Support NeoGAF

[Jubenhimer]

If there's one thing Nintendo is known for, it's their games. With an army of beloved characters and properties at their disposal, and a powerhouse software R&D division, Nintendo can single handedly sell consoles on the sheer strength of their first party productions alone. But with the Switch, It may just be me, but the Entertainment Planning & Development Division seems to have taken a few cues and strategies from the software arms of other Platform holders. Specifically SIE Worldwide Studios, and Xbox Game Studios. Now, Nintendo is still Nintendo. They're still the tinkering Apple-like toy maker we know them to be with products like Nintendo Labo and Ring Fit Adventure. But Nintendo has seemed to have paid attention to what Sony and Microsoft get right with their first party content strategy, and applied some of those lessons in their own Nintendo-like fashion.

Chief among them is encouraging more creative autonomy within their teams. Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa, and Head of EPD, Shinya Takahashi have both openly stated that Nintendo's Production Groups should have the freedom to peruse new ideas and concepts however they want, and not have to constantly be told what to make and how to make it. This is the strategy Sony has embraced for years with Worldwide Studios, and what Microsoft is focusing on with Xbox Game Studios. Letting the teams make what they want, how they want, and support their vision by working with marketing, sales, and focus groups to deliver games that not only sell, but ones that the developers can also call their own. Nintendo's been moving towards the same direction for a while, resulting in what could be the most varied software lineup the company has put out. From tried-and-true Nintendo classics like Super Mario Odyssey and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, to newer faces like Splatoon, ARMS, and Ring Fit Adventure. To collaborations with independent developers in the west like with Snipperclips and The Stretchers. In the past, Nintendo's primary Software Division, EAD was dictated almost solely by whatever creative mood Shigeru Miyamoto was in at the time.

Another key change, is Nintendo's willingness to encourage "darker" games, and in general, including darker elements in many of their games. Sony and Microsoft have always defined themselves by offering more "Adult" titles to distinguish themselves from Nintendo's largely family-friendly roster. Nintendo's no stranger to dabbling in this area before like with Eternal Darkness and Geist, but with the Switch, it seems to be a vital part of their first party strategy for the console, and not just experiments, or token titles. You have games like Astral Chain, where Nintendo went as far as to toss out the original fantasy pitch, and encourage Platinum to try something more original, hence the darker, dystopian sci-fi setting. Bayonetta 3, which even after the underperfomance of Bayonetta 2, still got a huge reveal and is a game Nintendo seems to have a lot of faith in. Famicom Detective Club, an IP that NOBODY expected Nintendo to revisit, is getting full on remakes of the two games from Mages. Splatoon 2 Octo Expansion, which contains a darker tone and story, rarely seen in an in-house Nintendo game. And the triumphant return of Metroid with the big reveal of Metroid Prime 4, where they even went as far as to publicly admit that the original build wasn't very good, and will be rebooted with Retro Studios taking over development. While all-ages content still makes up most of Nintendo's annual roster, there seems to be a more confident attitude in promoting darker, more edgy elements.

Lastly, there's production values and budget. Sony and Microsoft studios often go all out on R&D budget for various games, which result in massive worlds, and impressive technical feats. Nintendo was always and in some ways, still is, more conservative with game budgets. Sometimes, to the point of only including the bare minimum, for better or worse, to cut costs, believing that quality gameplay wins over graphics and set-pieces. The Wii U was where it got really bad, as Nintendo didn't know how to handle the change of HD development. But with the Switch, while Nintendo still isn't interested in reaching Naughty Dog level budgets, they appear more willing to splurge a bit more on the budget of several titles to help reach their full potential. Of course, there's Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey, filled with ambitious concepts and technology that's impressive, even on the under-powered Switch hardware. Even games like Ring Fit Adventure, are generally receiving more money and marketing put into them than they would've gotten on the Wii U or 3DS.

In terms of software, Nintendo, their games, and their unique ways of making them haven't changed. But, the overall marketing, production, and content strategy these days is much more in-line with Sony and Microsoft's than it was back in the Wii U days.

 

[Thavash]

I’ve been a disillusioned Nintendo fan since the end of the GameCube era. I haven’t bought the last 3 machines (only a 3DS ). They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

 

[Jubenhimer]

They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

I'd say they've done that for the most part.

