Support NeoGAF

[LegendofLex]

Eh, Sony's average hardware is waaaaay higher and that's also not true unless your counting 80 million selling PSP as a dud.

Sony's list of gaming duds:

PSP - About half of the market share of its competitor
PS3 - Lost Sony tons of money
PS Vita - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Bonus:

Spoiler

PSVR

Nintendo's list of gaming duds:

Nintendo 64 - Less than half of the market share of its competitor
GameCube - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Wii U - Really poor market share
Bonus:

Spoiler

Virtual Boy

Sony's list of gaming successes:

PS1 - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS2 - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS4 - More than 60 million units sold; dominating its generation

Nintendo's list of gaming successes:

NES - Rebuilt the North American gaming market; dominated its generation
SNES - Fairly even footing against Sega, but came out on top
Game Boy - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
GBA - More than 80 million units sold; dominated its generation
DS - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
Wii - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation until Nintendo started shifting software resources to 3DS/Wii U in 2010; still came out on top
3DS - More than 60 million units sold; dominated its generation

Not to mention that Nintendo's total hardware sales since Sony came on the market are actually higher than Sony's total hardware sales during the same timeframe. And this is all without looking at profitability, where Nintendo is the clear winner when you look at the sum total of their business over time.

Sony may beat Nintendo in the home console space pretty frequently, but Nintendo has historically won when you examine the market as a whole.

 

[Aostia]

Nintendo is "successful" again which means all the all old arguments come up again and I mean all.

I am not even sure about Switch actual success LOL
Potential is there but there are SO MANY unknown factors honestly...

 

[Aleh]

Splatoon 2 is a port of Splatoon as much as Pokémon Black and White 2 were ports of Pokémon Black and White.
Slightly improved graphics, full damn sequels. It takes 5 minutes to look up the differences before making such uninformed claims.

 

[Version 3.0]

No doubt Nintendo made mistakes with the GameCube, But even if they didn't, they still would've lost. Nintendo could've held their own against Sony in the 5th generation, but they couldn't hold their own against Sony AND Microsoft in the 6th generation. Yes, mini-DVDs, lack of online, and purple color weren't helping, but those were honestly the least of the GameCube's problems. Gaming had become a completely different beast by 2001, gamers tastes were changing, and there was more standardization as to what games were made, what games were marketed, and how they were marketed. And Nintendo simply couldn't get the mainstream gamer with the types of games they were producing. This is also one of the reasons Sega bailed out of the console wars, not only due to their critical financial condition from their past mistakes, but the style of games they used to make was falling increasingly out of line with what gamers had come to expect from games at the time, no amount of cash thrown at Shenmue was going to fix that.

So basically, Nintendo was stuck with a powerful, but lame looking piece of hardware with no DVD, barely any online, and games that were either out of touch with where the market was going, or tried way too hard to be hip and cool with where the market was going. Even if the GameCube had DVD storage capacity, online games, and a better launch color, it wouldn't have been enough to reverse Nintendo's reputation. That's why Nintendo needed to reinvent itself with the Wii era, because they knew they could no longer compete with companies they can't relate to on the same level.

That's a whole lot of "what if". It's all speculation and opinion, not a fact to be found. And, quite frankly, it sounds like a regurgitated post-mortem applied retroactively - circular logic that just says "what happened was inevitable". Just as faulty and useless as predictions of "what is now will always be" that happen so often in this business. The truth is, nothing was as bleak and hopeless as you make it sound. Nintendo, had they been competent, had a perfectly good shot at being competitive or even market leader (though that would be a long shot, given Sony's success before the GC launched) that generation. I didn't, and won't, speculate on what would have happened, but the possibilities were open. The Gamecube's poor showing was not pre-determined.

The fact is, the Gamecube was a very nice piece of tech, as good or better than what their "untouchable conglomerate" competitors produced. That was all I stated, and it's true.

 

[sphinx]

I haven't played an Xbox since the first Gears of War, but you gotta throw MS in their too. They changed the landscape of gaming, especially in the U.S. Built off of Dreamcast online system, made an ergonomic controller very well suited for FPS games and camera controls and helped that genre blow up on consoles when it was dominated by PC. I'm sure they did a lot of behind the scenes stuff too because developers were championing the heck out of X360 and ease of development and that no doubt influenced Sony's shift from exotic hardware with PS4.

Really, all of them have done so much at this point, and you can really just fall into whatever style of gaming you prefer and be pretty well taken care of.

I don't think Microsoft/xbox have contributed that much in their 3 generations around, quite frankly.

the xbox is as of now a Sony-wannabe with zero identity.

