Why do Nintendo's new Switch IPs get called "failures"?

[Casual Shinji]

Because despite how much money Nintendo earns, everyone in the West wants to call Nintendo a failure because they refuse to just do what Sony and Microsoft do.

If that were true why would Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey be considered such a success by the West? Or any of the other Switch exclussives for that matter. Or the Switch itself. Can you really point to any Western gaming media source that claimed the Switch or the Switch library was a failure in any way compared to Sony and Microsoft? Because I think you'll find that Microsoft is actually getting the brunt in that regard. Nintendo has been getting pretty much nothing but praise this generation.

Thats because the Switch is whoring itself out to last gen games. Oh wow, Skyrim on the Switch? A game from 2011. Whoopdeedoo, add it to my pile of Skyrims.

Wait, what does the Skyrim port or the Switch "whoring itself out to last gen" have to do with what I said about the Switch getting a lot of praise this gen? Because I don't think most people think of the Switch as 'just that system that has last-gen ports on it'. No more than the PS4 has anyway. Uness I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

 

[Squilookle]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

Yes, but once again, the Wii's major problems foreshadowed the problems the Wii U would continue to carry to a worse degree. The Wii U on the other hand I would not call a success, even though I liked the console. Not enough to keep it, and I traded it in to get a Switch.I do admit to having some minor regrets, because Nintendo is too stupid to not do a port of Wonderful 101. The problem with Nintendo at that time was that they were expecting for lightning to strike twice with the Wii U by hoping to capture that casual audience again. Not realizing that yes, the Wii sold a lot of units, but how many of those casuals stuck with Nintendo? Not many. You believe the amount of people I have known or met who had a Wii, but according to them only got it for Wii Sports or the occasional Mario, and not much else. After playing those games, they did not do much with the console and had it sitting their collecting dust. Hell, this was problem for even die hard Wii fans at times that varied from person to person.

The marketing for the Wii U was a disaster, because Nintendo would assume the casual audience would buy it due to brand name alone. A tactically dumb decision, because a majority of that casual audience was confused as fuck or moved on to casual things like mobile gaming. You won't believe how many parents or kids for that matter who thought the the console was an upgrade to the Wii, and not an entirely new console itself. The Wii U itself kinda pulled a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast to me at least.

The Switch still gets ports, don't get me wrong, but Microsoft, Sony, and certain other publishers are just as guilty of porting last gen games to current consoles. Especially Sony if we're talking console makers.

Medievil remaster again anyone?

Dude, there has not been a MediEvil game since 2006 on the PSP. If they made an entirely new entry, most young people would not know who Sir "Motherfucking" Daniel is. You are right that it is another remake, but this one I don't have much problems with. I understand where Sony is coming from on this one,

 

[Yoshi178]

The Switch still gets ports, don't get me wrong, but Microsoft, Sony, and certain other publishers are just as guilty of porting last gen games to current consoles. Especially Sony if we're talking console makers.

Medievil remaster again anyone?

Dude, there has not been a MediEvil game since 2006 on the PSP. If they made an entirely new entry, most young people would not know who Sir "Motherfucking" Daniel is. You are right that it is another remake, but this one I don't have much problems with. I understand where Sony is coming from on this one,

if only Medievil was the only remaster Sony put out...

 

[BrawlMan]

The Switch still gets ports, don't get me wrong, but Microsoft, Sony, and certain other publishers are just as guilty of porting last gen games to current consoles. Especially Sony if we're talking console makers.

Medievil remaster again anyone?

Dude, there has not been a MediEvil game since 2006 on the PSP. If they made an entirely new entry, most young people would not know who Sir "Motherfucking" Daniel is. You are right that it is another remake, but this one I don't have much problems with. I understand where Sony is coming from on this one,

if only Medievil was the only remaster Sony put out...

Like I said before, they are all guilty of doing this. No point in splitting hairs.