 

[meirl]

I’ve been a disillusioned Nintendo fan since the end of the GameCube era. I haven’t bought the last 3 machines (only a 3DS ). They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

Did you play Mario odyssey?

 

[Mr Hyde]

I'd say they've done that for the most part.

Yes, I'm one of them. I've never really liked Nintendo and their hardware, always went with Sony and Playstation or Sega (when they did hardware) but Switch, goddamn what a great console that is. Maybe the best console ever, the hybrid concept is so simple yet so clever.

Also, great library of games with solid first and third party support. It's basically a portable PS360 sprinkled with some current gen flavour and Nintendos own dynamite portfolio. Love the indie scene too that's currently bursting with creativity. The only thing lacking is the time to play them all.

 

[nowhat]

I'd say they've done that for the most part.

Yes, you get to buy the same games over and over for each new Nintendo console.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

I'd say they've done that for the most part.

How? The NES and SNES were a haven of the latest and greatest third party games accompanying Nintendo's releases. Nintendo has been in the same terrible position since the end of the GameCube.

We get it, they have this constant stream of great first party games but that's missing the point. You shouldn't need to buy another system to get all of the stuff you miss out on by having their platform.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Yes, you get to buy the same games over and over for each new Nintendo console.

They're not "The Same games" when most of them change a lot with each entry, on top of new stuff as well.

How? The NES and SNES were a haven of the latest and greatest third party games accompanying Nintendo's releases.

That was back when the industry was vastly different than it is now. It was much smaller, and didn't have as many markets or niches to cater to. It was easy for Nintendo to dominate, when all they had to worry about was Sega. But when Sony and Microsoft entered the ring, that's when things became difficult. rather than try to fight a battle that they couldn't win, they instead decided to cater to audiences and niches the others wouldn't or didn't cater too.

Nintendo has been in the same terrible position since the end of the GameCube.

Doubtful considering the Switch is the most critically and commercially successful platform Nintendo's released in years.

We get it, they have this constant stream of great first party games but that's missing the point. You shouldn't need to buy another system to get all of the stuff you miss out on by having their platform.

In the case of the Switch, it really doesn't matter. It's not a PS4 subsitute, and it isn't trying to be. The Switch still gets a lot of third party support, even without the latest AAA games.

 

[nowhat]

They're not "The Same games" when most of them change a lot with each entry, on top of new stuff as well.

No, I meant the old NES/SNES games.

 

[Jubenhimer]

No, I meant the old NES/SNES games.

Oh, that. Well it's true to an extent. It's not quite as bad on the Switch, since they're bundled with an subscription, but it was embarassing on the Wii U and 3DS, where the they had completely different VC architectures, requiring separate purchases.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

They're not "The Same games" when most of them change a lot with each entry, on top of new stuff as well.

That was back when the industry was vastly different than it is now. It was much smaller, and didn't have as many markets or niches to cater to. It was easy for Nintendo to dominate, when all they had to worry about was Sega. But when Sony and Microsoft entered the ring, that's when things became difficult. rather than try to fight a battle that they couldn't win, they instead decided to cater to audiences and niches the others wouldn't or didn't cater too.

Doubtful considering the Switch is the most critically and commercially successful platform Nintendo's released in years.

In the case of the Switch, it really doesn't matter. It's not a PS4 subsitute, and it isn't trying to be. The Switch still gets a lot of third party support, even without the latest AAA games.

This is just excuses and a total denial of reality for where they are and how they got there. The fact of the matter is Nintendo used to be PlayStation, they used to be Xbox, they used to have their own games and get a huge chunk of the AA and AAA third party market.

Instead of trying to correct their failing for losing that they do what Nintendo does best, turn tail on whatever isn't working instead of trying to right the ship and then come flying back into the market with other gimmicks.. It's been so long since they've been relevant in the market outside of themselves it's like people have forgotten that they actually used to be a real competitor, with a real platform, with real game support from the development world.

 

[Jubenhimer]

This is just excuses and a total denial of reality for where they are and how they got there. The fact of the matter is Nintendo used to be PlayStation, they used to be Xbox, they used to have their own games and get a huge chunk of the AA and AAA third party market.

