  The thing is, that's not what this is about as we are straying off the topic with third party support being its whole own capable thread/video topic. I never said, "there are no good third party exclusives", either.  But if this is the more important route for you, then look at the Switch's top selling games and you'll very quickly see how much you see the word "Mario" and realize how much they're pushing the branding moreso than library diversity. Then look at the steep dropoff in attach rate as you go down the list. And yet somehow, someone's telling me Nintendo fans would know better than to just buy whatever Nintendo chucks out at full price. Reasonable people call the Switch a "Mario machine", and how are they wrong? Nintendo's all for milking this Mario stuff with lots of low effort titles because y'all keep buying it. Ya know, something I addressed in the video but somehow y'all keep arguing it despite numbers staring you right in the face.

Is this not literally the point of it all? Their downturn with the Wii U led to making more decisions to push third party games (and exclusives), and you're seeing that spill over on the Switch. But INSTEAD of using this success to keep moving this momentum in the forward direction as time moves on, they instead pump out even more half-effort, fast turnaround "Mario" games and low effort exclusives that we can all visibly see spent little time in development on a lower budget than they deserved... while completely ignoring legacy IPs like F-Zero and Star Fox... And let's not talk about how many re-releases the Switch took up. Isn't everything you're saying EXACTLY what I'm talking about?  Then, if you toss in your tangential discussion about third party games... 

Nintendo fans love "quantity" when it's convenient, then talk "quality" when there's not enough games. The thing is, Nintendo's "quality" games have been pretty overall sparse for the Switch's 5 year lifespan, and in some cases are a shockingly successful milkings like Mario Kart 8 or other re-releases which somehow get touted as "now I can play it on the go!" like it totally matters in the grand scheme of things. And the best part is that during that time without the channel, I specifically made sure to buy those better efforts to support that thinking, like Astral Chain and Mario+Rabbids (despite it saying, Mario, I knowwwww), but I know factually I'm not the only one just taking quantity at face value and saying things are great. Nintendo's core offerings have not been as great as Nintendo fans would try to convince you of where every mid to good exclusive game is instead "amazing, great, another banger, Switch exclusives just piling up!".

So no, I don't think it's just them running a business model independent of their success, there is definitely a shift in fundamental choices (and there HAS to be, you really think these suits paid full time to work for Nintendo don't respond to market shifts, financial reports, and projections?). You think my arguments are half assed, too, but I just ignore obvious misinterpretations, mostly by the fools who didn't watch anything and have no idea what's going on in the video and are so adamant about not watching it that they have no choice but to follow the mob. Nowhere in the video do I say the Switch is bad (as for hardware, that's a whole different day!). Nowhere do I say the Switch isn't getting any good games at all. Heck, the entire video is about the warning signs and the idea that Nintendo fans need to more closely choose their purchases as Nintendo grows into corporate greed because corporate greed is always the enemy, but about 75% (OH LOOK, HYPERBOLE!) of the thread responders have NO CLUE that's what it's about because they just rolled with a title that offended them and some dude getting mad about it. And you wonder why I say "mob mentality"...

And your statement about the copyright part is a bit confusing, btw. You say I attributed their heightened response to copyright protection during the Wii era (which I did), then say I attributed it to the Wii U's failure. So either I've got a typo in there somewhere, or you're misinterpreting something. I say that Nintendo chose to tighten their copyright leash during the Wii era, a continual sticking point with them as a larger overall decision made when they felt they could (success). I don't know how you got that I tied that to the Wii U, I tied that to a sign that a company's success is leading them to make decisions like that. That's clearly in the video, even lol... What's worse is PlayStation is starting to show clear signs, and it seems to me they're also heading towards that success point where they start deciding, "hey, fuck 'em, the repercussions won't outweigh the increased profits". Don't be surprised if they do enough over the years and I make a nearly identical video for PlayStation fans, lmfao!... Speaking of which, I am literally working on a video about that $10 increase in game prices because of things like God of War where you're paying an extra $10 to access haptics, 3D audio, and better graphics/framerate which you already paid for when you bought the PS5 hardware. You buy the hardware that does it, then you pay more EACH time to actually have it used in your games? Like, wtf...

In closing, though, stuff like this always gets some chuckles out of me. There's no need for a report button because people calling "bullshit" and that I'm just desperate for clicks (though, I AM desperately trying to make a difference in gaming, and we can all see how THAT's going, hahaha) isn't against any rules. Being toxic towards others isn't generally a punishable offense until it gets severely personal (like mysogyny, racism, etc., obvious offenders), which is why it happens so much when the anonymity of the internet offers protection and opportunity. But if you wonder why I ignore or don't really respond like you'd expect, it's because I can easily determine who's actually trying to disagree versus who's just trying to attack me. Little do they know they are a dime a dozen in gaming, there's actually MORE of them than there are civilized people. That may be true in general, too, but like I said before, gaming has an oddly disproportionate amount. Y'all ever been in public voice chat CoD lobbies? Yea? Then you know what I mean lmfao... Now find some public place in real life where people are behaving like that. The closest you'll get is a bar or club where alcohol is involved, and it still isn't a bunch of dudes talking the weirdest mysogynist shit or name-calling expletives at the top of their lungs over a fucking headshot in a videogame... Something's absolutely 100% unhealthy about a large portion of social behaviors in gaming which is why it earns itself the stereotypes and general disdain by the public.

And it's going to stay that way so long as the behavior continues because it pushes out people who don't want to be around these types of toxic people. The best I can do is decide whether or not I'm going to engage them at all, so you say "lulz" responses, but some of those responses are half ignoring people just looking to attack, not because of a lack of response. Then there's a sub discussion about Wii U sales vs profits, but I responded to that without quoting each response by both because I already saw what happened when I tried to (and you, too) quote everything I could, heh... I hope you realize this sucks up an hour or more at a time, I'm not on infinite time. Each of you is responding to one person (me), while I'm responding to all of you (many).  I have the far harder end to keep track of...

----------------------------------

There isn’t a problem wanting both quality and quantity. Look at PlayStation. For most of PS1, 2, and 4, they had both the quality and the quantity. That is why they were able to lead their respective generations. Even the PS3, which was considered an “off” generation for them, had a plethora of quality games.

As for half assed games, the Wii, DS, Wii U, and 3DS had their share of half assed, mediocre, misguided, or bad games. Games like Mario Party 10, Mario Sports Mix, Animal Crossing amiibo Festival, Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Metroid Prime Federation Force, Chibi Robo Zip Lash, etc.

Even Scott the Woz documented the supposed “Dark Age of Nintendo” during the Wii U/3DS era.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvmrmOHRsU

Nintendo has put out a plethora of quality content up to this point for the Switch era whether you like it or not.

Botw

Super Mario Odyssey

Animal Crossing New Horizons

Astral Chain

Splatoon 2 (and soon 3)

Xenoblade Chronicles numbered trilogy (1 DE, 2, and 3)

Pokemon Legends Arceus (and all the other mainline games that released on Switch)

Super Smash Bros Ultimate

Fire Emblem Three Houses

The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening remake

Super Mario Maker 2

Metroid Dread

Mario Tennis Aces

New Pokemon Snap

Nintendo Switch Sports

Kirby and the Forgotten Land

BoxBoy! + BoxGirl!

Snipperclips

Mario Party Super Stars (even Super Mario Party if you want)

Yoshi’s Crafted World

Good Job!

ARMS

Paper Mario: The Origami Kinng

Cadence of Hyrule (loved this game btw)

Ring Fit Adventure

Game Builder Garage

Tetris 99

WarioWare: Get It Together!

Luigi’s Mansion 3

Clubhouse Games

Famicom Detective Club remakes (big because they released outside of Japan for the first time)

Then you got games like Age of Calamity, Three Hopes (you already put this in the list above), Shin Megami Tensei V, Live A Live, Triangle Strategy, Octopath Traveler (this is multiplat I believe), Taiko no Tatsujin: Drum ‘n’ Fun!, Mario + Rabbids, Monster Hunter Rise, Monster Hunter Stories 2, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, Ninjala, Cruisin’ Blast (this one's a stretch to consider quality, even if you enjoyed it), No More Heroes 3, etc. Not to mention the other big third party ports like Nier Automata, Skyrim, Dragon Quest XI S, and The Witcher 3 (these are literally all late ports).