 

[Squilookle]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

Yes, but once again, the Wii's major problems foreshadowed the problems the Wii U would continue to carry to a worse degree. The Wii U on the other hand I would not call a success, even though I liked the console. Not enough to keep it, and I traded it in to get a Switch.I do admit to having some minor regrets, because Nintendo is too stupid to not do a port of Wonderful 101. The problem with Nintendo at that time was that they were expecting for lightning to strike twice with the Wii U by hoping to capture that casual audience again. Not realizing that yes, the Wii sold a lot of units, but how many of those casuals stuck with Nintendo? Not many. You believe the amount of people I have known or met who had a Wii, but according to them only got it for Wii Sports or the occasional Mario, and not much else. After playing those games, they did not do much with the console and had it sitting their collecting dust. Hell, this was problem for even die hard Wii fans at times that varied from person to person.

The marketing for the Wii U was a disaster, because Nintendo would assume the casual audience would buy it due to brand name alone. A tactically dumb decision, because a majority of that casual audience was confused as fuck or moved on to casual things like mobile gaming. You won't believe how many parents or kids for that matter who thought the the console was an upgrade to the Wii, and not an entirely new console itself. The Wii U itself kinda pulled a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast to me at least.

Mate, I couldn't care less about the Wii U. I'm not talking about the Wii's shortcomings, or Nintendo's long term business strategy. Don't care what games were bought for the system, the marketing, the casual audience or any of that shit.

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

Yes, but once again, the Wii's major problems foreshadowed the problems the Wii U would continue to carry to a worse degree. The Wii U on the other hand I would not call a success, even though I liked the console. Not enough to keep it, and I traded it in to get a Switch.I do admit to having some minor regrets, because Nintendo is too stupid to not do a port of Wonderful 101. The problem with Nintendo at that time was that they were expecting for lightning to strike twice with the Wii U by hoping to capture that casual audience again. Not realizing that yes, the Wii sold a lot of units, but how many of those casuals stuck with Nintendo? Not many. You believe the amount of people I have known or met who had a Wii, but according to them only got it for Wii Sports or the occasional Mario, and not much else. After playing those games, they did not do much with the console and had it sitting their collecting dust. Hell, this was problem for even die hard Wii fans at times that varied from person to person.

The marketing for the Wii U was a disaster, because Nintendo would assume the casual audience would buy it due to brand name alone. A tactically dumb decision, because a majority of that casual audience was confused as fuck or moved on to casual things like mobile gaming. You won't believe how many parents or kids for that matter who thought the the console was an upgrade to the Wii, and not an entirely new console itself. The Wii U itself kinda pulled a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast to me at least.

Mate, I couldn't care less about the Wii U. I'm not talking about the Wii's shortcomings, or Nintendo's long term business strategy. Don't care what games were bought for the system, the marketing, the casual audience or any of that shit.

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

Still does not change what happened, and I would not recommend ignoring those events. Those that ignore history or don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat it. And you can get the point across without acting snippy.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

It was a success for Nintendo but not for gamers; the game library was easily the worst of its generation and motion controls were a step backwards.

 

[Yoshi178]

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

It was a success for Nintendo but not for gamers; the game library was easily the worst of its generation

Yeah people should've just gone and played board games instead of wii games.

i mean, why even play videogames when we have board games instead right Phoenix? :3

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Like the movie industry, even if you make money, it's considered a failure if you don't make as much as you projected you would. Which is the case of a lot of Nintendo's lesser IPs.

 

[themistermanguy]

Like the movie industry, even if you make money, it's considered a failure if you don't make as much as you projected you would. Which is the case of a lot of Nintendo's lesser IPs.

The problem with that logic, is that nobody knows what the internal expectations for a product are, except the company who put it out. So people can claim ARMS is a failure all they want, but if Nintendo happy with the performance of the game, then that's all that really matters.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

It was a success for Nintendo but not for gamers; the game library was easily the worst of its generation

Yeah people should've just gone and played board games instead of wii games.

i mean, why even play videogames when we have board games instead right Phoenix? :3

When one medium is in a golden age and the other medium is probably the worst it's ever been, where you do think any rational person is going spend the majority of their time with?