This was because Nintendo effectively monopolized the console market for most of the 80s, and held an iron grip on third parties through the 90s due to their success in Japan, and some controversal policies at the time. Their only actual competitor, was a company who, if it wasn't for a strong marketing campaign outside Japan, and a certinan blue hedgehog, would've been dead long ago. It was when Sony, a tech and media conglomerate posed a serious threat that Nintendo began to crumble. Part of it was their own fault granted, but Sony completely shook up the console gaming landscape with the PlayStation, and Microsoft as well. Nintendo learned that you can't beat Sony and Microsoft and stay true to your company mission statement, especially as games and consoles began demanding more money and resources to make. Something had to give.

Instead of trying to correct their failing for losing that they do what Nintendo does best, turn tail on whatever isn't working instead of trying to right the ship and then come flying back into the market with gimmicks.

Not going directly toe to toe with Sony and Microsoft IS correcting their mistake. It didn't work with the GameCube, what made you think it'd work again. And the Switch also corrected many of the mistakes made with the Wii U in terms of marketing, branding, hardware, and content strategy.

It's been so long since they've been relevant in the market outside of themselves it's like people have forgotten that they actually used to be a real competitor, with a real platform, with real game support from the development world.

Except they are a relevant force in the gaming market. The Switch is a real platform, with real sales and real developer support that helps make it popular. Your arguments may be more valid if this was the Wii U or GameCube days. But with such a successful system like the Switch, it just comes off as out of touch.

 

[DynamiteCop!]

This was because Nintendo effectively monopolized the console market for most of the 80s, and held an iron grip on third parties through the 90s due to their success in Japan, and some controversal policies at the time. Their only actual competitor, was a company who, if it wasn't for a strong marketing campaign outside Japan, and a certinan blue hedgehog, would've been dead long ago. It was when Sony, a tech and media conglomerate posed a serious threat that Nintendo began to crumble. Part of it was their own fault granted, but Sony completely shook up the console gaming landscape with the PlayStation, and Microsoft as well. Nintendo learned that you can't beat Sony and Microsoft and stay true to your company mission statement, especially as games and consoles began demanding more money and resources to make. Something had to give.



Not going directly toe to toe with Sony and Microsoft IS correcting their mistake. It didn't work with the GameCube, what made you think it'd work again. And the Switch also corrected many of the mistakes made with the Wii U in terms of marketing, branding, hardware, and content strategy.



Except they are a relevant force in the gaming market. The Switch is a real platform, with real sales and real developer support that helps make it popular. Your arguments may be more valid if this was the Wii U or GameCube days. But with such a successful system like the Switch, it just comes off as out of touch.

Look at the original Xbox, look at the GameCube, their sales were not that far off, one was 20 million, the other was 24 million. They were in essentially the same position going into the 7th generation on the heels of their entries in the 6th.

Who fucked up next as far as the gamer is concerned? Microsoft came back, they absolutely killed it and produced one of the most adored gaming platforms in history. What did Nintendo do? They created the Wii... While it sold a lot it completely abandoned the core gamer, was barely more powerful than the GameCube and resulted in the loss of basically all relevant third party. Since then they've continued their gimmick assault, they've continued to release growingly weaker hardware, they're still supported by barely any third party two consoles later.

I can't call something a real platform that isn't actually supported by the industry, that isn't supported by the AA and AAA market at large. They've got a heavily first party supported indie machine which functions as a port dumping ground from last generation and shovelware. All of this stems from their lack of initiative to actually create a competent hardware platform, the writing is on the wall. All they have to do is have a good piece of hardware and they'll have everything, but they continually choose to chase the gimmicks instead of actually seeking to better their platform.

 

[Jubenhimer]

Look at the original Xbox, look at the GameCube, their sales were not that far off, one was 20 million, the other was 24 million. They were in essentially the same position going into the 7th generation on the heels of their entries in the 6th.

Keep in mind, the Xbox was handicapped by its failure in Japan, so it was only NA and Europe where it was relevant, and it was also quickly replaced by the 360 just 4 years into its life. In NA, it was far more relevant and successful than the GameCube, which was constantly seen as a joke by most gamers. If the Xbox had a few more years under it, and was more successful in Japan, its sales would've been even higher.