I could mention everything else like Labo, Mario Golf, Mario Strikers, Bowser’s Fury, and all the other 1st party ports and remasters that came to Switch.

I just now mentioned Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which is selling more than any current first party game out of all the first party developers.

Thats an incredible amount of content for 5-6 years. Which other first party developer does that?

Each year had at least 1-2 defining games on Switch (depending on how you look at it)

2017: BOTW and Mario Odyssey

2018: Smash Bros Ultimate

2019: Fire Emblem Three Houses, Luigi’s Mansion 3, and Pokemon Sword/Shield (regardless of your feelings of this game, it’s a new Gen and it’s the 2nd best selling game(s) in the franchise)

2020: Animal Crossing New Horizons (outside of Among Us, what other game really took the world by storm in an extraordinary year?)

2021: Metroid Dread, Monster Hunter Rise, and Shin Megami Tensei V (to a smaller extent)

2022: Xenoblade 3 and potentially Splatoon 3, Bayonetta 3, and Pokemon Scarlet/Violet

Nintendo and it’s partners have provided a plethora of quality content with more to come for the rest of the year.

As a Switch owner since year 1, I can’t tell how much I dread another release of games coming to switch. I’m overwhelmed with games I haven’t even played yet.

You may have a personal problem with the Switch and it’s games, but the results are there and the games are there. What will happen moving forward with the next console remains to be seen. But Nintendo will keep in mind what happened with the Wii U and what has been working for them with the Switch.

Again, I recognize I type this novels and stuff gets skipped if it's directed at someone else, but you've got some serious "quantity" stuff going on in these lists lol

I mean, I bolded stuff where it's okay you enjoyed it, but just about anyone else would consider "mid" or "shovelware". No one said Tetris 99 wasn't a fun/novel idea, but if you're looking to just play anything you can have fun with, you would LOVE Game Pass. You say you dread Nintendo putting out more games, Game Pass would keep you busy for YEARS lol... I wonder if you're one of the "there's no games of the nearly 300 games on Game Pass that interest me" people, though, haha!

Remember, no one's saying, "there aren't any good games!", what *I'M* saying mirrors a general sentiment that Nintendo is "Mario Pokemon" machine: they simply are not investing enough effort into IPs, new or old. You list things like Game Builder Garage or Ring Fit Adventure and you know those are their low effort titles. You say quality, but then you even put Super Mario Party there, one of the examples where Nintendo chose not to even acknowledge Super Mario Party and shit on them with another full price Mario Party Superstars. I mean, I even used that as an example in the video: this was 2021, what was on offer for Mario Party Superstars could have very easily been an expansion for Super Mario Party...

I didn't spend the time to go through everything in your lists, but that's the quantity thing that doesn't quite stack up.  You're also crediting Nintendo with stuff that isn't Nintendo (like MHRise, which I also very much love).  Those go into third party support discussion, which somehow just keeps coming up in this thread despite that being its whole own thread

JWeinCom said:

Kakadu18 said:

Your arguments are getting more and more disjointed and unrelated to what was actually talked about. The stuff you said about Mario games is so illogical and dumb, I want to hit my head against a wall.

I didn't want to address it to get dragged off topic, but it's also just plain wrong. The Switch has not had an inordinate number of Mario Titles. We can easily show that by just looking at a list of releases.

For the Gamecube, we had Super Mario Sunshine, Mario Party 4, 5, 6, 7, Mario Golf, Double Dash, Thousand Year Door, Tennis, Dance Dance Revolution, Baseball and strikers. Twelve games over a five year period.

For the Switch we have MK8, Mario + Rabbids, Super Mario Odyssey, Mario Tennis, Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, NSMBU, Mario Maker, Mario + Sonic 2020, Oragami King, Mario All Stars, Super Mario Bros. 35, Mario Kart Live, 3D World, Mario Golf, and Mario Strikers so far.

So that's 16 so far for the Switch in six years (Mario + Rabbids makes 17). If we take out 2022 to make it a more fair comparison, it's 15 for the Switch and 12 for the Cube.  That's really not a big difference on its own. But, we also have to account for the fact that Nintendo is only supporting one platform now.

During the Gamecube Era, Nintendo was supporting the GBA as well. In addition to the Gamecube Mario Games, we also had Super Mario Advance, Mario Kart, Super Mario Advance 2/3/4, Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga, Mario vs Donkey Kong, Super Mario Pinball, Mario Party Advance, Mario Tennis Power Tour.

So, from 2001-2005, there were 22 Mario Games developed. From 2017-2022 it will be 21 Mario Games (there were a few on the 3DS that launched after the Switch). 22 if you want to count Mario Kart Tour. So, the exact same amount of Mario Games over a longer period.

Just for fun, between 2005 and 2011, there were 25 Mario Games released across their platforms. From 2011 to 2017 there were 25.

So, it seems as though Nintendo puts out a pretty consistent number of Mario titles that over the last decade and a half has not really been influenced by their overall success or failure at any given time. Not only was OP's argument completely irrelevant, but it was also entirely wrong. Not to mention that even if there were Mario games, that's not inherently a bad thing, it just depends on how much you like Mario games. 

Probably a waste of time to even bother with that, but that is how a reasoned argument is supposed to work. You state your position, figure out a method that can determine if that position is true or false, and then bring evidence to show that your opinion is correct. 

I'm beginning to rescind my last statement that you did it by mistake, it seems you actually purposely miscontrue what I'm saying so you can create an argument that wasn't there. When did I say the Switch has an inordinate amount of Mario games? I didn't, I said Nintendo KEEPS PUMPING OUT LOW EFFORT MARIO THEMED GAMES... I didn't say the NUMBER of Mario games being made being the problem, I said look at the top selling games and you'll see the problem. This is in response not even to YOUR argument, it's in response to the narrative that Nintendo has so many great games and that the system is selling because of such a "great" library of titles on offer, but the top selling software literally is evidence that this great library is not what people are buying into. The attach rate drops so hard that you start to realize people might just be buying this for their kids and tossing them "safe" Mario games because Nintendo focuses on making sure that if you're buying your kid a Switch, and the game has the title "Mario" in it, it's safe for your kids. This is focusing on using brand power to maximize profit with minimal effort...  This is the fact that in the face of success and the ability to diversify and make greater efforts into new and existing IPs, Nintendo STILL chooses to just pump out another low effort Mario game (again, in the video, so I'm not straying off the topic at all) which you, unfortunately, statistically did the work for me on lmfao

While I give you credit for not devolving into personal attacks and getting childish about this whole thing, I'm leaning towards you purposely misinterpreting for the sake of your own arguments.  Some part of me hopes that I'm wrong, though lol

Mandalore76 said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

For the record before this goes on, I'm losing track of all these quote trees, so if a response is somehow in the "wrong" spot, I apologize hahaha

Iwata had a tendency to focus on end-user experiences, likely because he was a game developer moreso than a company suit. Since this is all predictive, there's a reason I said "think".

But I do think he cared about our gaming experiences, and I'm willing to bet he would have handled online services very differently. Do I think he would have pulled off getting voice chat built into the Switch after its release? I can't tell on that, but I'm willing to bet he would have understood forms of communication in games far better than what we ended up getting (I even tried that Nintendo Online app, gawh don't get me started on that, either... I really shouldn't need this app just to track my Splatoon 2 stats, put that shit IN the fucking game!).

Let's not forget, and this is something I'm going to be talking about in my Steam Deck video: the Wii U actually came BETTER EQUIPPED for communication than the Switch. Ironically, he likely had a hand in the Switch's development, but how we went from a Wii U that could, in and of itself, do video chat and had its own social community (Miiverse) to literally NONE of that is baffling. I think Iwata might have spearheaded Miiverse migration of some sort at the least instead of just axing it so that people could have their own Nintendo social space like the Wii U era.  I don't have an inkling (har har) of how he'd have handled Virtual Console, though...

Remember: Miiverse led to some impact in social spaces beyond itself and led Xbox to attempt their own form of it on the Xbox One (Xbox actually still has community posting where you can even do posts and LFG for games that don't have matchmaking, so they actually KEPT it moving forward).

Again, key word is "think", as I'm basing this on perceived personality from interviews, etc.

Kai_Mao said:

I think Nintendo is in a healthier place now than they were in the Wii U/3DS era and I think most would agree on that. Let’s not forget that they were losing money for a few year during the Wii U/3DS era. You can complain about their current issues, but they were struggling during the previous era and kind words aren’t gonna suddenly make your business healthy.