From the software side, they can't keep their IPs alive and refuse to create new ones. .

kinect sucks and always did

maybe xbox live as the pioneer for online games? maybe that

 

[Living the Dream]

I don't think Microsoft/xbox have contributed that much in their 3 generations around, quite frankly.

the xbox is as of now a Sony-wannabe with zero identity.

From the software side, they can't keep their IPs alive and refuse to create new ones. .

kinect sucks and always did

maybe xbox live as the pioneer for online games? maybe that

Did you not read his post? The Xbox and 360 are why development on consoles are incredibly easy and fluid now. Sure the XOne ain't doing so much, but that doesn't forgo everything they've done.

The 360 made online gameplay on consoles a standard. Nintendo is STILL playing catchup to the original Xbox for online.

Nintendo even partnered with a mobile company and STILL their online is a convoluted mess.

Nintendo generally makes great games, but sales clearly show that Nintendo are behind the times.

 

[Principate]

I am not even sure about Switch actual success LOL
Potential is there but there are SO MANY unknown factors honestly...

I wouldn't say there's anything to suggest it's a wii u level bomb or anything close. The base interest is there, the software release schedule for the first year is there it has a strong start, the strongest comparatively Nintendo has seen since the Wii . That momentum will easily carry it past the first year if not first two years after which Nintendo will change pace. At this point it's highly unlikely the switch will just crash it's more a question of how well it does (substantially down from the 3DS, 3DS, over the 3ds?) etc. Pokémon is stronger than it's every been as well. There's a good reason why Nintendo shares are in general on the up. It's too early to celebrate about great success but this is the opposite of how a dead system acts or the future roadmap of a dead system.

 

[Living the Dream]

I wouldn't say there's anything to suggest it's a wii u level bomb or anything close. The base interest is there, the software release schedule for the first year is there it has a strong start, the strongest comparatively Nintendo has seen since the Wii U. That momentum will easily carry it past the first year if not first two years after which Nintendo will change pace. At this point it's highly unlikely the switch will just crash it's more a question of how well it does (substantially down from the 3DS, 3DS, over the 3ds?) etc. Pokémon is stronger than it's every been as well. There's a good reason why Nintendo shares are in general on the up.

Nintendo has to get the price lowered. $299 for a switch that is a small upgrade in power from the Wii U versus a $250 X1 and PS4.

This is not even comparing the game lineup and online capability.

And ignoring 32 GB storage versus 1024 GB storage.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Nintendo has to get the price lowered. $299 for a switch that is a small upgrade in power from the Wii U versus a $250 X1 and PS4.

This is not even comparing the game lineup and online capability.

There's absolutely zero reason for Nintendo to lower the price of the Switch anytime soon.

 

[Aostia]

Did you not read his post? The Xbox and 360 are why development on consoles are incredibly easy and fluid now. Sure the XOne ain't doing so much, but that doesn't forgo everything they've done.

The 360 made online gameplay on consoles a standard. Nintendo is STILL playing catchup to the original Xbox for online.

Nintendo even partnered with a mobile company and STILL their online is a convoluted mess.

Nintendo generally makes great games, but sales clearly show that Nintendo are behind the times.

I agree
ms contributed A LOT to the actual consoleandscape in terms of development environment and services

I wouldn't say there's anything to suggest it's a wii u level bomb or anything close. The base interest is there, the software release schedule for the first year is there it has a strong start, the strongest comparatively Nintendo has seen since the Wii U. That momentum will easily carry it past the first year if not first two years after which Nintendo will change pace. At this point it's highly unlikely the switch will just crash it's more a question of how well it does (substantially down from the 3DS, 3DS, over the 3ds?) etc. Pokémon is stronger than it's every been as well. There's a good reason why Nintendo shares are in general on the up.

I tend to agree
But there are also many critical issues to be addressed imho

Oiempite services
Third party support
Home and portable output merge

 

[jonno394]

Nintendo has to get the price lowered. $299 for a switch that is a small upgrade in power from the Wii U versus a $250 X1 and PS4.

This is not even comparing the game lineup and online capability.

And ignoring 32 GB storage versus 1024 GB storage.

One has a hd screen and a battery, the other two don't. It sort of adds to the costs.

 

[Version 3.0]

maybe xbox live as the pioneer for online games? maybe that

I would expand that a bit: Microsoft's biggest contribution is the system-level, fully integrated OS. When they introduced it with the 360, it was a radical idea. Some, myself included, weren't sold on the idea at the time. The fear was that it would suck up too much of the system's resources - a common problem with Windows on the PC side for many years.

But the 360, right off the bat, showed how well it worked.

 

[LegendofLex]

There's absolutely zero reason for Nintendo to lower the price of the Switch anytime soon.