Who fucked up next as far as the gamer is concerned? Microsoft came back, they absolutely killed it and produced one of the most adored gaming platforms in history. What did Nintendo do? They created the Wii... While it sold a lot it completely abandoned the core gamer, was barely more powerful than the GameCube and resulted in the loss of basically all relevant third party.

Spare me the "Hardcore gamer" crap. The Wii had almost as much "core" games as other platforms. People just focused so much on Wii Sports and the like because they sold the most. That's not to discredit Microsoft and the 360, but let's not brush off Nintendo's accomplishments that generation either.

I can't call something a real platform that isn't actually supported by the industry, that isn't supported by the AA and AAA market at large.

AA devs like the Switch, and most of them do bring their games to it. Indies are also rolling in the Switch doe. AAA games are a fair argument, but there are at least re-releases of older ones.

All of this stems from their lack of initiative to actually create a competent hardware platform, the writing is on the wall. All they have to do is have a good piece of hardware and they'll have everything, but they continually choose to chase the gimmicks instead of actually seeking to better their platform.

They have with the Switch. It's the perfect platform and form-factor that both keeps the company relevant, and stays true to their company vision. There's not really any need for Nintendo to try and make an ultra-hardcore, power-box like the PS5. Not because they can't, but because there's nothing to gain from it. A system like the Switch gets them far more profits and relevance than a PS5 knock-off ever would. That isn't to say there's no room for improvement. Rather, why fix what isn't broken?

 

[Deleted member 774430]

It's a change we saw since the very first reveal of the Switch.

They acknowledged many of their returning fans are adult so they want to play more mature experiences, so they can't just focus on kids friendly games, they have to have experiences to please all audiences. Granted that has always been true with the big Nintendo games but now it's applied to pretty much everything: The first ads had no kids, the look of the console and its accessories is more similar to Playstation and Xbox, etc.

Previously Nintendo kept the kind of image they created since the Wii: extremely family friendly and the casual audience in general. What's weird is that Wii U in its concept tried to be more appealing for pro gamers but still keeping that casual look, so it didn't really please neither of those.

Their willingness to collaborate with other studios, is a big change and i agree with the OP that was huge: this was Nintendo realizing they cannot do everything by themselves alone. It brought us many games that otherwise we'd have never seen from an in-house studio either cause they're too busy with other projects or they're not as interested.

Another key factor i would add is Nintendo embracing indies and small size studios with an unprecedented partnership.

Both Sony and Microsoft have done similar initiatives in the past, but it was always temporarily and only when they needed more games quickly: either at the very beginning of the gen to fill the store with contents, or at the very end when they don't have big games coming anymore.

What Nintendo is doing is on an whole new level:

Even before the launch of the new system they signed partnerships with multiple indie publishers to secure games from them, even with exclusives, and Nintendo would do marketing for them with dedicated indie Directs, big presence at PAX events, giving them the dev kits earlier, lots of benefits you can't have on the other systems.

This brought a number of positive aspects:

1) A great number of success stories of games performing really well on Switch, often better than all the other systems combined.

2) There are far less gaps in the lineup as compared to previous Nintendo systems.

3) What you can't have from third parties, you can somewhat fill it with more games.

4) A constant stream of games coming every week which means big revenues for Nintendo also. (as we saw for instance with Steam what it means having such a giant store)

 

[cireza]

Is this some kind of PR post ? It really reads like one.

Nintendo games have been pretty much the same since the Gamecube era. I have been following them closely and played all consoles, their output is always the same. I don't see how we can say that they are pushing creativity and darker games more than before, when the output actually talks for itself.

Switch is another Nintendo machine with always the same exact games again and again. And of course, a few ones that are original, as always, but that's only a handful.

Was I having an inferior or extremely different experience when I was playing on Gamecube ? The answer is no. Mario Sunshine was a very close experience do Odyssey, Wind Waker was original, great and open which paved a bit for BotW. Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem. Mario Kart. Smash Bros Melee etc... These haven't changed much, they are the same series, and similar games. Worst of it is that I actually find the Gamecube games better than all the sequels, in most cases.

