Current concern on the gaming forums is the lack of high-profile launch games, with Splatoon 2 and Mario not being present at that time. Can Zelda alone sell systems? (probably yes)
They don't call them Zelda Boxes for nothing. I'll admit I'm biased, but I see nearly every Zelda game as easily in the top 3, if not the killer app of each Nintendo system.
Legend of Zelda - NES
Link to the Past - SNES
Links Awakening - Gameboy
Ocarina of Time - N64
Wind Waker - Gamecube
Twilight Princess - Wii
Skyward Sword - Wii
Heck, even the promise of how perfectly the WiiU's controller could have been for a Zelda game, was enough for me to buy the system.
I guess that makes me a fanboy. As long as Nintendo keeps making Zelda games, I'll keep buying the necessary hardware.
They don't call them Zelda Boxes for nothing. I'll admit I'm biased, but I see nearly every Zelda game as easily in the top 3, if not the killer app of each Nintendo system.
Maybe so, but there's no way[1] I would by a console just because I want to play a single game. It takes at least half a dozen exclusives that interest me (announced, they don't all have to be released yet) for me to consider buying another console.
[1] Not actually true: I'm considering buying a PS3 so that I can play Demon Souls. But a second hand PS3 is very cheap, so its not really the same thing IMHO.
I guess I look at it differently: Zelda games are so intriguing and enveloping for me, particularly the puzzle solving and tool usage, that the franchise stands alone, above any other, full stop. Outside of Zelda, I'm not a very big gamer, and the games I do play are ones that appear to have Zelda-like qualities.
While stressful, the time limitation wasn't exactly demanding. The song of half-time was available fairly early on. Two hours was plenty of time to do just about anything in the game.
Not having both Zelda and Mario at launch is probably good for reducing demand a bit to help them keep up, because it's nice to sell out but not by too much.
Mario Kart's turning up a month later. Splatoon is coming during the year some time (can't remember if they said when).
And saving Super Mario Odyssey for next holiday season is clear marketing savvy. They get the Nintendo hardcore now, a nice flow during the year as the library strengthens, and then a big boom of Mario people for that bizarrely crucial holiday season.
And staggering out games with online multiplayer makes sense if this new service they're offering needs to have a bit of shakedown time.
If there are 100 games released for a console, how many of those games would appeal to you ? 10? 20?
How long do you play a game for before you've finished it. And then what ?
One game every few months isn't enough. So they release Splatoon in a few months, I'm not interested in that so from my point of view there isn't anything to play that month.
You're making some big claims about the cleverness of this marketing strategy. But I'm going to disagree that "reducing demand" and "staggering releases" are the way to release a video game console. I see no advantage to doing so.
The only other system to come with zelda at launch was the Wii, so I'd say yes, even though there were other factors involved.
Personally, I was waiting for zelda before picking up a wiiU, it's the first nintendo machine I haven't owned since the NES (which I was too young for).
Good point. What do you think is forcing them to release the system before most games are ready? I know Wii U hasn't been a great success, but would holding off the Switch for another six months have been so dire?
They shut it down? I thought I remember reading something about Nintendo saying that the Switch wasn't meant to replace the Wii U or the 3DS. I took that to mean that it would run in parallel.
