Launch new system

[Anonymous No.8308202]

>Release with three games
>One is a board game, the other has three hours of content
What were they thinking?

[Anonymous No.8308204]

>Launch new system
>Release with three games
>One is an arcade port, the other has three hours of content
What were they thinking?

[Anonymous No.8308207]

>>8308202
Third game makes up for it. In 96 Super Mario 64 was absolutely a system seller. And I think you’re underselling Pilotwings a bit. Also, get this: they released more games later

[Anonymous No.8308230]

>>8308207
They could have released Pilotwings or Dr Mario 64 and "it" would still have been a system seller. Question is: Why did Nintendo do this? Why not wait for some decent third-party games? In both cases the consoles crashed and burned due to lack of games.

[Anonymous No.8308239]

>>8308230
>In both cases the consoles crashed and burned due to lack of games.

This is how you KNOW someone wasn't actually around at the time. Spoilers: the N64 was exactly as successful as the SNES in North America. Major releases for the system were huge. It made Nintendo a lot of money and brought gamers tons of classic games.

[Anonymous No.8308264]

>>8308202
>Yamauchi-sama, I express to you with grave concern that, in about 25 years, anonymous baka zaimus will speculate about the titles we are planning to debut our new system with
Yamauchi speaks
>It's over

[Anonymous No.8308271]

>>8308239
>Spoilers: the N64 was exactly as successful as the SNES in North America.

[Anonymous No.8308486]

>>8308271
Sales numbers don't lie. The SNES sold about 10% more, and it was on the market considerably longer than the N64 was.

[Anonymous No.8308492]

>implying OP could unlock everything in Pilotwings 64, let alone in 3 hours
Nice one.

[Anonymous No.8308496]

>>8308271
You're a little retarded mate.

[Anonymous No.8308498]

>>8308486
yes, but the market was smaller you stupid retard

[Anonymous No.8308505]

>>8308498
Are you seriously saying the N64 "crashed and burned" (objectively false) because it didn't tap into the new market of dudebro gamers? That's some serious goalpost stretching.

[Anonymous No.8308513]

>>8308505
>only 1 person posts in /vr/
dil8

[Anonymous No.8308526]

>>8308202
Three games on launch wasn't odd in the 90s, and it's not like there weren't more games soon after launch. You could argue for third party games, but fact is that Nintendo has a strong tradition and association to first party games with its brand, and typically their first party launch tittles are pretty good.

Super Mario 64 sold a lot of people on the N64 alone, it's easy to get into, did a lot of fun and novel stuff most people hadn't seen done in games until then, and it has a lot of content, all while looking and sounding amazing.

>>8308230
The N64 was not the absolute runaway success which the competing Playstation was, and it could certainly have been better in some aspects, but that doesn't mean it wasn't successful and didn't make a lot of money.
Crash and burn more describes the Saturn, but even then that isn't accurate because Sega kept going with the Dreamcast before throwing in the towel and instead becoming a publisher.

>>8308271
He's very much correct. Again, there's various circumstances which hindered a lot of its potential, but it still did quite well. "Good, but not excellent" is not a failure, particularly given that Nintendo didn't lose money on the N64.

[Anonymous No.8308583]

>>8308486
>>8308496
>>8308526
I like how the mods deleted my post, but understandable (OP). Anyway, all you have to do is look at the number of consoles sold. SNES sold 1.5X more worldwide than the N64, and the PSX sold over 3X as much as the N64. Of course PSX sold more in developing nations since you could burn the games so it was a better choice for poor households. Regardless, N64 had less of the market share when compared to the SNES/Genesis era. SNES had over 700 games in the US, N64 had less than 300. On licensing and fees alone, that's more than 50% potential loss of revenue. PSX had over 1000 games in NA and around 7000+ total. Now consider the costs of the carts versus the cost of printing a disc.

N64 was a loss when you consider TIME. Third-party devs are a constant stream of revenue that require no dev time (in fact, Nintendo wouldn't even support third-party devs when they had issues so they had to figure out stuff on their own). Nintendo was tied up in a failing console for years. No software, no new buyers, no third-party interest.

[Anonymous No.8308591]

In other words, if I tell you to develop a game and I will fund your rent and food for five years and you will break even and maybe make $10k, great. Not a loss. But you could have made millions in those five years and my investment had terrible returns.

[Anonymous No.8308604]

>>8308583
There is zero question that the Playstation was more successful that the N64. I just have a huge problem with the narrative that the N64 was just blown out or was a failure. Yes, the N64 was carried almost entirely by the North American market, but that's a big market where it sold as well as the previous Nintendo console. It was sold everywhere, supported with major releases people actually bought up until its successor came out, and was culturally very relevant.

[Anonymous No.8308626]

>launch console with three games
>never release anything else for it

What did nintendo mean by that

[Anonymous No.8308661]

>it's a zoomer starts analyzing sales figures on Wikipedia thread

[Anonymous No.8308669]

>>8308661
Are you purposely being an idiot or just pretending?

[Anonymous No.8308718]

>>8308626
They meant “Virtual Boy”

[Anonymous No.8309527]

>>8308202
Imagine being such a zoomer that you think this is a problem. You only need 1 game to launch a console. You are supposed to look forward to the new releases as the come out. Plus, only a degenerate NEET would have time to play more than 1 game every few months.