In regards to “anti-consumer” tendencies, it wasn’t as if Nintendo never had those during their down years.

Whether you think their latest sports games are lazy or not, they’re likely just following the Splatoon playbook of updating games to keep consumer engagement. That’s part of the reason why Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will continue to see surges in sales even beyond 2023 with its DLC.

Nintendo is still making great games like Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Kirby and the Forgotten Lands, etc. They’ve published at least close to dozens of titles every year. How many publishers can do that?

If the content is there, then people will continue to buy Nintendo Switch and their software. It’s still selling well in the Americas and Europe and is completely dominating Japan even in year 5 of its lifecycle. Nintendo must be doing something right in that regard.

I just deleted and realized that I'm duplicating what I'm saying to you in a response further down about 3rd party games and attach rates.

But if you end up reading the novel, you'll be inadvertently responded to. The part I didn't delete is:

People always assume if sales are good, then something must be right. It's a strange thing because this exact narrative happened during the Wii era, and yet looking back, despite there also being some quality titles on the Wii (I mean, Super Fucking Mario Galaxy!), the dust has settled and some people realized that sales were not necessarily directly correlated with "great games" because the attach rate showed otherwise. Instead, it proved to be a total casuals and "grandmas bowling machine" system despite how deep that system made Nintendo's coffers.

Hell, I used this example once again: CoD sells like hotcakes every year, even at its worst.  CoD must be doing something right, RIGHT?  Or is that just copy-paste garbage every year...

Bayonetta 3 is coming a massive 8 years after Bayonetta 2 (and by gawd have I been such a begger for a sequel!), and I'm guaranteeing you it was greenlit despite poor sales of the Wii U and of Bayonetta 2 during the Wii U's ending lifespan KNOWING it would release on Switch (though I personally think it got delayed, but not publicly as no release date or window was ever placed, for it to be coming this far into the Switch).

In order to support the theory that Nintendo makes more/better decisions during success (this isn't exactly what you're saying, but it's implied in this thread), it would have had to be greenlight DURING the start of the Switch era in which they watched the sales success and chose to make the decision, and then decided to greenlight Bayonetta 3 (though, I admit that COULD have been possible given the time windows even though it's confirmed not to be the case).

I, too, have lived through Nintendo. That's kind of the issue: the signs have always been there. The first sign of it was when the NES and SNES (albeit less than its predecessor) did so well and Nintendo would enforce things on third parties like limiting game development quantity and signing forced exclusivity contracts. A lot of that vanished as their consequent hardware not only sold poorly, but third parties decided that wasn't worth the trouble. I said above, Nintendo made mistakes during down periods, too, but those periods are what saw fundamental shifts. The N64 and GameCube was their attempt to win back third parties (though, considered largely unsuccessful), decisions made as console sales slumped and lessons needed to be learned.

As for naming off travesty releases, I'm pretty sure the Switch is beating the Wii U in a shorter lifespan with milked/mid games. We'll have to disagree on Metroid Dread being a big step up, though: not only is it more an upgraded and expanded Metroid Samus Returns, but I just can't agree with that in the face of Metroid Prime. Prime was the big, BIG step up, and is largely regarded as such by and large, too. Dread was the fan service, a bit of filler to give us Metroid fans something to chew on while waiting for the obvious big hitter, Metroid Prime 4.  I honestly can't see otherwise when I have three Prime games that vastly outdo Dread.  I actually LIKED the motion controls on Wii in Prime 3, I thought that was rather immersive and impressive...

I think we're just going in circles, no one's saying the Switch isn't succeeding, but that it's success is going to lead Nintendo to continue more and more towards the path of greed. What was once the Nintendo fandom's "quality over quantity" has suddenly conveniently reversed to "quantity, look how many exclusives!" when many of those are of the same quality as many games found on other systems not on the Switch, or in some cases lower.

Besides, I said it a long time ago, different thread and video, but a large part of the Switch's success is that it's grabbing the handheld DS/3DS crowd. After the 3DS, the Nintendo handheld crowd has nothing except the Switch, so the Switch has essentially combined the console and handheld fanbases. The other part is that 25% of Switch sales are to existing Switch owners, and also in said other thread I mentioned that the Switch is more seen as a personal device while PS5s and XSXs are seen as household devices. There is more "one Switch per kid" than there is "one PS5/XSX per kid".

That, and winning over people with stronger software is a whole different discussion since the attach rate is ostensibly worse for many titles that should see much larger numbers. This would indicate that many people are likely buying one game for multiple Switches. Many games still don't see "sales success" on the Switch: Metroid Dread selling 3 million on 110 million Switches as an exclusive IP is a bit rough. It is my belief that Metroid Prime 4 will do better if the game is made to the quality I'm expecting and hoping for so that it grabs more of the non-Metroid fans.

Alex_The_Hedgehog said:

Well... I don't have a Switch, but I'll try to show my point of view.

Nintendo did a lot of right things with the Switch, and they are supporting the console. We have a lot of praised games from Nintendo and some third parties like Capcom, Konami, SEGA, and others. I still think they should be more ambitious when it comes to hardware power, and I don't understand why they are releasing Splatoon 3 on Switch. To me it feels like they are going to cut support to Splatoon 2 to make people upgrade to Splatoon 3 and get some extra cash. But well, any company could do that, it's not exclusive to Nintendo.

What Zyro said applies to all companies. But I don't see Nintendo being the "bad guy" with the Switch. Also, its success don't affect Sony or Microsoft, so anyone that feels like they are being bad for the consumers, they could just don't pay for it, and go to Playstation or Xbox.

Oi, don't get me started on Splatoon. A game I've poured hundreds of hours into, and it's just... hurting me a bit that Splatoon 3 hasn't shown me a whole lot that couldn't be just an expansion for Splatoon 2 (and since it's on the same system, as you mentioned, it literally COULD be an expansion if they wanted to).

Of course, there's the real argument against me once again: I plan on buying Splatoon 3. Ugh... And that highlights your statement about going PS or Xbox: that's exactly what people have done. If Nintendo hadn't pissed off third parties so long ago, then fell behind in hardware so badly with the Wii and up, things might be different, now. Almost everyone I actually know who has a Switch literally has another primary system they "play more" on because the Switch is missing too many third party games (like Elden Ring). Nintendo fanboys will just say, "none of those games interest me", but the truth is that many of those games sell crazy numbers to lots of people who are interested. Nintendo hurt itself with third parties during its successful monopolization of the NES/SNES era, turned away Sony, and gave birth to their biggest competitor. They're recovering and swinging the other way (twice if you include the Wii), but here I am discussing the reality that this may in turn give them the power to corner their own "Nintendo" market instead of playing nice with everyone in order to compete.  And in response, its own fanbase tries extra hard to buy and "support" Nintendo only to find out what kind of decisions happen when you willingly just hand your money over to a company for any game you think is "good" because it's exclusive.

Naturally, based on this thread, I'd rather they need to compete. Then I might actually get built-in voice chat, better hardware, big third party games, etc. etc. lol (the Switch successor will more than likely have it or Nintendo WILL look truly dumb af).  I mean, some part of me can easily imagine how Elden Ring would have led to good times on Miiverse he he he

Kakadu18 said:

Page 2 for me.

The irony of "intellectually honest" is that you conveniently ignore the type of response to a video that actually contained no targeting of anyone except the obvious blind fanboy in two 5 second clips. I mean, this entire thread contains so much "intellectual" irony: now you've got some dude complaining about the length of it (which is hilarious, how in the world does the length of a thread get in his feels lol), saying it's clickbait (which is commonly used incorrectly to define something they don't like, actual clickbait is the use of deception and misinformation to *dun dun dun* get someone to click, the title of the video is what the video is about, that's not clickbait even if it uses hyperbole and offends the whole Nintendo fandom at its worst); and then you've got personal attacks on me by people I don't even know over a video that wasn't about them... You speak of "intellectual", but here you are adding nothing to the thread. You'll probably take the scape goat route of saying it's not worth your time or something (or hopefully nothing at all), but hey, mobbing is easy.

Now if someone made a video about "Why ZyroXZ2 Sucks and is Stupid!", then you'd see me respond like people in this thread, sure. But seeing as how my video isn't about anyone on here, I'm getting a bit of a side chuckle about how some people can get so stirred up without actually being attacked.