So what remains of interest coming out from Nintendo ? The few first party games that are not sequels, like ARMS (which was pretty good). And the second-party games that they publish. But let's be clear about this, the strategy is simple to understand, they only contract a few games of the sort to be able to say "And here is for the core gamers". So you get Bayo 2, W101 or Tokyo Mirage, all great games. But that's not a lot to look forward to when you are the same kind of player as me.

And Gamecube had good third party support and was a relevant console technically speaking. Wii U was the last time we saw Nintendo being technically relevant, and this was only the couple years before the move from third parties to Xbox One and PS4. Switch is the nail in the confin. They had 1 gen of being late when not improving the tech from Gamecube to Wii, and they did it again with Wii U to Switch. It is pretty clear that they will never compete with the others anymore, and this is pretty much like saying goodbye to any kind of support from third parties. Even now, third parties have to resort to absurd downgrades in most cases to be able to release their game on Switch. Who wants to play in such conditions ? Nintendo can be happy that a few third parties still care about this, but I don't see how it can last honestly.

They have locked themselves with their hardware choices, and I don't see great creativity in their releases at all. I only see Wii U ports and predictable sequels for now.

 

[Jubenhimer]

I don't see how we can say that they are pushing creativity and darker games more than before, when the output actually talks for itself.

Because we've seen it in recent years, not just from New IP, but from other series as well.

Was I having an inferior or extremely different experience when I was playing on Gamecube ? The answer is no. Mario Sunshine was a very close experience do Odyssey, Wind Waker was original, great and open which paved a bit for BotW. Metroid Prime, Fire Emblem. Mario Kart. Smash Bros Melee etc... These haven't changed much, they are the same series, and similar games. Worst of it is that I actually find the Gamecube games better than all the sequels, in most cases.

Fire Emblem Three Houses is actually quite different from previous games. Mario Odyssey is a fair bit different as well. BotW is a complete deconstruction of Zelda. and while Smash and Mario Kart don't change too radically, they still offer a lot of new things each entry.

Basically, they're not "the same exact games", they're just new entries in long running series that add to or change up what came before it.

So what remains of interest coming out from Nintendo ? The few first party games that are not sequels, like ARMS (which was pretty good). And the second-party games that they publish. But let's be clear about this, the strategy is simple to understand, they only contract a few games of the sort to be able to say "And here is for the core gamers". So you get Bayo 2, W101 or Tokyo Mirage, all great games. But that's not a lot to look forward to when you are the same kind of player as me.

Nintendo publishes a lot of games, more than many other mainstream publishers. They always put out plenty of "core" games, but those can't be the only games. Often, they need to branch out and offer other things as well. And again, it's not always sequels, there's plenty of original games too.

And Gamecube had good third party support and was a relevant console technically speaking. Wii U was the last time we saw Nintendo being technically relevant, and this was only the couple years before the move from third parties to Xbox One and PS4. Switch is the nail in the confin. They had 1 gen of being late when not improving the tech from Gamecube to Wii, and they did it again with Wii U to Switch. It is pretty clear that they will never compete with the others anymore, and this is pretty much like saying goodbye to any kind of support from third parties. Even now, third parties have to resort to absurd downgrades in most cases to be able to release their game on Switch. Who wants to play in such conditions ? Nintendo can be happy that a few third parties still care about this, but I don't see how it can last honestly.

Nope. Third parties will always support the Switch simply due to its userbase and ease of development. So long as the Switch and its games keep selling, third parties will support it. Power doesn't actually matter to most companies, buisness is what matters. Yes, this doesn't necessarily mean support will come in the form of the latest AAA games. But developers will always make games with the Switch in mind so long as there's a market for it.

As for downgrades, you overestimate how many actually care about that. Sure, you may not like it. But it's a mobile version of the full game. Any compromises made can be forgiven if the port is still good.

and I don't see great creativity in their releases at all. I only see Wii U ports and predictable sequels for now.

So BotW, Splatoon 2, ARMS, Labo, Snipperclips, Mario Odyssey, Sushi Striker, Astral Chain, Fire Emblem Three Houses, Luigi's Mansion 3, Ring Fit Adventure, The Stretchers, and Mario Maker 2 have no creativity at all? I mean, yeah there's a lot of Wii U ports, and some series haven't made as radical of a leap. But don't say there's no creativity in Nintendo's recent games at all. That's just, blatantly ignorant.