Yep.

If they were in a pickle like they were with 3DS or Wii U, I could see them releasing a smaller unit this year at a lower price. But as long as it's selling out in their hot markets, there's absolutely no reason to put out a price cut or revision, or even a bundle, anytime this year or next.

It helps that the handheld market has been relatively poorly served lately and has nowhere else to go for dedicated games machines but Switch.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

I don't think Microsoft/xbox have contributed that much in their 3 generations around, quite frankly.

the xbox is as of now a Sony-wannabe with zero identity.

From the software side, they can't keep their IPs alive and refuse to create new ones. .

kinect sucks and always did

maybe xbox live as the pioneer for online games? maybe that

To say the original Xbox and Xbox 360 haven't contributed anything at all is one of the most uneducated things I've read on GAF in a while.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Nobody would mistake 8 for 7.

I know people in real life, my wife included, who thought it was a port.

It's a sequel, but could be mistaken for the original upon first glance.

People didn't have trouble telling the CoD sequels apart from each other.

If you can't tell a game called "Splatoon 2" is a sequel to Splatoon then I dunno what to tell you.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

People didn't have trouble telling the CoD sequels apart from each other.

If you can't tell a game called "Splatoon 2" is a sequel to Splatoon then I dunno what to tell you.

Splatoon 2 is a port of Splatoon as much as Pokémon Black and White 2 were ports of Pokémon Black and White.
Slightly improved graphics, full damn sequels. It takes 5 minutes to look up the differences before making such uninformed claims.

I said upon first glance.

 

[Plum]

You probably don't see this much because it doesn't make any sense? Sony champion 3rd party, the bulk of the sales of their hardware are based on third party, they make consistently great hardware. Why would one care if Sony's first party stop making games or not generally speaking?

It's brought up for Nintendo because they have released some duds of a console from time to time and a common line of thought was "I wish I could play these great games on better hardware". Sony and MS are usually fairly modern and cutting edge in tech for that to come up.

As someone who, since 2011, has pretty much always had a mid-to-high range gaming PC I would love for every PS4 or console exclusive to be available on PC. Uncharted 4, Bloodborne and Horizon at 60fps with customizable graphics? Count me in!

However, I know that, without the financial backing of hardware sales there's a good chance that none of those 3 games would be as good as they were, if they even were greenlit at all. For a good example of why I think this; look at the death of 1313 and how long it's taken EA to create a single linear Star Wars game after they acquired the IP. They own a massive license, are one of the largest third party publishers out there yet because they don't have any other revenue streams outside games doing anything remotely risky is very difficult. This isn't the 6th generation, the burden of modern expectations is too large for many kinds of games.

The same goes for Nintendo; they're still governed by shareholders and if they were to go third party entirely those shareholders would not like many of the games they put out as they have to know compete directly with major established franchises. They'd have revealed Splatoon for PS4 and X1 and, in the next investor meeting be met with a chorus of: "A third person shooter with a cartoon art-style where you play as Squids? No monetization plan past Amiibo? What were you thinking! At least make it Mario Paintball! Improve the graphics as well, they look terrible up against what EA and Ubisoft are putting out!"

Essentially, those thinking that Nintendo would only benefit if they went third party are completely wrong, it's their desires overriding the facts of the situation. Unless they're fine with a Nintendo that only puts out safe bets, that is.

 

[Principate]

Nintendo has to get the price lowered. $299 for a switch that is a small upgrade in power from the Wii U versus a $250 X1 and PS4.

This is not even comparing the game lineup and online capability.

Nintendo is really directly competing with them though. This is as much a 3DS successor if not more than it is a wii u successor. Portable Pokémon animal cross, fire emblem bah bah bah, will sell to the 70 ish million that is currently owns a 3DS. They can sell the portable section standalone and cut the price fairly easily. It's not inherently fighting toe to toe with those systems but also is competing in it's own way which is it's main advantage for Nintendo.

 

[jman2050]

Nintendo has to get the price lowered. $299 for a switch that is a small upgrade in power from the Wii U versus a $250 X1 and PS4.

This is not even comparing the game lineup and online capability.

And ignoring 32 GB storage versus 1024 GB storage.

I find it highly disingenuous to discuss bullet point comparisons about the Switch while completely ignoring the main singular feature that is being marketed and sold to customers above all else.

I mean there are issues with the Switch, especially compared to its competitors, but maybe it's just possible that the main selling point of a console that is also a portable and can adapt to any play environment is enticing enough that people will put up with its issues?