"I don't like the texture of mangos"

"Wtf, you're stupid and wrong, mangos are amazing, here's all the reasons why you're so full of shit"

JWeinCom said:

The reason people are acting vexxed with you because your arguments are so profoundly terrible that it appears you are trolling. Yet, despite how absolutely bad the arguments are, you are still somehow condescending and whining that criticism is because of bias.

Case in point, Bayonetta 2. Released in 2014. With a full port of the first Bayonetta. Most likely, the decision came, at the latest, in early 2012 (and even that's a huge stretch), when Nintendo was still swimming in Wii money like Scrooge McDuck. When someone brought up other decisions made during this time, like Nintendo's youtube policies, you attributed those to the Wii, yet somehow this decision, made while the Wii was actually still active, is attributed to the Wii U's failure which hadn't happened yet.  Cause fuck logic and consistency. You could argue it was because they realized the Wii U was going to struggle, but that defeats your whole argument. That would show that even while they're successful, Nintendo does not think they are invulnerable, and still work on deals to improve their offerings.

Moreover, you are cherry picking examples, which is literally all you've done to support your argument. When anyone points out the obvious flaws, your reaction is "well Nintendo made this bad decision while they were successful so HAHA FANBOY I WIN!" Which doesn't actually prove anything, because nobody is arguing that Nintendo only makes good decisions when they're successful, and pointing to individual bad decisions made, on its own, doesn't prove any larger pattern. All you've shown is that Nintendo can make bad decisions while successful, congrats.

Meanwhile, you ignore any examples to the contrary (or make lulzy attempts to attribute them to success or failure to suit your needs regardless of timing or logic). The most obvious here are Wonderful 101, Astral Chain, and Bayonetta 3. Wonderful 101 started development on the Wii. Since it launched in early 2013, you gotta figure Nintendo agreed to the project at 2010 the latest, more likely 2009, earliest 2008. So, at the peak of the Wii's success, they were willing to fund a rather similar project to Bayonetta 3. And in 2019, they again released a Platinum project, Astral Chain. And in 2022, Bayonetta 3 will release. Not to mention Nintendo has published other projects like Ultimate Alliance 3, Triangle Strategy, Octopath Traveller, Bravely Default 1/2/Second, Monster Hunter Tri (in the US), Fitness Boxing, Professor Layton, Yokai Watch (US), Dragon Quest IX, Lego City Undercover, Ninja Gaiden 3 Sigma, Metal Gear Solid Twin Snakes, Fatal Frame, Baiten Kaitos, etc etc. You can't argue that publishing Bayonetta is somehow caused by Nintendo's failure, because this is something Nintendo has consistently done. Considering the release dates of these games, some of them were greenlit during successful periods, and others during unsuccessful periods. It's kind of like Nintendo is generally willing to pay for the development of games they think will be successful on their platforms, because that's literally their business model. At best your argument is ill-informed, and at worst willfully dishonest.

The combination of the condescension, whining about how people aren't disagreeing with you the right way (there's a report button if they're breaking anyrules), your insistence that anyone who disagrees is a fanboy, and just how utterly bad your arguments are is why you're getting this reaction. Because you come off as a troll. 

So, if you're not, and you're actually interested in honest conversation, here's your chance. You can just ignore the rest of the post, and we can start fresh.

You said that you don't think Bayonetta 2 would have been made if not for the Wii U's failure... which hadn't happened yet. That is one possibility. Another possibility is that Nintendo was more financially stable than Sega and was more willing to take a risk. Another is that Nintendo's success with the Wii made them feel that the Wii U would be a large enough market to make Bayonetta 2 profitable. Another explanation is that Nintendo simply is willing to fund third party projects they think will be successful, and their current level of success isn't directly related to the decision.

So, if you think your explanation is the correct one, what evidence supports that? 

See above about Bayonetta 3, I responded to someone else about Bayonetta. However, if your focus is on Bayonetta 2, assuming one of us didn't make a typo on the number or my memory isn't going bad in this thread, then yes they clearly greenlit something to bolster the Wii U knowing full well their third party support continues to be a sticking point. They also greenlit some other third party titles in an attempt to build better third party support, who said there aren't any games coming?  The thing is, that's not what this is about as we are straying off the topic with third party support being its whole own capable thread/video topic. I never said, "there are no good third party exclusives", either.  But if this is the more important route for you, then look at the Switch's top selling games and you'll very quickly see how much you see the word "Mario" and realize how much they're pushing the branding moreso than library diversity. Then look at the steep dropoff in attach rate as you go down the list. And yet somehow, someone's telling me Nintendo fans would know better than to just buy whatever Nintendo chucks out at full price. Reasonable people call the Switch a "Mario machine", and how are they wrong? Nintendo's all for milking this Mario stuff with lots of low effort titles because y'all keep buying it. Ya know, something I addressed in the video but somehow y'all keep arguing it despite numbers staring you right in the face.

Is this not literally the point of it all? Their downturn with the Wii U led to making more decisions to push third party games (and exclusives), and you're seeing that spill over on the Switch. But INSTEAD of using this success to keep moving this momentum in the forward direction as time moves on, they instead pump out even more half-effort, fast turnaround "Mario" games and low effort exclusives that we can all visibly see spent little time in development on a lower budget than they deserved... while completely ignoring legacy IPs like F-Zero and Star Fox... And let's not talk about how many re-releases the Switch took up. Isn't everything you're saying EXACTLY what I'm talking about?  Then, if you toss in your tangential discussion about third party games... 

Nintendo fans love "quantity" when it's convenient, then talk "quality" when there's not enough games. The thing is, Nintendo's "quality" games have been pretty overall sparse for the Switch's 5 year lifespan, and in some cases are a shockingly successful milkings like Mario Kart 8 or other re-releases which somehow get touted as "now I can play it on the go!" like it totally matters in the grand scheme of things. And the best part is that during that time without the channel, I specifically made sure to buy those better efforts to support that thinking, like Astral Chain and Mario+Rabbids (despite it saying, Mario, I knowwwww), but I know factually I'm not the only one just taking quantity at face value and saying things are great. Nintendo's core offerings have not been as great as Nintendo fans would try to convince you of where every mid to good exclusive game is instead "amazing, great, another banger, Switch exclusives just piling up!".

So no, I don't think it's just them running a business model independent of their success, there is definitely a shift in fundamental choices (and there HAS to be, you really think these suits paid full time to work for Nintendo don't respond to market shifts, financial reports, and projections?). You think my arguments are half assed, too, but I just ignore obvious misinterpretations, mostly by the fools who didn't watch anything and have no idea what's going on in the video and are so adamant about not watching it that they have no choice but to follow the mob. Nowhere in the video do I say the Switch is bad (as for hardware, that's a whole different day!). Nowhere do I say the Switch isn't getting any good games at all. Heck, the entire video is about the warning signs and the idea that Nintendo fans need to more closely choose their purchases as Nintendo grows into corporate greed because corporate greed is always the enemy, but about 75% (OH LOOK, HYPERBOLE!) of the thread responders have NO CLUE that's what it's about because they just rolled with a title that offended them and some dude getting mad about it. And you wonder why I say "mob mentality"...

And your statement about the copyright part is a bit confusing, btw. You say I attributed their heightened response to copyright protection during the Wii era (which I did), then say I attributed it to the Wii U's failure. So either I've got a typo in there somewhere, or you're misinterpreting something. I say that Nintendo chose to tighten their copyright leash during the Wii era, a continual sticking point with them as a larger overall decision made when they felt they could (success). I don't know how you got that I tied that to the Wii U, I tied that to a sign that a company's success is leading them to make decisions like that. That's clearly in the video, even lol... What's worse is PlayStation is starting to show clear signs, and it seems to me they're also heading towards that success point where they start deciding, "hey, fuck 'em, the repercussions won't outweigh the increased profits". Don't be surprised if they do enough over the years and I make a nearly identical video for PlayStation fans, lmfao!... Speaking of which, I am literally working on a video about that $10 increase in game prices because of things like God of War where you're paying an extra $10 to access haptics, 3D audio, and better graphics/framerate which you already paid for when you bought the PS5 hardware. You buy the hardware that does it, then you pay more EACH time to actually have it used in your games? Like, wtf...