 

[FStubbs]

Nintendo realized that, as a game/toy company, they could not stay profitable by competing directly against huge tech companies like Sony and Microsoft. They had to go a different route.

I mean, even the Switch as it is now is proof of this. It's basically a Nintendo-branded nVidia Shield.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I see GAF’s bias against Nintendo is a hard one to die. A poster makes a long, informed, pacific post about Nintendo and of course it must be PR, nobody could seriously be interested in Nintendo’s products or find any reason to praise them in 2020.

I’ve been a disillusioned Nintendo fan since the end of the GameCube era. I haven’t bought the last 3 machines (only a 3DS ). They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

I’ve read this tripe a literal thousand times ever since the Wii stopped selling like hotcakes.

You “NES/SNES era fans” wouldn’t buy a Nintendo console if it was as powerful as the latest PC. It’s as simple as that. Stop lying.

The Bayonetta 2 “stealing our games” thread was truly illuminating about this. It’s not about the games. Some self-professed “diehard fans” will let their favorite franchise rot in hell before they buy Nintendo hardware to support it. People here are laughing at the very idea of someone being interested in the next XBox over a PS5 citing “exclusives”, yet when it comes to Nintendo it’s always about Nintendo consoles not having the third parties, and Nintendo exclusives are mysteriously never enough reason to get the hardware. People would rather candidly admit to playing those games emulated on PC - and I’m sure all of the people who do, do so completely legally.

I don’t believe for a second that having a hardware that gets all the latest games from Ubi, CDPR, Activision and EA day one at the best settings would be reason enough for you “disillusioned Nintendo fans” to get back on board. No, most of you would probably end up with the latest PlayStation instead and then say that it’d be redundant to also have the Nintendo Juggernaut. Hell, I bet you’d rather go PS and PC.

You don’t want a Nintendo console? It’s fine. You don’t need to give people who do your justification for not wanting it. But stop making up excuses. SNES was 25 years ago. If you haven’t found a reason to get a Nintendo console since then, well, maybe it’s not because Nintendo did everything wrong. Their sales and their successes say otherwise.

Also, how do we still have the “Wii completely abandoned the core gamer crowd” and the “Nintendo is irrelevant in today’s market” comments? This is utter console war fanboy crap. Please make an effort to make this board better than this, we’re not 15 year olds.

Lastly, I’d like a few examples of “creativity” from other big devs and publishers if you don’t see great creativity in Nintendo’s games.

 

[policestationx]

Sony and Microsoft creativity = Cinematic 3rd person shooter and adventure.

 

[Thavash]

Did you play Mario odyssey?

Not yet. Would you say worth investing in a Switch for that ( with Metroid Prime 4 coming )?

 

[NAI1210]

Not yet. Would you say worth investing in a Switch for that ( with Metroid Prime 4 coming )?

Yep I played Mario odyssey with such a big smile on my face, that no other game has managed to do since I was a kid,I knew I had to buy a switch after that, I do like Nintendo games though.

 

[Virex]

What Microsoft first party?

 

[Thavash]

Yep I played Mario odyssey with such a big smile on my face, that no other game has managed to do since I was a kid,I knew I had to buy a switch after that, I do like Nintendo games though.

You’ve got me browsing Amazon....... is the Switch lite good ? (Sorry to hijack thread )

 

[EverydayBeast]

There's no disputing Nintendo's game output its fair to say they're on a high level.

 

[-MD-]

I’ve been a disillusioned Nintendo fan since the end of the GameCube era. I haven’t bought the last 3 machines (only a 3DS ). They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

Switch successfully did that.

 

[cireza]

...

I don't understand the goal of your thread if you are simply going to dismiss all the facts that anyone who has followed Nintendo during the last 20 years can easily acknowledge.

I don't care about list wars and nitpicking. The situation is pretty clear for Nintendo and its series since the Gamecube era, not much has changed. If you are satisfied with it, then good for you. But don't try to convince others that the situation is different than it actually is, because this is pretty much lying. Nintendo has been spamming the same games and series for 20 years with little changes overall, and not many ambitious or risky games from first parties.

