HoloDust said:
I didn't say they were not, just not as successful as their immediate predecessors. Just what I think will be the case with SW2. |
What does that have to do with the post you jumped into the conversation with though? You initially responded to this:
curl-6 said:
LegitHyperbole said:
So essentially they have completely fucked themselves and if this fails they have to completely reorganise the company again. If it fails what are they going to do? It's not like they are hurting for money and they can get through it but if their now handheld and combined console fail...what exactly does that look like? If the economy is stagnant then people will stay on the Switch, this isn't back then this is a new scenario of things that are completely stacked against them for any move forward if it fails or underperforms to leaning back on the Switch, maybe they didn't realise that at the point of the Switch 2's conception and if they didn't figure it out half way they had to have read the signs in the last year or two... or perhaps not, maybe they only figured it out as Trump made moves. Idk, I just see indecision in the Switch 2... or maybe that's an industry wide thing, improve on what's good and don't stir things up. ...still, I see decisions in the Switch 2 of not knowing what direction to go at some point in it's development, images of suits scratching their heads come to mind when I view it broadly now. |
Their direction is clear; they are sticking with the hybrid form factor that proved enormously popular, and doing a standard successor console with a generational leap in power and a simple self-explanatory name. It's the logical course of action and it has worked for decades. |
Then proceeded to claim that direct successors never worked for Nintendo.
That implies that SNES and GBA did not work for Nintendo, yet clearly they did as they were the #2 and #3 highest selling consoles of all time in their day, outsold all competition, and provided lucrative ecosystems.