In closing, though, stuff like this always gets some chuckles out of me. There's no need for a report button because people calling "bullshit" and that I'm just desperate for clicks (though, I AM desperately trying to make a difference in gaming, and we can all see how THAT's going, hahaha) isn't against any rules. Being toxic towards others isn't generally a punishable offense until it gets severely personal (like mysogyny, racism, etc., obvious offenders), which is why it happens so much when the anonymity of the internet offers protection and opportunity. But if you wonder why I ignore or don't really respond like you'd expect, it's because I can easily determine who's actually trying to disagree versus who's just trying to attack me. Little do they know they are a dime a dozen in gaming, there's actually MORE of them than there are civilized people. That may be true in general, too, but like I said before, gaming has an oddly disproportionate amount. Y'all ever been in public voice chat CoD lobbies? Yea? Then you know what I mean lmfao... Now find some public place in real life where people are behaving like that. The closest you'll get is a bar or club where alcohol is involved, and it still isn't a bunch of dudes talking the weirdest mysogynist shit or name-calling expletives at the top of their lungs over a fucking headshot in a videogame... Something's absolutely 100% unhealthy about a large portion of social behaviors in gaming which is why it earns itself the stereotypes and general disdain by the public.

And it's going to stay that way so long as the behavior continues because it pushes out people who don't want to be around these types of toxic people. The best I can do is decide whether or not I'm going to engage them at all, so you say "lulz" responses, but some of those responses are half ignoring people just looking to attack, not because of a lack of response. Then there's a sub discussion about Wii U sales vs profits, but I responded to that without quoting each response by both because I already saw what happened when I tried to (and you, too) quote everything I could, heh... I hope you realize this sucks up an hour or more at a time, I'm not on infinite time. Each of you is responding to one person (me), while I'm responding to all of you (many).  I have the far harder end to keep track of...

----------------------------------

And to the other guy about the Joy Con: Nintendo could have easily afforded to start rolling out upgraded Joy Con along with the OLED 5 years into this Switch lifespan and slowly sell through into it as well as continue replacements of affected Joy Con WITH said upgraded Joy Con. But to hell with that, right? That would have required effort on behalf of keeping their consumers happy as the problem became more and more prevalent (despite it not affecting me because my old Joy Con had about 20 hours on them total, and my new swoled Joy Con have about 3 hours on them).

I'm going to respond to a number of your different points to other people.  Apologies if they aren't in any particular order.

Regarding Miiverse, yes, for the people who owned a WiiU, Miiverse was a very versatile community app on the system.  But, outside of the Nintendo-sphere, it was heavily derided by the fanbases of other consoles.  It wasn't that long ago, on this very site, that someone was waxing nostalgic about Miiverse, and without fail, someone from one of the other consoles was in the thread to dismiss it as "wasn't that just a place where people drew pictures?".  I also remember people criticizing even Nintendo's implementation of a "Like" button in Miiverse.  Because, Nintendo chose to call them "Yeahs", there was no shortage of people to call it the kiddie version of other platform's Like system.  But, how many different ways are there to show appreciation for a post out there?  Facebook has Likes, Twitter has the Heart icon, this site uses a Thumbs Up for "agree", etc.  Nintendo chose to differentiate their forums with "Yeah".  Who cares?  Anyway, Nintendo was pretty clear about why they shutdown Miiverse.  They saw it as a "walled garden" and didn't want to keep the Nintendo community closed off from the more varied forms of social media out there.  Also, I'm sure they decided themselves to be better off not having to mod and police an entire social network anymore.  That's why they built the Switch album to be able to directly send screenshots and videos directly to Facebook or Twitter.  Honestly, I preferred Miiverse.  When I posted a screenshot or a comment to Miiverse, I knew that I was posting directly to a community of fellow gamers, and with each game having its own forum, would mostly be communicating directly to other people playing that game.  I almost never send screenshots or videos to Facebook, because I know that the majority of my family and friends don't share avidly share that same interest.  Miiverse was like having a personalized achievement system.  If something happened in a game that I was particularly proud of thought was cool, I would share that to Miiverse and feel infinitely more satisfied by it than slogging away in the same area of a shooter, because a dev on another system says I need to kill a certain enemy type with a very specific weapon a ridiculous number of times so that an on screen pop-up can pat me on the back for it.  Point is, while I agree with you that Nintendo should have maintained Miiverse and implemented it into the Switch (it had been added to 3DS without the 3DS having been built with it in mind), I also understand Nintendo's reasoning behind dropping it.

Regarding the Wii, it takes a lot of knocks regarding software sales, in order to get painted as the casual "grandma's bowling system" as you put it.  

Mario Kart Wii - 37.38m
New Super Mario Bros Wii - 30.32m
Super Smash Bros Brawl - 13.32m
Super Mario Galaxy - 12.8m
Mario Party 8- 8.5m
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - 7.4m
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - 7.26m
Donkey Kong Country Returns - 6.53m

Those numbers stack up pretty well compared to the top selling games of other console libraries.  And that list wholly excludes Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, Wii Fit Plus, and the numerous Just Dance releases.  And, as far as "Mario Games" making up the bulk of the list, here's a snapshot of the top selling PS3 games (a 7th Gen competitor of the Wii):

PlayStation 3

1.Grand Theft Auto V2013ActionTake-Two Interactive6.488.220.893.8619.45
2.Call of Duty: Black Ops II2012ShooterActivision4.845.520.602.4613.42
3.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32011ShooterActivision5.475.650.491.6013.21
4.Call of Duty: Black Ops2010ShooterActivision5.874.310.481.8012.45
5.Gran Turismo 52010RacingSony Computer Entertainment2.904.780.812.1110.59
6.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 22009ShooterActivision4.953.590.381.6110.54
7.Grand Theft Auto IV2008ActionTake-Two Interactive4.693.650.441.5910.36
8.Call of Duty: Ghosts2013ShooterActivision3.763.530.381.929.59

*This was taken from the VGChartz database in 2015 for my thread: Dispelling the myth that Wii did not move software

Notice a particular name or 2 (Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto) that is consistently repeated?  This goes to another point that you mentioned about Nintendo lazily relying on the Mario name to crap out low effort titles to fill Nintendo's top software selling lists.  Super Mario Odyssey is anything but a lazy cash grab on the Mario name and deserves every one of its 23m+ sales.  You criticize Nintendo for "milking" Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, a game that Nintendo is still providing DLC tracks for 5 years after release.  And yet, you later contradict this position by lamenting that Nintendo is releasing Splatoon 3 instead of "milking" DLC for Splatoon 2?  Also, Nintendo fans totally call Nintendo out when they don't consider a Mario title up to snuff.  Super Mario Party on Switch is the highest selling title in the franchise, in part because Nintendo course corrected away from the previous iterations that had all the players travelling together in a car rather than individually across the board.  Paper Mario: The Oragami King is enjoying great sales, because it was by in large considered a much improved game over the previous entries (Color Splash and Sticker Star).  Not everything sells like gangbusters just by having Mario's name in the title.  As for the re-releases of Wii U games making up a large part of the Switch's software library, that was bound to happen.  The Wii U sold less than 14m consoles lifetime, yet had some great games developed for it that a lot of people missed out on.  Any Switch owner who didn't want to double dip didn't have to.  I didn't rebuy NSMBU Deluxe, because I had already 5 starred the game on my Wii U.  Meanwhile, you have The Last of Us being released on an 86m selling console, it's 117m selling successor console, and being remastered yet again for the successor of it's successor, all in a span of 10 years.

Now, with regards to Nintendo's handling of 3rd Parties in the NES era, you have to take the whole scope of the video gaming industry into account in the mid-80's.  Nintendo had begun selling its software titles with success on the Atari 2600, Colecovision, and Intellivision.  But, the North American Video Game Crash of 1983 happened, and they no longer had an console to sell their games on in the West.  So, they decided it was time to attempt to bring the Famicom over.  But in doing so, they had to be VERY careful to avoid the mistakes that Atari had made which enabled the crash.  That's why the conscious decision was made to restrict 3rd parties with what has been referred to as Nintendo's "draconian policies" of limiting any 1 developer to not releasing more than 5 games in a given year.  Because, let's be serious, did Activision really need to release 13 games on the Atari 2600 in 1983 alone?  Nintendo's NES era policies may not have been considered 3rd party friendly, but it was Nintendo taking the heavy financial risk of releasing the hardware for those games to play on in the first place.  They had alter the Famicom's appearance to make it look more like a VCR, and bundle it with R.O.B. so that retailers who were gunshy about stocking a video game system in their store would accept it.  So again, these were policies born more out of necessity than anything else.