 

[Principate]

I agree
ms contributed A LOT to the actual consoleandscape in terms of development environment and services






I tend to agree
But there are also many critical issues to be addressed imho

Oiempite services
Third party support
Home and portable output merge

Nintendo did the majority of the heavy lifting of support on the 3DS outside of MH and they're even better poised this time around with only one platform. Japanese 3rd parties benefit a lot more from the switch than they do skipping it. the Vita is dead and the PS4 is very weak in Japan software wise. Regardless of how much they want to support it makes far more financial sense to support it than the 3DS did during it's launch. That's the advantage of the strong launch.

The 3DS was one of the highest selling systems japan has ever seen and the switch is very much it's successor and sole portable device. Japanese support will come because Japanese mid tiers need it.

 

[Jubenhimer]

That's a whole lot of "what if". It's all speculation and opinion, not a fact to be found. And, quite frankly, it sounds like a regurgitated post-mortem applied retroactively - circular logic that just says "what happened was inevitable". Just as faulty and useless as predictions of "what is now will always be" that happen so often in this business. The truth is, nothing was as bleak and hopeless as you make it sound. Nintendo, had they been competent, had a perfectly good shot at being competitive or even market leader (though that would be a long shot, given Sony's success before the GC launched) that generation. I didn't, and won't, speculate on what would have happened, but the possibilities were open. The Gamecube's poor showing was not pre-determined.

The fact is, the Gamecube was a very nice piece of tech, as good or better than what their "untouchable conglomerate" competitors produced. That was all I stated, and it's true.

You're forgetting that power isn't the most important part of a system's popularity. Marketing, branding, and software are. For better or worse, Sony kick-started the hollywoodization of gaming with the PlayStation. They tore up the home console rule book, and were able to succeed by crafting a specific brand image that resonated with what audiences wanted at the time. They shifted the industry away from simply, arcade style games, to more story-driven, more mature, more complex, and more marketable titles (that goes for even kid-friendly games on the system).

The audience and following Sony had built with the PlayStation was unmatched, and while Nintendo put up as much of a fight as possible with the N64, Sony was always one step ahead of them in marketing, branding, and support. That support and audience only grew with the PS2. Many people forget just how much of a hype-fueled, marketing monster the PlayStation 2 was at the time, it makes the PlayStation 4 look tame by comparison. There was just no stopping it. It erased Sega, wounded Nintendo, and Brick-walled Microsoft all at the same time, and the best part, Sony didn't really have to do much of anything.

They had all the support from gamers, and the love and adoration of 3rd parties to go with it, all they had to do was pack in a DVD player, hype it up like the second coming of Jesus, then sit back and start printing money. Even if Nintendo played all their cards right with the GameCube and N64 for that matter, they may have gotten more sales, but it wouldn't have been enough to reverse their deteriorating perception with gamers. Sony single handedly changed the face of AAA console gaming forever, and many of today's Mass Effects and SoulsBornes all owe a debt of gratitude to the PlayStation. Nintendo could've made the GameCube a cool DVD playing, online gaming, slick-black console all they want. But their games would still hold the GameCube back. It wasn't just that Nintendo made wrong moves with the Cube, it was a combination of that, and the fact that gaming had simply changed too much by the time the GameCube game out. and stuff like a cartoon Zelda, eco-friendly Mario, and garden strategy game weren't going to sell to a gaming audience being trained on Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy X, and Halo.

This is why Nintendo stopped competing, because the companies they were competing against were unmatched in terms of branding, marketing, and support. Sony and Microsoft can afford to loose tons of money on the gaming industry because they're conglomerates, gaming is simply one part of their business. Nintendo may be swimming in Scrooge McDuck money, but they're not a conglomerate. They are a gaming company first and foremost, almost exclusively. A profit-oriented one at that. So asking them to compete with Sony and Microsoft head-on is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

Much of this is admittedly speculation, after all, this industry has proven to be quite unpredictable. But I think there's enough evidence to support why Nintendo shouldn't target Sony and Microsoft head-on.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Nintendo is "successful" again which means all the all old arguments come up again and I mean all.

Its like clockwork

 

[Omnistalgic]

um...when I mentioned duds, I meant weak hardware. Essentially, you were almost playing Gamecube-looking games for 10 years if you only gamed with Nintendo going from GC to Wii. That's generally where i think the "wish I could play these games on something else" came from, many gamers just wanted Nintendo to be more up-to-date.

This success stuff is next going to turn into posting stock market, numbers market cap, lol...Chill guys.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Switch's strentgth (better word than gimmick or innovation) relies on its extreme convenience. It's instant to use, and it morphes instantly to suit our playstyle, at any given time.

• On TV, on table, on the go.
• In solo, in splitscreen or in LAN.
• Lying, with wireless controllers in each hand, sitting with a classic controller grip, standing with refined motion controllers, dual analog sticks and all buttons needed.

