-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should Nintendo have waited for the Fall to launch Switch?
- Thread starter guek
- Start date
Gaiaknight
Member
no cause they lineup atleat from Nintendo would have been the same zelda at launch with 1 casual game and maybe another game and then everything else spaced out within the year blowing your load early is never a good thing.
DecoReturns
Member
There doesn't seem to be too much harm releasing it now.
Plus if Mario does come out this year. The console becomes a must own for me.
Plus if Mario does come out this year. The console becomes a must own for me.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
If they're gonna wait until the fall, they might aswell just released it in the holidays
killatopak
Gold Member
and in fall you gonna have to add scorpio to that.
Booya_base
Member
Absolutely, I think it'd be a very different story / attitude if they'd done that.
Zelda, Mario, Arms, Splatoon, Bomberman, MK8 would've been a pretty killer launch for a console and the online would be ready too.
True, they'd be launching against Scorpio and I don't know what they would've done about Zelda Wii U in that case but they really are rushing it out with no games and features so there's no need to buy one in March.
Sales wise, they'll do alright launching in March but you really want positive buzz at the start to gain momentum (see PS4 & X1 launches) which they are giving up here IMO
Zelda, Mario, Arms, Splatoon, Bomberman, MK8 would've been a pretty killer launch for a console and the online would be ready too.
True, they'd be launching against Scorpio and I don't know what they would've done about Zelda Wii U in that case but they really are rushing it out with no games and features so there's no need to buy one in March.
Sales wise, they'll do alright launching in March but you really want positive buzz at the start to gain momentum (see PS4 & X1 launches) which they are giving up here IMO
Gaiaknight
Member
if they released all those heavy hitters at launch what the hell would the release in the following months to keep peoples interest?
Sword Of Doom
Member
Yeah they'd be dumb to do that but then Nintendo is in a unique position of having to carry their console with their first party mostly.
March launch is fine but by the holidays hopefully we'll know if it's a successor to the 3DS as well or not. I can only speak for myself and for me I'd like to know what Nintendo's vision is for the future of the Switch. If we're not getting 3rd party support then I'd buy only if all of nintendo's first party is focused on one device.
AzureFlame
Member
They really wanted Breath of the Wild to be a Launch title.
And it's the right choice.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
What is it with the "soft launch" narrative? Just because it's launching with a terrible slate of games (outside of BoTW, which looks dope)? A shitty launch =/= a soft launch. Was the Wii U a "soft launch" just because the launch lineup sucked?
At least this way I'll be in on that Ambassador program later this year!
At least this way I'll be in on that Ambassador program later this year!
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
That's an accurate assessment of the PS2's launch as well. It sucked. It doesn't make the Switch's lineup less awful (again outside of BoTW). It also doesn't mean that the console can't recover. It only means what I said, which is that it has very few games in its launch window.
Dreamwriter
Member
Nintendo didn't push games back from launch because they weren't ready, Nintendo did so because they want to spread the releases out. I personally think this is a *terrible* decision (it's what almost killed the 3DS), but how else do you explain Mario Kart 8 not being at launch, when it has no new race tracks and only a few changes from the Wii U version? As for third parties, most of those games wouldn't be any more done, because Nintendo would have delayed getting them dev kits as well (they tried to control leaks by waiting before giving out dev kits except for really trusted third parties).
A fall launch, even against the scorpio, would still have been a bloodbath in favor of Nintendo. The scorpio would have never slowed down the switch. Add to that that it would have had zelda, spaltoon, mario kart and mario all at launch would have just been crazy, and possibly the greatest launch lineup of any system.
They would have also have ironed out the whole online stuff and actually had the online ready to go, a much easier pill to swallow following the news that it would be a paid sub (rather than beta test as free just to charge people later).
They would have also have ironed out the whole online stuff and actually had the online ready to go, a much easier pill to swallow following the news that it would be a paid sub (rather than beta test as free just to charge people later).
dreamlongdead
Member
Having only WiiU and 3DS for the majority of this year really wouldn't have been a good alternative.