Sony and Microsoft suck just as much, if it can help you feel better.

Nope. Third parties will always support the Switch simply due to its userbase and ease of development. So long as the Switch and its games keep selling, third parties will support it. Power doesn't actually matter to most companies, buisness is what matters. Yes, this doesn't necessarily mean support will come in the form of the latest AAA games. But developers will always make games with the Switch in mind so long as there's a market for it.

This quote is pretty delusional honestly. How many third parties included the Switch in their game design ? Close to zero. They simply downgraded the hell out of there game to make them run, somehow, on the console. As soon as their AAA games, the ones that actually keep the companies afloat, are too ambitious for the system, then they won't release on Switch obviously. And you can be sure the Switch being a thing won't make third parties lower their games technically speaking, as they are competing against other third parties that definitely won't do this.

A console that is not up to date technically speaking cannot hope to change how third parties make their games. And I am not even talking about how well the games sell on Switch vs the usual platforms where third parties run their business. Probably a fraction only.

 

[VertigoOA]

It brought back disillusioned fans? With what? First great Zelda game in 20 years? Okay... that’s one peanut.

Where’s FZERO, WaveRace, Punchout. When was the last good Star Fox? Major third party support that isn’t last gen ports and massive Vaseline filter downgrades? Or what about genre defining games like GoldenEye? Here’s some cardboard to play with...

No, the Switch does not cater to disillusioned fans. It caters to Iwata-era fans... which was the worst era of quality software output from them.

GameCube was their last legitimate competitive console. After that they recycled the GameCube with the Wii and recycled the Wii U with the switch and charges premium for hardware that’s ten years behind industry standards and 20 years behind with online infrastructure.

No regrets selling the switch after Zelda was done with. I knew better than to hold onto a subpar gaming machine just to wait for a Metroid game to launch 4 years later.

 

[Investor9872]

I’ve been a disillusioned Nintendo fan since the end of the GameCube era. I haven’t bought the last 3 machines (only a 3DS ). They need to win back us NES / SNES era fans

The Switch is my first Nintendo since the Gamecube, and I just picked it up over Christmas for the holidays. Personally, it's great to see how far Nintendo has come, and after 20 years their games are still so innovative.

 

[Jubenhimer]

I don't understand the goal of your thread if you are simply going to dismiss all the facts that anyone who has followed Nintendo during the last 20 years can easily acknowledge.

But they're not facts. They're just your personal observation, which is fine. But don't pretend that this is something that people can't disagree with. I do actually agree with you in the sense that Nintendo is still Nintendo in a most ways. My argument is that they also adopted a few traits from the other two as well in recent years.

I don't care about list wars and nitpicking. The situation is pretty clear for Nintendo and its series since the Gamecube era, not much has changed. If you are satisfied with it, then good for you. But don't try to convince others that the situation is different than it actually is, because this is pretty much lying. Nintendo has been spamming the same games and series for 20 years with little changes overall, and not many ambitious or risky games from first parties.

You keep passing this off as common fact, but it isn't. Just like how Sony isn't just "3rd person action games" and Xbox isn't just "Halo/Forza/Gears", Nintendo isn't just "the same games and series for 20 years with little changes overall". I listed you several games that can be considered "ambitious and risky" released in the past 3 years, and very popular ones at that.

Sony and Microsoft suck just as much, if it can help you feel better.

I take it you don't like First party games in general. In any case, It's easy, and fun at times, to joke about the sterotypes of each brand. Sony with cinematic action games. Nintendo with popular IPs, and Microsoft with the usual 3. But they all release much more than that on a regular basis, and that's something that's important to acknowledge as well.

This quote is pretty delusional honestly. How many third parties included the Switch in their game design ? Close to zero. They simply downgraded the hell out of there game to make them run, somehow, on the console. As soon as their AAA games, the ones that actually keep the companies afloat, are too ambitious for the system, then they won't release on Switch obviously. And you can be sure the Switch being a thing won't make third parties lower their games technically speaking, as they are competing against other third parties that definitely won't do this.