When the community for one medium is hoping their next big thing is as good as a 20-year old game, it's kinda sad. Whereas the community of the other medium wouldn't be caught dead playing a NEW game with the same mechanics as something made 20 years ago. Even TotalBiscuit started putting board games on his Top 10 games of the year lists like Captain Sonar.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Like the movie industry, even if you make money, it's considered a failure if you don't make as much as you projected you would. Which is the case of a lot of Nintendo's lesser IPs.

The problem with that logic, is that nobody knows what the internal expectations for a product are, except the company who put it out. So people can claim ARMS is a failure all they want, but if Nintendo happy with the performance of the game, then that's all that really matters.

It's not *my* logic. It's how the big studios work. If they don't make as much as they thought they would they call it a failure. Doesn't help to compare sales with something actually successful. In less time Mario Odyssey sold 7 times the amount Arms did.

 

[themistermanguy]

It's not *my* logic. It's how the big studios work. If they don't make as much as they thought they would they call it a failure. Doesn't help to compare sales with something actually successful. In less time Mario Odyssey sold 7 times the amount Arms did.

Mario Odyssey and ARMS are two different games for two different audiences. It's unfair to compare a large-scale, high-budget Mario adventure, to a lower-budget, 3D Fighting game, a genre that's already niche to begin with. The fact that ARMS did as well as it did is enough to consider it a success. It doesn't matter how much it sold compared to some other game, if it made money and sold well, it's a success. Nintendo has never considered ARMS a disappointment or failure in any way, and they supported it for 2 years despite its more limited sales. I think it's safe to say they consider it a success.

Big companies like Nintendo don't set an impossible universal sales target all their products need to reach to be successful, that's a terrible way to run your business. Instead, they measure sales potential for their releases on a case-by-case basis factoring in budget, target audience, and marketability for said target audience. At least, that's how any smart corporation who wants to make money would operate.

 

[Squilookle]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

Yes, but once again, the Wii's major problems foreshadowed the problems the Wii U would continue to carry to a worse degree. The Wii U on the other hand I would not call a success, even though I liked the console. Not enough to keep it, and I traded it in to get a Switch.I do admit to having some minor regrets, because Nintendo is too stupid to not do a port of Wonderful 101. The problem with Nintendo at that time was that they were expecting for lightning to strike twice with the Wii U by hoping to capture that casual audience again. Not realizing that yes, the Wii sold a lot of units, but how many of those casuals stuck with Nintendo? Not many. You believe the amount of people I have known or met who had a Wii, but according to them only got it for Wii Sports or the occasional Mario, and not much else. After playing those games, they did not do much with the console and had it sitting their collecting dust. Hell, this was problem for even die hard Wii fans at times that varied from person to person.

The marketing for the Wii U was a disaster, because Nintendo would assume the casual audience would buy it due to brand name alone. A tactically dumb decision, because a majority of that casual audience was confused as fuck or moved on to casual things like mobile gaming. You won't believe how many parents or kids for that matter who thought the the console was an upgrade to the Wii, and not an entirely new console itself. The Wii U itself kinda pulled a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast to me at least.

Mate, I couldn't care less about the Wii U. I'm not talking about the Wii's shortcomings, or Nintendo's long term business strategy. Don't care what games were bought for the system, the marketing, the casual audience or any of that shit.

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

Still does not change what happened, and I would not recommend ignoring those events. Those that ignore history or don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat it. And you can get the point across without acting snippy.

Good lord man- if I ask you which mountain is the tallest, are you going to write me an essay on the collision of the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates too? Maybe you'd like to weigh in on the disputed Kashmir region and the warfare that China, India and Pakistan have waged there? Or tell me all these facts about K2 or the Eiger while you're at it?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I should mention that you can count me as one of those people who actually love ARMs.

Or more over should I say I love the concept.

It was a tech demo. But all it did was highlight how not ready the joy-cons were for controlling a game like that.

Fast forward to the future where I bought Fitness Boxing, and was into it until it came to more challenging combinations. The internal gyros didn't re-calibrate fast enough to register a lot of my punches.

For a family trip, I got Just Dance for some of the kiddos. The Joy-cons again couldn't keep up with the best of dancers.

Again, I stress a need for Pro Joy-cons. No, I wouldn't mind paying extra because it's a game-play option finally near perfection that is hampered by a shoddy, slapped together product.

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah I don't remember anyone calling the Wii a failure, and that was about as far from what Microsoft and Sony were up to at the time as it is possible to get

The Wii was a success, but it's problem was lack of third party support. It got a decent amount, but by 2011 the support had just dropped in an instant. Foreshadowing what would happen with the Wii U, when the console did not have much third party support at all, but a few or the indie.

So in other words: 'Yes, the Wii was called a success.'

Yes, but once again, the Wii's major problems foreshadowed the problems the Wii U would continue to carry to a worse degree. The Wii U on the other hand I would not call a success, even though I liked the console. Not enough to keep it, and I traded it in to get a Switch.I do admit to having some minor regrets, because Nintendo is too stupid to not do a port of Wonderful 101. The problem with Nintendo at that time was that they were expecting for lightning to strike twice with the Wii U by hoping to capture that casual audience again. Not realizing that yes, the Wii sold a lot of units, but how many of those casuals stuck with Nintendo? Not many. You believe the amount of people I have known or met who had a Wii, but according to them only got it for Wii Sports or the occasional Mario, and not much else. After playing those games, they did not do much with the console and had it sitting their collecting dust. Hell, this was problem for even die hard Wii fans at times that varied from person to person.

The marketing for the Wii U was a disaster, because Nintendo would assume the casual audience would buy it due to brand name alone. A tactically dumb decision, because a majority of that casual audience was confused as fuck or moved on to casual things like mobile gaming. You won't believe how many parents or kids for that matter who thought the the console was an upgrade to the Wii, and not an entirely new console itself. The Wii U itself kinda pulled a Sega Saturn or Dreamcast to me at least.

Mate, I couldn't care less about the Wii U. I'm not talking about the Wii's shortcomings, or Nintendo's long term business strategy. Don't care what games were bought for the system, the marketing, the casual audience or any of that shit.

All I said was that the Wii was considered a success. You agreed. End of story.

Still does not change what happened, and I would not recommend ignoring those events. Those that ignore history or don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat it. And you can get the point across without acting snippy.

Good lord man- if I ask you which mountain is the tallest, are you going to write me an essay on the collision of the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates too? Maybe you'd like to weigh in on the disputed Kashmir region and the warfare that China, India and Pakistan have waged there? Or tell me all these facts about K2 or the Eiger while you're at it?

I can't help, but feel you're taking this way too personally. Whatever; your problem, not mine. I'm not gonna derail the thread, so moving on and you have a nice day.

 

[CaitSeith]

Citation needed, OP.

 

[CaitSeith]

Probably because they're games that speak primarily to the non-geek crowd.

It's not the sales numbers it's the geek appeal that determin success or failure in the eyes of "gamers".

Because despite how much money Nintendo earns, everyone in the West wants to call Nintendo a failure because they refuse to just do what Sony and Microsoft do.

If that were true why would Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey be considered such a success by the West? Or any of the other Switch exclussives for that matter. Or the Switch itself. Can you really point to any Western gaming media source that claimed the Switch or the Switch library was a failure in any way compared to Sony and Microsoft? Because I think you'll find that Microsoft is actually getting the brunt in that regard. Nintendo has been getting pretty much nothing but praise this generation.

Thats because the Switch is whoring itself out to last gen games. Oh wow, Skyrim on the Switch? A game from 2011. Whoopdeedoo, add it to my pile of Skyrims.

Last gen? No. More like all past gens. Several publishers have released games from lots of past generations. Square-Enix alone has been remastering and re-releasing games from GB, NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 in the Switch. Heck! I saw on the game store the other day a remaster of a C64 game for the Switch!

Spoiler: Mission impossible

 

[Squilookle]

I can't help, but feel you're taking this way too personally and having the need to be right. Whatever, your problem not mine. I'm not gonna derail the thread, so moving on and you have a nice day.

It's nothing to do with being right- I'm sure your statements are true. I'm just glad the exchange has been allowed to conclude.