Not that I don't know Wii attracts those who don't play much video games, and that boost the Wii sales but made most gamers think that Nintendo is a kiddie company.
I don't think that Wii appeal the casual audiences is a good thing, but I also think that it's not a bad thing either. People who are non-gamers are the majority, so that's why the Wii sell really well. However, it did turn out to be a fad after Microsoft and Sony adapt motion controls. My Wii didn't collect dust until we bought a Wii U, so I am probably the special case. Also the Wii best selling game chart, only Mario Kart Wii, NSMB Wii, Super Mario Galaxy, Brawl were the games that hard core gamers would also enjoy. Wii sports, Wii Fit were bundle with the console, so that's why it sell well. Games on PS3, were all big titles, but most didn't sell better than those games on the Wii. So Wii actually does have games that gamers can enjoy, like Metriod Prime, Animal Crossing, Zelda, Xenoblade, etc. were all games that we as a gamer enjoys. Gamers and casuals are still consumers, and the Wii attract tons of casuals, but not much gamers.
Absolutely not.
Gaming Industry should cater to gamers first and foremost, and then expand outside. It was the Wii's impact on the competition that turned Gen VII into one of the worst generations. Companies and devs kept trying to make videogames into either waggle-fests or films. And while the best selling games on PS3 didn't sell as well as the best sellers on Wii, look at the top 100, and you see a massive drop off in software sales after the top 9 for Wii, whereas PS3 games consistently sell millions. Likewise, do note that the PS3 was a console with a smaller install base, and far more variety than the Wii. Ofc the majority of Wii software sales would pool into a select number of titles whereas the PS3's is more spread out. This is why you look at the software-hardware tie ratio as well, aka the Attach rate. To see how it all compares in the large scheme of things. Part of the reason of the PS4's current success is because of its record-breaking attach rate, already outpacing the PS2, aka the best-selling console of all time. The evidence is clear, appeal to gamers, and success will come you way. Neglecting the core audience of the industry to branch out and appeal top casuals is absurd. And Nintendo should know by now that that audience is fickle, and only interested in following trends. Only reason Wii was so successful was because it was a trend, not because it was a good machine.
And I don't really understand with you saying Nintendo "beat of their own drum", I admit Nintendo does crappy decisions and marketing (Especially in my country). I do see them trying to change in a different pace, maybe it's just me but I think Nintendo is going a different route this time.
About that Nintendo console sales chart, since you think Switch is a portable not a home console, maybe we should take a look at the handheld sales. Which Nintendo are still good at.
It may take a bit of miracle for Switch to sell more than Wii U within 2017...
I can't be certain on how well the Switch is going to sell. My lowest expectation is the Switch has to sell better than the Wii U, it's not hard right?
Not quite, this graph needs to be contextualized some. If you look at the lifetime sales of all those consoles, you also see a downward trend with a spike at the DS:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/56a12257dd08952a108b45eb-1177-550/wiiusalesholy****.jpg
3DS is Nintendo's WORST-selling handheld.
Reason for this is quite simple in fact:
While the industry at large is expanding, the handheld market is getting cannibalized by the mobile market.
This is what frustrates me the most about the Switch. What Nintendo should have done is make the Switch a dedicated portable device, aimed at the growing Blue and Magenta Persona/Floating screen markets. They really had it there, and could have pushed the industry into a new forefront by giving 3rd party devs a solid platform which ventured into a new market.
Here's how you do it. You push the Switch out as a dedicated gaming tablet, yes, with the Joycons as they are, where you can attach them to the console, or take them off, but none of that gimmicky HDR or motion stuff. A powerful chip, like Pascal to keep battery life and performance optimum, and a bunch of added features like a 4G network for communication and online play away from home (especially since we'll be soon moving into 5G and "always online networking" - hint hint, upgrade in 2020), and access to common apps like Whatsapp, and Skype, etc... all built in. Rather than needing a phone to make the most out of Nintendo's console, the console itself should double as a decent tablet with strong gaming capabilities at a budget price compared to other tablets on the market.
Which is EXACTLY what consoles are to PC, a cheaper more unified alternative, and also the EXACT strategy Sony pulled with the PS2.
What were they thinking latching onto the handheld market like that? The utter shortsightedness of it all. A dedicated gaming tablet with Nintendo's brand attached to it, and with a lot of power for a relatively cheap price would not only be a massive success, but just thinking about it makes me wanna pick something like that up. Instead we got the Switch, which has a massive identity crisis and lacks the proper aspects of a portable device due to a lack of direction. HDR, "share the joy," party games? ARMS? Man, no one cares about that. Only the most loyal of Nintendo fans are gonna pick that up. While you could have had the SNES/PS2 of tablets instead, and pushed the industry into a new forefront.
Because the fact of the matter is, the gaming industry is gonna go through some radical changes in the coming generation thanks to the power of portable devices and the potential of VR and the similarties between PC and home consoles.
Sticking to old models is only gonna hold you back, and while the Switch "pretends" to be innovative, it's not. The Vita did everything the Switch could do, and much better. Switch should have been a push into a new section of the market, and regularize the model of mobile gaming, not... "a hybrid console."
Third party dev will be skeptic on the Switch when it launch, if Switch sells really well. I don't see the reason third party devs not coming to Switch.
Speaking of Pokemon, if strong handheld titles like Pokemon, Yokai Watch, Monster Hunter had their main games on the console, along with other big titles. I can see this can be a chance to boost the Switch's sale.
Monster Hunter is going multiplat, the next big installment will likely hit PS4 and Vita as well:
https://mynintendonews.com/2016/11/...-west-and-feels-handhelds-are-limiting-sales/
As for Pokemon, their games don't top out 14million on average. Which isn't too far from what other best-sellers on WiiU and 3DS already do based on the data someone else already posted ITT.
Yokai Watch is hardly relevant.
Again ,that's only from your perspective and I respect that. To be honest I will being using Switch as a handheld for the most of the time. I don't think I will even bother playing on the TV. Nevertheless I personally think the line between home console and handheld is not clear anymore. With PC being more superior than home consoles, and mobile devices like phones and tablet can also play games that home console also had. I don't see Switch being a hybrid console is a terrible idea.
It's better to stay in observational perspective, wait for the console to launch and see how it goes. Doing these review, speculations don't really mean much anything.
Not quite, the line between portable and home consoles is very clear. If you can take it on the go, it's a portable. If you can play it on a TV, it's a home console. It's the line between home consoles and gaming PCs that's getting blurred, but that's always been somewhat vague anyway.
The newzoo graphs I posted above should show that clearly.
