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

Forums - Gaming - Hilarious wrong predictions

Polygon predicted in 2014 that Mario Kart 8 would be the worst selling game in the series.

Even on Wii U they were wrong, with it comfortably beating Super Circuit and Double Dash; once you count it's sales on Switch though, it went on to become not only by far the best selling Mario Kart game ever, but one of the highest selling full retail games of all time:

https://www.polygon.com/2014/5/15/5718168/mario-kart-series-sales



Around the Network

I thought the Wii U would be a success.

As for those in the media:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/22/the-playstation-vita-is-set-to-succeed

"For better or for worse, Vita will be pitted against the Nintendo 3DS. But the comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and even if you were to pit them against each other, Vita is still destined to sell better. That's because in addition to games (which Nintendo 3DS is still sorely lacking), it's also a much more powerful machine capable of doing a whole lot more than 3DS."



Steamdeck vs Switch. Saw so many bad takes when it launched.



The world belongs to you-Pan America

curl-6 said:
HoloDust said:

Sure, but they sold less then their predecessors, and not by a small margin.

Others beat me to it but GBA sold at an incredibly rapid pace and simply had a shorter lifespan due to the arrival of DS and PSP, while SNES faced much more intense competition than the NES and ultimately vanquished its rivals.

They were still both very successful systems.

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.



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.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
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:

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.

Because it never worked for them in the sense that whenever they went with conservative, sensible, safe approach, which is standard successor console, that successor sold less then its predecessor. So, while a lot of those consoles were success in the vacuum, they were step down in sales from previous offering.



HoloDust said:
curl-6 said:

What does that have to do with the post you jumped into the conversation with though? You initially responded to this:

curl-6 said:

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.

Because it never worked for them in the sense that whenever they went with conservative, sensible, safe approach, which is standard successor console, that successor sold less then its predecessor. So, while a lot of those consoles were success in the vacuum, they were step down in sales from previous offering.

Not setting a new record doesn't mean a console didn't work out though. By that standard every Playstation since PS2 didn't work for Sony.



SAguy said:

Steamdeck vs Switch. Saw so many bad takes when it launched.

Oh, that's prolly not about to end depending on which circles you frequent because PC enthusiasts kinda forgot that the PC handheld space is basically a niche into itself that's not exactly competing with the switch ecosystem. Seems like selling about less than 5% of your "competitor" current numbers makes you the "hottest s**t" however. 



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

curl-6 said:
HoloDust said:

Because it never worked for them in the sense that whenever they went with conservative, sensible, safe approach, which is standard successor console, that successor sold less then its predecessor. So, while a lot of those consoles were success in the vacuum, they were step down in sales from previous offering.

Not setting a new record doesn't mean a console didn't work out though. By that standard every Playstation since PS2 didn't work for Sony.

Never said it doesn't work, just,historically for them, not as well as when they go with something new.

Not really true for Sony though, PS1=>PS2 worked, PS3=>PS4 worked, PS5 is yet to be seen, though I highly doubt it will reach PS4 numbers.



HoloDust said:
curl-6 said:

Not setting a new record doesn't mean a console didn't work out though. By that standard every Playstation since PS2 didn't work for Sony.

Never said it doesn't work, just,historically for them, not as well as when they go with something new.

Not really true for Sony though, PS1=>PS2 worked, PS3=>PS4 worked, PS5 is yet to be seen, though I highly doubt it will reach PS4 numbers.

SNES/GBA sold less than their predecessors due to external factors, nothing to do with them being iterative. Those historical instances also all took place under entirely different circumstances to today.

This has gone way off topic though and is threatening to derail the thread.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 01 June 2025