Switch becomes what it needs to be, what WE want it to be. It's undisputedly the most polymorph system there is. We call it an hybrid, partly because it switches from console to handheld, and just as much because it switches from a playstyle to another, thanks to joy-cons. This latter part needs games to be envisioned. The more games are released, the more self revelatory this will become.

Great comment

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

Nintendo is "successful" again which means all the all old arguments come up again and I mean all.

Frankly I even think it's too soon to call the Switch a success. It's been on the market less than two months and while early sales are strong, that doesn't mean they'll continue to be strong.

 

[Omnistalgic]

As someone who, since 2011, has pretty much always had a mid-to-high range gaming PC I would love for every PS4 or console exclusive to be available on PC. Uncharted 4, Bloodborne and Horizon at 60fps with customizable graphics? Count me in!

However, I know that, without the financial backing of hardware sales there's a good chance that none of those 3 games would be as good as they were, if they even were greenlit at all. For a good example of why I think this; look at the death of 1313 and how long it's taken EA to create a single linear Star Wars game after they acquired the IP. They own a massive license, are one of the largest third party publishers out there yet because they don't have any other revenue streams outside games doing anything remotely risky is very difficult. This isn't the 6th generation, the burden of modern expectations is too large for many kinds of games.

The same goes for Nintendo; they're still governed by shareholders and if they were to go third party entirely those shareholders would not like many of the games they put out as they have to know compete directly with major established franchises. They'd have revealed Splatoon for PS4 and X1 and, in the next investor meeting be met with a chorus of: "A third person shooter with a cartoon art-style where you play as Squids? No monetization plan past Amiibo? What were you thinking! At least make it Mario Paintball! Improve the graphics as well, they look terrible up against what EA and Ubisoft are putting out!"

Essentially, those thinking that Nintendo would only benefit if they went third party are completely wrong, it's their desires overriding the facts of the situation. Unless they're fine with a Nintendo that only puts out safe bets, that is.

Yeah, I just end up skipping the hardware if I'm not feeling what Nintendo is doing. They work best trying new stuff every gen, I don't see that ever changing really. Good post.

 

[LegendofLex]

um...when I mentioned duds, I meant weak hardware.

This isn't what "dud" means at all, though; not in the context of consumer tech.

Like, sure, many people thought Wii was a dud because it didn't have shiny HD graphics. I'm not sure why I should care, though? Those people don't have to buy it. Other people can buy it - other people did buy it. Consoles can compete on other metrics besides power. And they can succeed based on those metrics, and other consoles can fail based on those metrics.

The question for Switch is not "is it powerful enough to succeed?" Power isn't its value proposition anyway. The question is "is there a demand for playing Switch software via the use cases supported by Switch?" Some games might use power to gain their appeal, but it's not like there aren't other vectors consumers care about.

 

[JustenP88]

Mario Kart looks dope and I'm excited for Arms + Splatoon coming up.

Sorry for the thread derail, I'll let you guys get back to the important stuff.

 

[Nanashrew]

Gimmick:



Not Gimmick:

My favorite Gimmick!

Why won't this come to VC or anything at all? :C

 

[Nairume]

And ignoring 32 GB storage versus 1024 GB storage.

Not that it doesn't diminish that 32GB is not good, but you do leave out the important context of how the Switch doesn't have mandatory installs, while the consoles with the larger hard drives do.

I can pop my copy of BotW into my Switch and not have to worry about how much room is in my fridge. Halo 5 and the Master Chief Collection alone eat up half of my 500GB Xbone's internal hdd.

 

[Ushay]

Did you not read his post? The Xbox and 360 are why development on consoles are incredibly easy and fluid now. Sure the XOne ain't doing so much, but that doesn't forgo everything they've done.

The 360 made online gameplay on consoles a standard. Nintendo is STILL playing catchup to the original Xbox for online.

Nintendo even partnered with a mobile company and STILL their online is a convoluted mess.

Nintendo generally makes great games, but sales clearly show that Nintendo are behind the times.

Yeah, MS contributed a lot to the current state of console gaming in many areas. The only reason they get flak is due to their first party library.

The Switch is a good system for what it offers, I guess the premium (higher) price is to be expected given the form factors it can assume (which is pretty damn cool, admit it!).