And yes, Nintendo did merge 2 separate hardware divisions, home console and handheld.  But that doesn't handwave explain its runaway success.  The Wii U managed less than 14m units sold, and the 3DS less than 76m.  Switch has since blown past that combined total.

I'm running short on time (gotta finish Xenoblade 3 for review!), but I actually mention Activision above and the general sentiment applies. Though, this becomes tangential because PlayStation purposely picked up the marketing rights to CoD for this very reason you showed. If anything, you highlighted how important third party support is and how Nintendo still lacks it (no CoD at all on Switch; even if you hate it, it moves numbers).

Who's lambasting Super Mario Odyssey? We know their mainline Mario games are much larger efforts, that's always been the case. What the "Mario" branding gets slapped on is the issue, however, with them not showing that they're making any bigger efforts in this arena, hence me mentioning Mario Strikers Battle League in the video......  It is commonly accepted that against its predecessors, it does not stand up, and that's not me getting my knickers in a twist over no Daisy (despite it being legit that she was in every Strikers title at launch UNTIL Battle League, though she's there, now!).

And Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, you mean the PORT of the Wii U game, with DLC that is existing tracks? I mean, that's great, but the fact that one of the Switch's top selling games is a Wii U port is not exactly helping your case. I reviewed it and to this day feel it's the best Mario Kart ever made, but that doesn't change the reality that it's still a Wii U port getting existing tracks remade for DLC, though I'm pretty sure their decision to include that in the NSO+ was made out of *dun dun dun* the overall negative sentiment about NSO+. That's hypothetical, but NSO+ is pretty widely frowned upon, there's no way Nintendo isn't working to "sweeten" that deal, especially in light of both competitor's sub services offering vastly better value despite being more expensive.  Of course, I don't think this'll turn into GTAV and last FOREVER while we die waiting for Mario Kart 9, but come on, Mario Kart 8 isn't a good example of "effort".  In fact, many of the tracks don't even stand up to Mario Kart 8's own core tracks in overall visual fidelity...

It's true that the NES/SNES era was very different, and even if you say that their restrictive policies where beneficial, they made little effort to reverse that until the GameCube era. That's the pattern I'm talking about, they seemed very uninterested in third parties until their analysts watched other systems thrive on third party titles. Again, tangential topic we keep seeming to talk about in this thread lmao

Lastly, I can't remember the exact number and I think I stated it incorrectly somewhere above, but somewhere between 20-25% of Switch sales are repeat sales. You look at how the 3DS sold worse than the DS as well, and it's likely that some DS owners simply skilled the 3DS and waited for what was next (the Switch). Based on their overall markets, the Switch is still well within "combined" markets up to 150 million, even. Especially if you consider the Wii market and that a portion of them likely SKIPPED the Wii U due to crappy marketing, and the Switch being a combined userbase is very feasible even if there's literally no way to be specific without asking each and every Switch owner haha

zorg1000 said:

Quote trees!!!!!

Honestly, I'm sorry... But in my defense, I have to respond to the mob; people responding to me need only pick out the part they want to beef with me about lmfao

Chazore said:

My god, people, would it kill some of you to cut down the damn quote trees to a respectable size?.

I still don't know why this thread is ongoing, because it's already become evident that OP isn't going to persuade nor win the hearts of those on here trying to dismantle any point he could possibly make.

OP is probably best to just not bother with making any sort of Nintendo thread in the future, because I've noticed in my years on here that it tends to rattle the cage, and once it opens, there's no going back 9And this is why I don't make threads about my joycons breaking and hardly anyone giving a fuck because they got their Nintendo fun fix to just shrug about a pair of £70 gamepads).

Just don't bother with Ninty threads OP, you'll save yourself a tar and feathering.

Sorry sorry, but I have more people to respond to in reverse of people responding to me singularly lol

I'm really not interesting in the thread continuing on, but I don't ignore people simply because they disagree with me.  EVENTUALLY, if it comes to it, of course I just give up, but I think people have a pentient to avoid disagreement and that's also a bad thing.  Disagreeing is healthy, it creates proper discussion and allows people to "share" their thoughts, even if adversarily.  There's, of course, some need to maintain civility or it turns into a "fight" and no one gains much from that.  I'm still going to talk Nintendo in the future, though... I mean, I grew up on them, they're the reason I still do gaming: it's a part of my childhood I don't wish to give up.

Wman1996 said:

Nintendo being successful isn't a threat or detrimental to me. However, them being as successful as now (or a little more or less) does hurt.

I want a Nintendo that is successful enough to where there's not the Wii U droughts, but not successful enough to be more arrogant than they already are.

THANK you, it's all about balance.  I don't want anyone, not even Nintendo, sitting at the top.  But you also don't see me talking about Nintendo going out of business or going third party...

Kai_Mao said:
Wman1996 said:

Nintendo being successful isn't a threat or detrimental to me. However, them being as successful as now (or a little more or less) does hurt.

I want a Nintendo that is successful enough to where there's not the Wii U droughts, but not successful enough to be more arrogant than they already are.

It doesn’t really make sense though. What is successful enough? They’ve been arrogant at times regardless of how they’re doing. They’re stubborn one way or another regardless. Why you think that even though they finally used discs for the GameCube that they still managed to use smaller discs instead of the standard DVD discs that the PS2 and Xbox were using at the time?

The 3DS was successful enough, but even then they made weird decisions around it. Some people even complained that the New 3DS XL at the time didn’t come with an AC adaptor when it was initially released overseas. 

There are always mistakes, but the point of it is balance.  Nintendo isn't balancing their efforts right now, they have so many things they COULD be doing with this insane cash flow, but instead you get a SWOLED for $50 more than the base version using the same hardware that is likely a fraction of what it cost at launch to make now.  Anyone with half a brain can easily see how the SWOLED should have replaced the base model and the base model get pushed down to $250.  But you know, when something is selling like this and you can make the money, why not, right?  I have a SWOLED, I compared it, there isn't a $50 price increase in that thing, an obviously greedy move that also there is some general sentiment of agreement.  Example: other consoles release "slim" versions that ALSO often see hardware efficiency improvements (usually in the form of die shrinks), and those release AT THE SAME PRICE as the base model while the base model goes DOWN in price.



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
Around the Network
ZyroXZ2 said:

For the record, I'm not actually trying to keep this thread going lol...

Anyway, here we go!

curl-6 said:

"Quality over quantity" only gets you so far when you end up with systems like Wii U that have a small number of great games, but very little else to play besides them. 

What the Switch offers is quantity of quality; it has tons of excellent games from both first and third party developers. The droughts of the Wii U and for that matter the N64 and Gamecube are solved now because its sales are enough to bring in copious third party support.

That's the fundamental difference between successful Nintendo and struggling Nintendo; the former has games from other developers to fill the gaps between first party releases, while the latter has to depend on only their own games which leads to terrible droughts.

Your central premise is that Nintendo's success is my "greatest enemy", when in fact, as I've explained repeatedly, it actually benefits me greatly.

When Nintendo succeeds, I have more to play, and am therefore happier as a gamer. It's as simple as that.

Also, while this is a tangent I won't go into in depth, Metroid Dread is already the highest selling game in the history of the series. It's just a relatively niche franchise and always has been.

I disagreed with it earlier, the Switch isn't getting "copious" third party support, not when you're missing the vast majority of major releases and getting old ports. This is the "quantity" thing that's not quite representative of what's happening. I get that I wrote novels, so maybe you missed it, but I talked about that third party support still being pretty bad, especially when Nintendo spearheaded getting Resident Evil exclusivity with 4 which would later become its core and most popular template (and remake template!) and yet, the Switch barely got RE5 TEN years after its release, and then RE6 SEVEN years after its release... as ports, not even proper remasters. I can list so many major third party games that are well received that just outright skipped the Switch. Some franchises of which, like RE, were on Nintendo stuff before. So to say you have SOME third party support moreso than Wii U, sure, I can agree, though that's STILL not the topic at hand, here, since that is truly a massive whole discussion on its own. Nintendo has always struggled in this arena...