Well, game development is a lengthy process, and many developers games were already well into development by the time the Switch came out. So many early games came either late, or not at all. But we're three years into the Switch's life. Developers know by know its place in the market, and that ignoring it completely is financially idiotic (unless your EA of course). No, that doesn't mean downgrade every AAA game in existence, but have some resources dedicated to games designed with the Switch and its hardware in mind going forward.

This isn't even wishful thinking, we already seen it with games like Crash Team Racing, Starlink, Octopath Traveler, Daemon X Machina, AI, Trials of Mana, No More Heroes III, Bravely Default II, Valkyria Chornicles 4, among others. You seem to think third party support is only AAA games heavily downgraded for the Switch, but that isn't the case. Third party support comes in many forms, and even if the Switch doesn't get all the latest AAA games, it'll still get plenty of other stuff.

A console that is not up to date technically speaking cannot hope to change how third parties make their games. And I am not even talking about how well the games sell on Switch vs the usual platforms where third parties run their business. Probably a fraction only.

Third party games on Switch typically sell about on par with, in some cases better than the other versions. Specs only matter to games that need high end specs. But not every game is created equally. Many games don't need much more power than what the Switch is capable of.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

No, the Switch does not cater to disillusioned fans. It caters to Iwata-era fans... which was the worst era of quality software output from them.

Iwata became president of Nintendo in 2002. Basically every significant GC game came out in the "Iwata era". If you think GC was competitive then you're contradicting yourself.

What's hilarious in these responses is that while GC was competitive on a technical level, it still ended up as the worst-selling Nintendo home console before the Wii, and this was with some GOAT contenders like Metroid Prime 1 and 2 and RE4. How do people still insist on the GC's technical competitiveness when its sales sent the clear message to Nintendo that competing in raw power and having most third party games (including some beloved Sega classics!) wasn't reason enough for the public to buy their system? Hell, people didn't buy the goddamn GC at $99! Yet apparently people are buying a late, gimped port of The Witcher 3 on the Switch, and years-late ports of Skyrim and Dark Souls.

None of this means the Switch is a dream machine, obviously. But again, don't try to hide your lack of interest in Nintendo hardware with excuses. GC was technically competitive, and it sold less than the OG XBox which was the new player on the market, expensive as fuck and practically unsellable in Japan. GC also had far less interesting first-party games compared to the Wii and WiiU if you ask me, but that's my personal opinion. I dislike Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker with a passion. MP and RE4 basically redeemed the console for me.

 

[Deleted member 774430]

Iwata became president of Nintendo in 2002. Basically every significant GC game came out in the "Iwata era". If you think GC was competitive then you're contradicting yourself.

What's hilarious in these responses is that while GC was competitive on a technical level, it still ended up as the worst-selling Nintendo home console before the Wii, and this was with some GOAT contenders like Metroid Prime 1 and 2 and RE4. How do people still insist on the GC's technical competitiveness when its sales sent the clear message to Nintendo that competing in raw power and having most third party games (including some beloved Sega classics!) wasn't reason enough for the public to buy their system? Hell, people didn't buy the goddamn GC at $99! Yet apparently people are buying a late, gimped port of The Witcher 3 on the Switch, and years-late ports of Skyrim and Dark Souls.

None of this means the Switch is a dream machine, obviously. But again, don't try to hide your lack of interest in Nintendo hardware with excuses. GC was technically competitive, and it sold less than the OG XBox which was the new player on the market, expensive as fuck and practically unsellable in Japan. GC also had far less interesting first-party games compared to the Wii and WiiU if you ask me, but that's my personal opinion. I dislike Mario Sunshine and The Wind Waker with a passion. MP and RE4 basically redeemed the console for me.

Also worth mentioning that while Gamecube had many great to amazing games, the catalogue was incredibly small.

Switch is the perhaps the first home console since the SNES that Nintendo treats it as their main system so all the investments go in that machine. Previously Nintendo's home consoles has always had to live in the shadow of the far more successful handheld counterpart.

What's funny is that many users in this forum still believe Nintendo is living the troubled days of the pre-Switch era, when in reality in the past 2-3 years things have really changed.

Switch is outpacing the PS4 (launch alligned), Nintendo is also making money from mobile games, they're investing in theme parks, etc.

IR Information : Sales Data - Dedicated Video Game Sales Units

www.nintendo.co.jp