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

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

It's a trend I've noticed a lot with Nintendo's new concepts on Switch, whenever it doesn't do Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Smash Ultimate, or hell, Wii Sports numbers, it automatically is deemed a failure, even before official numbers and expectations come out. 1-2 Switch? Failure (sold 3 million), ARMS? Failure (Sold 2 million), Nintendo Labo? Failure (Sold over a million with sales increases last holiday, and just had a new kit released with decent sales)

The only exceptions to this rule are Snipperclips, which was eShop only in its original run, Astral Cahin, which many considered a success, and Sushi Striker, a game that actually failed. 2 million is not a failure, at all. You may not like these games, but they have an audience, and are some of the Switch's best selling titles. Do people honestly think Nintendo expects everything to catch on like Splatoon or have the same audience as it? Or is it because these IP are reminiscent of the filthy Wii era, and thus, need to hold them to the impossible Wii Sports standard to justify their argument? Also if ARMS and Labo were such failures, why does Nintendo keep promoting them regularly?

Nvm, misread that.

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.

Because there is now an insane metric. The time where more people owned "Breath of the Wild" than people who owned Nintendo Switch itself.

It's the call of duty effect. Once you see those sales are possible, anything other than that is disappointing.

People just need superficial reasons to bash on games they think are trash.

1-2 Switch, Paperbuggabaloo and ARMs easily fall into the category of "easily dislikable games".

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".

Saelune:
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.

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

ObsidianJones:
Because there is now an insane metric. The time where more people owned "Breath of the Wild" than people who owned Nintendo Switch itself.

It's the call of duty effect. Once you see those sales are possible, anything other than that is disappointing.

In my eyes, if sales are that good on the system, then in theory, games like ARMS selling 1-2 million copies is great because you can take more risks with a title, and still have it break even with a sizable audience and profit.

TheMisterManGuy:
It's a trend I've noticed a lot with Nintendo's new concepts on Switch, whenever it doesn't do Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Smash Ultimate, or hell, Wii Sports numbers, it automatically is deemed a failure, even before official numbers and expectations come out. 1-2 Switch? Failure (sold 3 million), ARMS? Failure (Sold 2 million), Nintendo Labo? Failure (Sold over a million with sales increases last holiday, and just had a new kit released with decent sales)

The only exceptions to this rule are Snipperclips, which was eShop only in its original run, Astral Cahin, which many considered a success, and Sushi Striker, a game that actually failed. 2 million is not a failure, at all. You may not like these games, but they have an audience, and are some of the Switch's best selling titles. Do people honestly think Nintendo expects everything to catch on like Splatoon or have the same audience as it? Or is it because these IP are reminiscent of the filthy Wii era, and thus, need to hold them to the impossible Wii Sports standard to justify their argument? Also if ARMS and Labo were such failures, why does Nintendo keep promoting them regularly?

Because imbeciles like to hear themselves talk, sound smart, or think they're the smartest in the room. Ignore them.

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.

TheMisterManGuy:

ObsidianJones:
Because there is now an insane metric. The time where more people owned "Breath of the Wild" than people who owned Nintendo Switch itself.

It's the call of duty effect. Once you see those sales are possible, anything other than that is disappointing.

In my eyes, if sales are that good on the system, then in theory, games like ARMS selling 1-2 million copies is great because you can take more risks with a title, and still have it break even with a sizable audience and profit.

Congratulations, you just found your own answer and truth. That is all that matters.

Because how many people actually still play or talk about Arms or Labo?

Labo was a silly little gimmick for children (that I had honestly forgotten even existed until this thread), and Arms was a rather mediocre fighting game overall.

The metric isn't how they sold, it's whether anyone still actually cares about them after initial sales. Wasn't Nintendo trying to get hardcore fighting game players into Arms? Exactly how well did that go? Do you see any Arms tournaments around?

If Nintendo just wanted to make a game that sold decently well, and then that game sold decently well then it's a success. If Nintendo wanted to create an install base of a specific kind of gamer using a game, and then that didn't happen, then that game is a failure regardless of how well it sold.

By the same metric, Batman v Superman made Warner Brothers almost a billion dollars, but I don't think very many people would consider that movie a resounding success.

Dirty Hipsters:
Because how many people actually still play or talk about Arms or Labo?

Hrmm, how many people still play or talk about most single-player games that aren't intended to be an ongoing thing? Haven't heard many people talk about Nioh or Hellblade for a while, and those were both solid, successful games. It's just that they weren't intended to be an ongoing experience years after you've played them.

Silvanus:

Dirty Hipsters:
Because how many people actually still play or talk about Arms or Labo?

Hrmm, how many people still play or talk about most single-player games that aren't intended to be an ongoing thing? Haven't heard many people talk about Nioh or Hellblade for a while, and those were both solid, successful games. It's just that they weren't intended to be an ongoing experience years after you've played them.

I haven't heard of anyone talk about Hellblade, but I heard a conversation about Nioh literally yesterday.

Every time a new Souls-like comes out it gets talked about, and it's getting a sequel relatively soon.

Because most Nintendo new IPs aren't full-fledged games like say Wii Sports or ARMs, there're more like mini-games. For example, Sony's High Velocity Bowling as a much better bowling game than the bowling in Wii Sports.

TheMisterManGuy:
The only exceptions to this rule are Snipperclips...

Because Snipperclips is a great innovative game.

Some of the games you listed as failures can be attributed to the fact that relied too much on gimmicks.

ARMS is essentially a Motion Controlled game I think and most casual players would rather play Wii Sports Boxing or something to that effect.

The Switch can have its own IPs that are amazing, Astral Chain proves that. They just need to make more games like that and Octopath Traveler.

Casual Shinji:
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".

Saelune:
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.

Samtemdo8:
Some of the games you listed as failures can be attributed to the fact that relied too much on gimmicks.

ARMS is essentially a Motion Controlled game I think and most casual players would rather play Wii Sports Boxing or something to that effect.

Nintendo always designs their games to leverage the capabilities of their hardware. It's been that way since forever.

Saelune:

Casual Shinji:
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".

Saelune:
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.

That's only partially true. While the Switch had plenty of ports in the beginning from last gen or 3ds, it's gotten plenty of original titles and indie games (many with physical released mind you). It's a matter of people bothering to look. It's amazing all the Switch games I have seen at my local Best Buy or GameStop that aren't just ports. The Switch is continuing find its own appeal and it's working for Nintendo. With that said, there are still several flaws that Nintendo won't address: shitty online, the fact online is not free anymore (I don't care if the price is 20; sooner or later the price will be 40 on the next Nintendo console), no back up or cloud savings for 98% of the games, and if you're Switch is broken, lost, or stolen, you ain't getting that data back. That is why I never take my Switch any where unless I am going over to a friend's place.

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.

Saelune:

Casual Shinji:
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".

Saelune:
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.

i like how you cherry pick Skyrim and ignore all the ports of more modern 3rd Party games like Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein 2 & young blood, Overwatch and the Crash & Spyro Trilogy's that have been put out on the system

CoCage:

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?

Saelune:

Casual Shinji:

Saelune:
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.

CoCage:

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.'

Squilookle:

CoCage:

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.

Yoshi178:

CoCage:

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,

CoCage:

Yoshi178:

CoCage:

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...

Yoshi178:

CoCage:

Yoshi178:
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.

CoCage:

Squilookle:

CoCage:

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.

Squilookle:

CoCage:

Squilookle:

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.

Squilookle:
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.

Phoenixmgs:

Squilookle:
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

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.

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.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

Squilookle:
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.

TheMisterManGuy:

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.

Johnny Novgorod:

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.

CoCage:

Squilookle:

CoCage:

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?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here