I mean, you don't have any of the modern RE titles (VII, VIII, RE2R, RE3R), you didn't even get DMC5, and these are games coming from a company that DOES support the Switch. I start naming off other big games like Elden Ring, FFVIIR, CP2077, none of the CoDs after Ghosts (and this one is more important than some want to admit because CoD DOES actually sell big numbers), etc., let alone the games I mentioned in the previous reply that would have done GREAT with Nintendo fans (like Tales of Arise, Code Vein, Scarlet Nexus, etc.). I can't pretend that somehow the Switch's better 3rd party support is anything more than a tiny step, but still leaves the system rather high and dry and its fans have to seek out lower effort titles to fill these gaps. This doesn't mean that you can't ENJOY those games, but if you look at what someone's choices are when Elden Ring released, even Sony couldn't touch that with HFW. Third party support is as important as ever, and again, we ARE on a tangent topic here about 3rd party support, but I'm still not going to run around and pretend Nintendo's got good third party support. Also again, many of the "bigger" titles come to the Switch later, though I was someone who gave credit to WB for bringing MK11 to the Switch AT LAUNCH. Probably one of a very low number of AAA games that launched alongside everyone else.

We will truly have to disagree about third party support.  You would agree "quantity does not equal quality", but I can't say the third party support is both quantity AND quality when some of THE highest quality games skipped the Switch, let alone the quantity where the efforts match indie games coming to other platforms that, again, also don't always come to the Switch.  I'd agree more with you if you said the Switch has copious indie support, but I can't say 3rd party.

Though, semantics: I refer to indie and 3rd party separately (as most people do).  If you're including indie in your definition of 3rd party, then it skews it a little in your favor, but still doesn't quite match up with anything close to the 3rd party support that every other platform gets along with said indies.

Third party support may not be on the level of PS/Xbox/PC, but there is still tons of great stuff to play. There may be some room for improvement, but for my money, it's still good.

Looking at my own collection, (And I'm quite picky) the likes of Monster Hunter Rise, Witcher 3, Doom 2016/Eternal, Ori and the Blind Forest/Will of the Wisps, Hellblade, 13 Sentinels, Dusk, Wolfenstein II, Sniper Elite 4, Yooka Laylee and the Impossible Lair, Crash Bandicoot 4, etc have kept me thoroughly entertained over the years.

And while I'm not someone who is into indies or pre-PS4 ports myself, those are still legitimate third party support as many people do in fact love indie games or missed out on some older games.

There's many other big games I personally passed on but which represent meaningful additions to the Switch's library for many others, like Skyrim, Fortnite, Hollow Knight, Rocket League, Mortal Kombat 11, Dragon Quest 11, Undertale, Minecraft, Dark Souls, Overwatch, etc.

Looking ahead, there's games like Nier Automata, Hollow Knight Silksong, Diofield Chronicle, Harvestella, Crisis Core, Oddworld Soulstorm, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Sonic Frontiers, Lord of the Rings: Gollum, Lara Croft and the Temple of Osiris/Guardian of Light, Another Crab's Treasure, Persona 5, and more still to come.

Switch doesn't need to have as many AAA blockbusters as PS4 to still have copious support; those are not the only kind of worthwhile third party support. As a Switch owner it provides for me very well even without COD, GTA, Elden Ring, etc. There is lots to play in between big Nintendo releases.

And almost all the third party support it has is down to the fact that it is successful enough to make it financially desirable for companies to bring their games over.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 12 August 2022

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

I need them to constantly be challenged. Hopefully the Steam Deck can give them reason to try harder in all they do.



KLAMarine said:

I need them to constantly be challenged. Hopefully the Steam Deck can give them reason to try harder in all they do.

Hard to challenge a console when it’s not available at mainstream stores (online and/or retail) and when it’s supposedly going to be more expensive in other countries like Japan (where Switch is king there at this point).

Anyway that OP’s recent set of responses is long. All I can say to him is that it’s too much cherry picking. Nintendo has developed a lot of quality content (whether it’s within EPD or with IS, Monolith Soft, Game Freak, Next Level, etc.). Nintendo has made weird decisions with the Switch, not surprising because they’ve done it with their other consoles (whether they were successful or not). There’s no way the Switch would be in position to surpass the PS4 on LT hardware sales (which was released ~3 years before the Switch) and is about to reach the 1 billion mark for LT software sales through just Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon. There have been notable successes on Switch first party wise. Including:

- Monolith Soft establishing itself as a powerhouse of a studio with Xenoblade 2, Torna, Xenoblade Chronicles DE, and now Xenoblade 3. Not to mention it had a hand in big games such as BoTW, Splatoon 2 (and likely 3), and Animal Crossing New Horizons

- Next Level Games released Luigi’s Mansion 3 and Mario Strikers Battle League. Not to mention being bought by Nintendo to establish itself as a competent first party studio

- Metroid is in a start of a renaissance with Metroid Dread (the best selling game in the franchise) and, hopefully, Metroid Prime 4

- Animal Crossing is a highlight game in a year of uncertainty and uneasiness and exploded as a game that stood among every other big game besides maybe Among Us

- Splatoon is a signature franchise when the success of 2 showed it had staying power. Not to mention it’s still huge in Japan

- Unique revivals such as Famicom Detective Club remakes, Cruisin’ Blast, and, eventually, Advance Wars 1+2 Reboot Camp

- Ring Fit Adventure being a unique exercise RPG that’s still selling well despite being primarily a physical release

Overall, Nintendo is doing well and the industry is better off with it compared to an irrelevant Nintendo. Sure there’s room to improve but they’ll slowly get there.



1. As for Bayonetta- Yes, I thought you meant Bayonetta 1/2 on Wii U. Which I think would be the natural thought when you talk about a Bayonetta game and Wii U in the same sentence. Naturally I figured you meant the game that was released on Wii U, not the one coming out 5 years into the Switch's life, because why on Earth would I have thought that. And Bayonetta 2 was actually a risky proposition, whereas Bayonetta 3, as I'll discuss later, really isn't. If that's not what you meant fine, but I'm not "accusing you" of anything. The problem could have been solved by saying Bayonetta 3 and was completely on your end. Your response to the other person doesn't clarify things at all, and seems like a non-sequitor to me. And I likely didn't read it because there are a million quote trees going on.

But really the correction is immaterial. If you agree with my point, as you seem to, that Nintendo greenlit Bayonetta 2 during a successful period, then it makes no sense to claim that Bayonetta 3 is something they would have only done because the Wii U flopped. Because clearly, they are willing to take chances during successful periods, at least sometimes, on rather similar projects.

2. "Shifting to Nintendo: the Wii U is selling poorly, despite their already-made investment in Bayonetta 2 and they aren't about to cancel that despite the Wii U doing badly. It releases, and ALSO sells pretty poorly despite people such as myself giving it critical acclaim. So you're Nintendo, doing badly, which is when a company tends to listen. They know (by now) that their third party support continues to remain far from ideal. This is as close to proof as it gets on your particular example: Nintendo chose to greenlight another sequel despite the numbers themselves literally saying to do otherwise. This is in complete contrast to companies during successful periods where their "suits" tend to look at what's making numbers and pour more resources into that rather than "riskier" projects. This is a common pattern in business, and you watched Activision do it, Ubisoft do it, and even EA."

If that is your best proof, you've got none. The numbers did not tell them that they should not make another Bayonetta game. It really doesn't take a marketing genius to realize that the Wii U's failure was harming the sales of pretty much every franchise and game on there. By the time Bayonetta 3 was announced (which seemed very early in development and possibly before any actual development had started), the Switch was close to or had already surpassed the Wii U's sales. Seeing as the games old 860K on the Wii U, which wasn't really that poor in context, they had pretty good reason to think it would be profitable on the Switch which was already going to clearly slaughter the Wii U in terms of sales. 

Obviously I don't know how the actual decision was made, but there is a perfectly logical reason to publish Bayonetta 3, absent any consideration of Nintendo's overall financial situation or "success" level. It was pretty clearly a good decision in a vacuum. Again, they could safely assume the bare minimum sales was 860k, and could conservatively estimate at least a million. So, there's really zero justification that we have the Wii U to thank for this game being released in 2022. 

3. As for Splatoon, that's why I keep saying you're cherry picking. Because you're cherry picking. You are picking out individual data points, and using them to try and argue that there is a broader pattern. That is literally what cherry picking is. 

Splatoon development started in 2013. So definitely greenlit when Nintendo was going through a rough patch. But, all that proves is that Nintendo sometimes, or at least on time, greenlits good products or New IP during unsuccessful periods, something nobody has disputed. 