 

[rambis]

Sony's list of gaming duds:

PSP - About half of the market share of its competitor
PS3 - Lost Sony tons of money
PS Vita - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Bonus:

Spoiler

PSVR

Nintendo's list of gaming duds:

Nintendo 64 - Less than half of the market share of its competitor
GameCube - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Wii U - Really poor market share
Bonus:

Spoiler

Virtual Boy

Sony's list of gaming successes:

PS1 - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS2 - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS4 - More than 60 million units sold; dominating its generation

Nintendo's list of gaming successes:

NES - Rebuilt the North American gaming market; dominated its generation
SNES - Fairly even footing against Sega, but came out on top
Game Boy - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
GBA - More than 80 million units sold; dominated its generation
DS - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
Wii - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation until Nintendo started shifting software resources to 3DS/Wii U in 2010; still came out on top
3DS - More than 60 million units sold; dominated its generation

Not to mention that Nintendo's total hardware sales since Sony came on the market are actually higher than Sony's total hardware sales during the same timeframe. And this is all without looking at profitability, where Nintendo is the clear winner when you look at the sum total of their business over time.

Sony may beat Nintendo in the home console space pretty frequently, but Nintendo has historically won when you examine the market as a whole.

Eh I wouldnt consider PSP or N64 duds. And ~1m units seems great to me as far as PSVR sales considering the price and the fact that its limited to PS4 users.

 

[Omnistalgic]

This isn't what "dud" means at all, though; not in the context of consumer tech.

Like, sure, many people thought Wii was a dud because it didn't have shiny HD graphics. I'm not sure why I should care, though? Those people don't have to buy it. Other people can buy it - other people did buy it. Consoles can compete on other metrics besides power. And they can succeed based on those metrics, and other consoles can fail based on those metrics.

The question for Switch is not "is it powerful enough to succeed?" Power isn't its value proposition anyway. The question is "is there a demand for playing Switch software via the use cases supported by Switch?" Some games might use power to gain their appeal, but it's not like there aren't other vectors consumers care about.

That's all I'm talking about here. How successful it was etc...wasn't the point I was trying to bring out. We know how successful Wii was, but we also can see how the more causal market has moved on and WiiU didn't repeat hardly any of that success after iPad/smartphones are on the world scene. Anecdotal of course, but I think Wii is the generation more hardcore gamers began complaining "this hardware is not up to par, I wish I could play this on something else". For me it was particularly jarring playing stuff like Mario sunshine and years later playing stuff like Mario Galaxy. Yeah, it's not all about graphics, but those are nice too lol. I think Nintendo lost a lot of hardcore during the Wii era. It was certainly a secondary console for me and after a while, I just put my Wii in the closet like many people I know did. Small sampling here of course, but it's basically when I took a long break from Nintendo and am just now coming back.

Switch is very much an interesting time for them. I think it answers a ton of questions. How much casuals can they get back? How big is Nintendo's hardcore fanbase? How appealing is it to have a portable/home gaming console for Nintendo games? Can Nintendo merge its portable audience with its console?

Should be a nice and interesting generation for the duration of these boxes life cycles. NPD thread was getting stale, so happy all big 3 players have something to say again.

 

[ninjablade]

honestly don't see why these numbers are so impressive, nintendo handhelds always do great, plus it has one of the best zelda's and of course it also gonna get bought up by the small user base of nintendo fans that still buy home consoles. this thing will easily double wiiu numbers.

 

[Calm Mind]

honestly don't see why these numbers are so impressive, nintendo handhelds always do great, plus it has one of the best zelda's and of course it also gonna get bought up by the small user base of nintendo fans that still buy home consoles. this thing will easily double wiiu numbers.

hmm.

 

[Zubz]

Huh. I guess Atari can somewhat be vindicated for the 2600 version of Pac-Man.

 

[AniHawk]

Eh I wouldnt consider PSP or N64 duds. And ~1m units seems great to me as far as PSVR sales considering the price and the fact that its limited to PS4 users.

if you consider that ps vita died so ps vr may live - then ps vr seems like a massive waste of investment unless sony winds up doing something major like making it the central part of ps5.

psp is definitely not a dud though. it sold more than the gba and was very likely more profitable too. n64 was a dud everywhere aside from the us.

 

[legend166]

Sony's great success, and something that Nintendo and Microsoft have never really been able to emulate, is its worldwide appeal. It's what kept the PS3 alive even as it was floundering in the US & Japan. Nintendo and Microsoft are both guilty of being too focused on their home territories (Japan and the US respectively, although Nintendo's better at it than Microsoft). And it's something you have to give Sony credit for - it didn't happen by accident, they actively fostered a market in EMEA and other areas of SEA.

Microsoft is seeing now the downsides of not doing the same thing. Whilst they're not cratering in the US (it's not that far behind the PS4 really), their market dominance has certainly been taken away and now they're behind significantly worldwide.

 

[Plum]

Eh I wouldnt consider PSP or N64 duds. And ~1m units seems great to me as far as PSVR sales considering the price and the fact that its limited to PS4 users.

Eh, Sony's average hardware is waaaaay higher and that's also not true unless your counting 80 million selling PSP as a dud.

Nintendo has released exactly the same number of gaming hardware duds as Sony.

Sony's list of gaming duds:

Nintendo's list of gaming duds:

psp is definitely not a dud though. it sold more than the gba and was very likely more profitable too. n64 was a dud everywhere aside from the us.

 

[AniHawk]

sorry - i meant dude

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Huh. I guess Atari can somewhat be vindicated for the 2600 version of Pac-Man.

lol this is one of the first things I thought of when the Zelda attach rate was revealed.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Not being first in sales does not make something a dud. The PSP was a success,
Maybe not the huge success that Sony wanted, but all things considered if they had to do it over again, I'm sure they would. I have my doubts Sony is happy with the Vita or PSVR though.

Same thing for Nintnddo with the N64. Sony overtook them in console sales but the N64 still did pretty well for itself and was home to many of the most important games that generation so it's not like it was some spectacular failure. The GameCube is when things start to spiral for Nintendo.

 

[D.Lo]

Sony's great success, and something that Nintendo and Microsoft have never really been able to emulate, is its worldwide appeal. It's what kept the PS3 alive even as it was floundering in the US & Japan. Nintendo and Microsoft are both guilty of being too focused on their home territories (Japan and the US respectively, although Nintendo's better at it than Microsoft). And it's something you have to give Sony credit for - it didn't happen by accident, they actively fostered a market in EMEA and other areas of SEA.

Microsoft is seeing now the downsides of not doing the same thing. Whilst they're not cratering in the US (it's not that far behind the PS4 really), their market dominance has certainly been taken away and now they're behind significantly worldwide.

It is and was much easier for Sony because they are an international conglomerate and were able to leverage their existing worldwide electronics and movie/music operations. They had existing buildings, staff, contacts in consumer spaces, in basically every country. Even when PS3 was doing badly they still had TVs, CDs, Spider Man to promote so could maintain and repurpose advertising contracts etc.

Microsoft's worldwide operations are business focused, so it would be more difficult for them to play in consumer spaces, honestly the Xbox has been their biggest push in consumer spaces ever. Even harder for Nintendo, they were a little Japanese toy company who only got permanent EU operations mid-N64 era.

Not being first in sales does not make something a dud. The PSP was a success

In Japan PSP was definitely a success because of the out of left-field success of MoHun.

Worldwide it is a mixed bag. Hardware sales remained good, but software sales completely collapsed in the second half of its life. It may look like GBA in hardware sales, but GBA sold more games (at vastly more profit), and GBA had a very short life as well, cut off early by the DS. PSP was being sold as a piracy toy (only 300m games at 3.7 software tie ratio). DS Piracy was also immense, but it still kept selling games (949m games at 6.2 tie ratio!)

Or to put it a different way, DS might have only sold 1.9x PSP in hardware, but it sold 3.16x as many games.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

You're forgetting that power isn't the most important part of a system's popularity. Marketing, branding, and software are. For better or worse, Sony kick-started the hollywoodization of gaming with the PlayStation. They tore up the home console rule book, and were able to succeed by crafting a specific brand image that resonated with what audiences wanted at the time. They shifted the industry away from simply, arcade style games, to more story-driven, more mature, more complex, and more marketable titles (that goes for even kid-friendly games on the system).

The audience and following Sony had built with the PlayStation was unmatched, and while Nintendo put up as much of a fight as possible with the N64, Sony was always one step ahead of them in marketing, branding, and support. That support and audience only grew with the PS2. Many people forget just how much of a hype-fueled, marketing monster the PlayStation 2 was at the time, it makes the PlayStation 4 look tame by comparison. There was just no stopping it. It erased Sega, wounded Nintendo, and Brick-walled Microsoft all at the same time, and the best part, Sony didn't really have to do much of anything.

They had all the support from gamers, and the love and adoration of 3rd parties to go with it, all they had to do was pack in a DVD player, hype it up like the second coming of Jesus, then sit back and start printing money. Even if Nintendo played all their cards right with the GameCube and N64 for that matter, they may have gotten more sales, but it wouldn't have been enough to reverse their deteriorating perception with gamers. Sony single handedly changed the face of AAA console gaming forever, and many of today's Mass Effects and SoulsBornes all owe a debt of gratitude to the PlayStation. Nintendo could've made the GameCube a cool DVD playing, online gaming, slick-black console all they want. But their games would still hold the GameCube back. It wasn't just that Nintendo made wrong moves with the Cube, it was a combination of that, and the fact that gaming had simply changed too much by the time the GameCube game out. and stuff like a cartoon Zelda, eco-friendly Mario, and garden strategy game weren't going to sell to a gaming audience being trained on Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy X, and Halo.

This is why Nintendo stopped competing, because the companies they were competing against were unmatched in terms of branding, marketing, and support. Sony and Microsoft can afford to loose tons of money on the gaming industry because they're conglomerates, gaming is simply one part of their business. Nintendo may be swimming in Scrooge McDuck money, but they're not a conglomerate. They are a gaming company first and foremost, almost exclusively. A profit-oriented one at that. So asking them to compete with Sony and Microsoft head-on is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

Much of this is admittedly speculation, after all, this industry has proven to be quite unpredictable. But I think there's enough evidence to support why Nintendo shouldn't target Sony and Microsoft head-on.

Great post.

 

[Realeza]

honestly don't see why these numbers are so impressive, nintendo handhelds always do great, plus it has one of the best zelda's and of course it also gonna get bought up by the small user base of nintendo fans that still buy home consoles. this thing will easily double wiiu numbers.

You come from a six month ban or what? Lmao

 

[The Wart]

honestly don't see why these numbers are so impressive, nintendo handhelds always do great, plus it has one of the best zelda's and of course it also gonna get bought up by the small user base of nintendo fans that still buy home consoles. this thing will easily double wiiu numbers.

It says right in the OP that the Switch numbers are higher than those of previous Nintendo handhelds and consoles, so even allowing that "nintendo handhelds always do great" I don't see how these are not impressive numbers.

Then factoring in the higher price point than previous handhelds, launching in March, and the brand generally having been tarnished by the failure of the Wii U, yeah, they're impressive numbers.

 

[onemanasylum]

Sony's list of gaming duds:

PSP - About half of the market share of its competitor
PS3 - Lost Sony tons of money
PS Vita - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Bonus:

Spoiler

PSVR

Nintendo's list of gaming duds:

Nintendo 64 - Less than half of the market share of its competitor
GameCube - Less than 20% of the market share of its competitor
Wii U - Really poor market share
Bonus:

Spoiler

Virtual Boy

Sony's list of gaming successes:

PS1 - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS2 - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
PS4 - More than 60 million units sold; dominating its generation

Nintendo's list of gaming successes:

NES - Rebuilt the North American gaming market; dominated its generation
SNES - Fairly even footing against Sega, but came out on top
Game Boy - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation
GBA - More than 80 million units sold; dominated its generation
DS - More than 150 million units sold; dominated its generation
Wii - More than 100 million units sold; dominated its generation until Nintendo started shifting software resources to 3DS/Wii U in 2010; still came out on top
3DS - More than 60 million units sold; dominated its generation

Not to mention that Nintendo's total hardware sales since Sony came on the market are actually higher than Sony's total hardware sales during the same timeframe. And this is all without looking at profitability, where Nintendo is the clear winner when you look at the sum total of their business over time.

Sony may beat Nintendo in the home console space pretty frequently, but Nintendo has historically won when you examine the market as a whole.

Ridiculous post, and none of this is true. Something cannot be a success if a competitor did a lot better? What? PSP at 80 Million was a success, a pretty good one.

Since entering the market, Sony, not Nintendo has had the biggest presence in the market as a whole.

On that note, Congrats Nintendo, I love my switch, just hope the games come, need something after Zelda. I think the concept appeals to people, as right now it lacs features and games.

 

[D.Lo]

Since entering the market, Sony, not Nintendo has had the biggest presence in the market as a whole.

Based on what? They have sold less hardware, less software, and made much, much, much less money.

 

[legend166]

honestly don't see why these numbers are so impressive, nintendo handhelds always do great, plus it has one of the best zelda's and of course it also gonna get bought up by the small user base of nintendo fans that still buy home consoles. this thing will easily double wiiu numbers.

"Nintendo handhelds always do great" was absolutely not a given this generation. The handheld market has fundamentally changed with smartphones. It went from 280 million units in the DS/PSP generation (holy cow that's huge) to maybe 80 million in the 3DS/Vita generation. It's huge revisionist history to try and say "Duh, it's a Nintendo handheld!"

 

[ninjablade]

It says right in the OP that the Switch numbers are higher than those of previous Nintendo handhelds and consoles, so even allowing that "nintendo handhelds always do great" I don't see how these are not impressive numbers.

Then factoring in the higher price point than previous handhelds, launching in March, and the brand generally having been tarnished by the failure of the Wii U, yeah, they're impressive numbers.

the main reason is most consoles launches are supply constraint.

remember this the first time ever nintendo has combined home console and handheld into one.