I think the Switch launch slate really sucks for people who already have a WiiU, since they can also get Zelda on a system they already have, and they probably already played Mario Kart 8. But for people who don't have a WiiU, I really don't think it's a terrible launch slate at all. You have the big blockbuster title in Zelda, and then you have supporting titles for multiplayer via 1-2 Switch, Super Bomberman R, and Snipperclips. Not the strongest lineup by any means, but with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe hitting a month later, it's not too bad. It does get worse after that though, unless announcements really pick up by E3.
The impact of launch lineup is severely overrated. Most if not all people forget what games came out in the launch of the console when the new big game comes out in the console's immediate future.
No - even at a fall launch there would have been alot of 3rds that would have taken the wait and see approach so you would have seen their games before 2018. Launching in March and providing good first party content and updates every month is needed to establish a userbase for the Fall Switch releases - Skyrim, Fifa, NBA, Minecraft and co. and whatever will be e3 (maybe CoD) - are all Fall releases.
potatohead
Member
Probably but whatever feels like Nintendo supply chain is weak as fuck anyway
Prisoner KSC2-303
Member
I think the lack of a key service - their online subscription model - is why some people (myself included) view it as a soft launch.
Dreamwriter
Member
They did the same thing with 3DS, nobody called that a soft launch. The 3DS online store launched at the beginning of E3, 3 months after launch.
ClayKavalier
Banned
This is what I came to say. Right now a lot of people already think Switch is a bad value compared to X1 or PS4. Coming out right next to Scorpio, and likely a PS4 Pro price drop, would make it even worse. If people say Switch games playing next to a PS4 Pro that cost $50 more I think the whole portable angle would be forgotten pretty quick by a lot of people.
Agreed.
The Wii U showed this, even though it had 20+ games at launch, the drought until September 2013 was really bad.
Switch's lineup is similar to the 3DS but it is better because it has a flagship title for launch: Zelda BotW. With games like Mario Kart just coming out a month after whereas 3DS didn't get Mario Kart 7 and 3D Land until Fall.
Not at all, besides the fact that they had to launch it before their fiscal year end, which is March 31, to make some profit for investors, i rather have the console akready, enjoying Zelda, then Mario Kart 8, then Arms, then Splatoon finally arriving to fall with Mario Odissey and Xenoblade 2(perhaps) rather than having all those games at once this fall, and among them other third party and PC stuff i wouldn't have the time to play.
Also now that i think of it, a release in the beginning of March has always been more likely than one on March 17 or 27 as rumored, cause Nintendo fiscal year ends in March 31, so they need to sell as many Switch as they can before that date, and the sooner you start selling the more units you're likely to sell and make profit for that fiscal year
Also now that i think of it, a release in the beginning of March has always been more likely than one on March 17 or 27 as rumored, cause Nintendo fiscal year ends in March 31, so they need to sell as many Switch as they can before that date, and the sooner you start selling the more units you're likely to sell and make profit for that fiscal year
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Unless new releases fail to come out after the launch. Unless Nintendo has a hell of an E3 planned, this whole year looks pretty barren beyond Mario this fall and ports of old games. In fact, its lineup looks pretty comparable to the Wii U's first year in terms of games that resonate with the mass market. Launch lineups can be forgettable, sure, but that's totally reliant on the drought actually ending and the beginning of consistent good game releases post launch. Either Nintendo or third parties (hahahaha) are going to really have to step it up to avoid the yawning chasms between releases that were seen on the Wii U.
AzureFlame
Member
indeed.
So far, only Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is the announced old port from the Wii U, and that's not even a direct port as there are added stuff in there. We could have more of old ports, but right now the only confirmed is only one.
Barring any form of delays, Switch's first year from big first party point of view is not barren. BotW at launch, MK8D a month after, ARMS in Spring, Splatoon 2 next, Fire Emblem Warriors (technically a third party game, but Nintendo exclusive) in fall, Super Mario Odyssey during the holidays, and Xenoblade 2 some time this year. And that's before any E3 announcements and discounting whatever third party announces for the system. I don't see why it's "pretty barren" for 2017. Wii U didn't enjoy this kind of first year output from Nintendo or for any year for that matter, and the closest I can think of was 2014 when Mario Kart 8, Smash Wii U, Bayonetta 1+2, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Hyrule Warriors and Captain Toad came out that year.
Announcing something for the Virtual Console front would really help them right now.
Nope, releasing around Scorpio would have been disastrous in the west imo. They have it out in March pretty much guaranteed to sell out at launch for a quick cash injection before the end of their FY.
The only thing that could hurt them is how the sales keep up between end of March and Mario in November. As long as they have a big Nintendo game every calendar month I think it could be ok before the big guns of potentially Pokemon and Mario Odyssey to have another big marketing push towards the end of 2018.
The only thing that could hurt them is how the sales keep up between end of March and Mario in November. As long as they have a big Nintendo game every calendar month I think it could be ok before the big guns of potentially Pokemon and Mario Odyssey to have another big marketing push towards the end of 2018.
Prisoner KSC2-303
Member
True, but I'm not sure the comparison is apt. Lots of consoles launch without certain features, that's not surprising, but to launch without one that's going to be gating a key part of the appeal of the console (online Mario Kart, Splatoon, Animal Crossing, Monster Hunter etc.) is strange to say the least.
It's smart though, as it gives early adopters - many of whom may have skipped the Wii U - a free taste of just how good things like MK can be before they bring up the paywall.
Dreamwriter
Member
Any online games will have online multiplayer without the app, though, just not lobbies and voice chat. It'll be just like Wii U in that respect.
Mushroomer25
Member
In the opening nine months, the Switch has Zelda, ARMS (Which could easily be a Splatoon-level surprise hit), Splatoon 2, and a new 3D Mario. All four are system-selling games.
The WiiU had New Super Mario Bros, Nintendoland, and Pikmin. And an assortment of third party games that were better elsewhere. Not exactly killer apps.
I wouldn't class Mario as being in the opening months while it's likely to be a November/December release.
I also wouldn't call ARMS a system selling game since it's totally unproven right now.
Prisoner KSC2-303
Member
Only until later in the year, at which point online multiplayer will be behind the paywall.
Well he did say "opening 9 months"
I agree about ARMS, but I definitely think it has the potential to be a hit if marketed right.
And we could still get other games announced for 2017 during E3 or earlier with Nintendo Directs. (Pokémon Stars, Animal Crossing?)
If none of the games are delayed like Fire Emblem Warriors and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 for 2017 then this launch year will blow away the 3DS and Wii U launch years combined.
Mushroomer25
Member
I said first nine months, and Mario Odyssey is slated for 2017.
As for ARMS, it's a new first-party Nintendo franchise. One that got generally positive reception out of press events. I could see the game catching on, and finding a legitimate fanbase.
Yeah, E3 will likely fill the holes in the lineup. Pokémon Stars would be a good thing to have out before the holidays. The Smash port seems like an easy lock for this Summer. Xenoblade could defy expectations and actually hit its announced release window.
It's not a massive selection of games, but it's a selection that makes the console a justifiable purchase before the years end.
I don't think that they should have waited. I mean: we as consumers can wait and decide when to buy the product. However, they now have some time to experiment on features and to deliver an improving product.
Plus, it all the announced games came out on the same day, I suppose they would have cannibalized themselves. I suppose 80% of all launch buyers would have just bought Zelda and Mario. Which is not the way to go if you want to encourage 3rd party developers.
Nintendo will sell through all their stock for some time and send out a bigger wave during the Black Friday season. That's good strategy, to be honest.
Plus, it all the announced games came out on the same day, I suppose they would have cannibalized themselves. I suppose 80% of all launch buyers would have just bought Zelda and Mario. Which is not the way to go if you want to encourage 3rd party developers.
Nintendo will sell through all their stock for some time and send out a bigger wave during the Black Friday season. That's good strategy, to be honest.
No, because even if they did people would still complain about the launch lineup and the fact it would be later, people would complain even more about the power.
Nothing is ever good enough for the people on ther internet. If anything, I'm happy I'll have Zelda in March as there's not too many other big single player games for me to try and fight through until FE Echoes in April.
Nothing is ever good enough for the people on ther internet. If anything, I'm happy I'll have Zelda in March as there's not too many other big single player games for me to try and fight through until FE Echoes in April.