But correlation does not imply causation. We would expect that Nintendo is always going to try to release games that will be successful, so some of those will be made during unsuccessful periods, and others will be made during successful periods. Again, we can look at Bayonetta 2. That was a project that was considered a risk (Sega and others passed on it), but Nintendo took the risk while they're successful. Or we could look to one of those low effort Mario titles, Mario Tennis Aces in this case, which shows that they also release safe mediocre titles when they're unsuccessful (development would have started in the Wii U era).

We could probably go for a while pointing out good games made during unsuccessful times, good games made during successful times, etc but that gets us nowhere. If you want to prove anything, you'd have to do some actual analysis showing more ambitious or riskier games are greenlit significantly more often during unsuccessful periods (not just pulling out single examples which is literally cherry picking) or specific evidence that certain games were reactions to either success or lack of.

And yeah, that'd be a lot of work, but if you want people to take your opinions seriously, that's what you have to do. If the evidence doesn't exist then it doesn't, then all you have is speculation, and nobody should give a shit. There are a LOT of people rambling about their opinions on the internet.

Also, development was started in 2013. When people brought up decisions made in 2014, such as Nintendo's Youtube policies, you said they were made because of the Wii's success. So why would this decision be attributed to the Wii U's failure? The most likely answer is confirmation bias. You made the decision first, and are trying to cram any piece of data into your narrative, whether it fits or not.

4. As for my comments about Mario being dishonest... come the fuck on.

"But if this is the more important route for you, then look at the Switch's top selling games and you'll very quickly see how much you see the word "Mario" and realize how much they're pushing the branding moreso than library diversity. Then look at the steep dropoff in attach rate as you go down the list. And yet somehow, someone's telling me Nintendo fans would know better than to just buy whatever Nintendo chucks out at full price. Reasonable people call the Switch a "Mario machine", and how are they wrong? Nintendo's all for milking this Mario stuff with lots of low effort titles because y'all keep buying it."

Your comment about Mario mentioned the overall quantity of Mario games multiple times. Your said people reasonably call it a Mario machine. What does that have to do with quality? If they were good Mario games would it not be a Mario machine?  You specifically said branding over diversity was a problem, which again, has fuck all to do with whether the Mario games are good or not. Why did you suggest looking through the top sellign Switch games if your point was about quality? Are only low effort Mario titles gonna be there?

You had a bit about low effort at the end, but that was not the focus of the paragraph, and it's litereally elementary school level writing advice to start your paragraph with a topic sentence that expresses the main idea. I can't say what you meant, but based on what you actually said, it was completely reasonable to infer that the number of Mario games was at least part of, and most likely the main part of your complaint there. If that's not what you meant, you did a terrible job of expressing yourself, and any misunderstanding is entirely your fault. Full stop. Stop blaming other people for your content sucking. Either that, or you're just trying to move the goal posts.

But if low quality is the issue, then fine. Prove it. Plenty of resources to give a fairly objective determination of game quality. So go nuts. 

5. Like I said earlier the logic here is completely fucked. Nintendo, at any given point, is going to make some "good" decisions, and some "bad" decisions. All you're doing here is arbitrarily sorting them to fit your narrative, and then saying "SEE I WAS RIGHT!"

Bayonetta 3 launching in 2022? Clearly because of the Wii U failure.

Mario games launching between 2017 and 2022? Clearly because the Switch is successful. 

Splatoon starting development in 2013? Clearly because the Wii U was failing.

Nintendo issuing mass DMCAs in 2014? Obviously because the Wii was a success. 

There is consistency of any kind here. Because you're not going off evidence or any kind of logic. Regardless of when a decision is actually made, if it's a good one, it's attributed to some kind of failure, and if it's a bad one, it's attributed to success.

Bottom line is, you just saw something you felt was a pattern, and insisted it was the case. But the thing is that human beings are ABSOLUTELY AWFUL at pattern recognition. Or, maybe it's more accurate to say that we're so good at it that we often see patterns where there is none. So, what you should do if you expect anyone to give a shit, is actually analyze the available date in some sort of objective way, or come up with confirmable concrete examples. Otherwise, you just have unsubstantiated speculation stated with a ludicrously unwarranted degree of certainty. In other words, click bait. And in trying to defend that click bait, you have come up with increasingly absurd arguments to justifty it.

I'm not really interested in debating it any further, (unless you're planning on actually producing some sort of evidence or logical argument) as you've yet to provide any sort of evidence beyond more unsubstantiated speculation. 100 pages in all you've produced is a mountain of bullshit, and whenever challenged you just pile more on. If you actually want to somehow help the gaming industry or consumers, or whatever, bone up on logic and reason. Cause the criticism you're getting is 100% warranted.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 12 August 2022

Around the Network

So when I think your arguments are dumb, it means I can't keep up. Of course. Are you trying to tell me I'm dumb? Do you really want to go there and then thank another poster for not getting personal?

And now Ring Fit Adventure is a "low effort" game. That's just your (unpopular) opinion.
The attach rate of games past the few top selling ones dropping fast is the case with every single console to ever exist. That argument is therefore mute.

Again the stuff you say about Mario games is beyond ridiculous and begins to look like a conspiracy theory. Do you think they are making more "low effort" Mario games than they did for the Wii U or the Gamecube? Well they don't. The Gamecube had 4 Mario Party games, but the Switch having 2 is some horrendous thing because every fucking sequel should just be an expansion to the previous game. Splatoon 3 should also be DLC, right?

The fact that you have the audacity to pretend like you were never talking about the number of Mario games, spinning what you yourself said in posts we all read and can reread right now, just to be able to keep arguing about this nonsense is beyond me.


You say there's a general sentiment that the Switch is just a Mario Pokémon machine. I haven't ever seen anyone ever say something like that. It feels like you made that up. You might as well say the same thing about any Nintendo console.
You're just trying to degrade the Switch library and set up the false idea that the Switch does not have a great library and that most people actually agree. You're ridiculous.

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is imo actually a great effort. They did not just rerelease it with the DLC included. They also improved various things like the Battle mode (which is one of the reasons why many consider it to be better than the Wii U version).
None of your arguments actually support your idiotic idea that it's terrible when Nintendo is successful.
None of your arguments work.

And btw, you should shorten the quotes in your replies. The annoyance to scroll through that starts getting as annoying as reading your drivel.

Last edited by Kakadu18 - on 12 August 2022

Kakadu18 said:

So when I think your arguments are dumb, it means I can't keep up. Of course. Are you trying to tell me I'm dumb? Do you really want to go there and then thank another poster for not getting personal?

And now Ring Fit Adventure is a "low effort" game. That's just your (unpopular) opinion.
The attach rate of games past the few top selling ones dropping fast is the case with every single console to ever exist. That argument is therefore mute.

Again the stuff you say about Mario games is beyond ridiculous and begins to look like a conspiracy theory. Do you think they are making more "low effort" Mario games than they did for the Wii U or the Gamecube? Well they don't. The Gamecube had 4 Mario Party games, but the Switch having 2 is some horrendous thing because every fucking sequel should just be an expansion to the previous game. Splatoon 3 should also be DLC, right?

The fact that you have the audacity to pretend like you were never talking about the number of Mario games, spinning what you yourself said in posts we all read and can reread right now, just to be able to keep arguing about this nonsense is beyond me.


You say there's a general sentiment that the Switch is just a Mario Pokémon machine. I haven't ever seen anyone ever say something like that. It feels like you made that up. You might as well say the same thing about any Nintendo console.
You're just trying to degrade the Switch library and set up the false idea that the Switch does not have a great library and that most people actually agree. You're ridiculous.

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is imo actually a great effort. They did not just rerelease it with the DLC included. They also improved various things like the Battle mode (which is one of the reasons why many consider it to be better than the Wii U version).
None of your arguments actually support your idiotic idea that it's terrible when Nintendo is successful.
None of your arguments work.

And btw, you should shorten the quotes in your replies. The annoyance to scrolls through that starts getting as annoying as reading your drivel.

Yes. He was saying you are dumb. His demeanour is faulty, but you can’t make a narcissist see or understand that about himself.



OP has too much time on his hands.

I never watched the video, I don't do clickbait.



Good Lord, people out here writing whole extended cut thesis and insulting each other's intelligence discussing Nintendo games.



This thread is a gift that keeps on giving.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments