I just want to make it clear that I am not "waving off" pricing concerns, especially outside of the US. To me, it is perfectly plausible that Nintendo sees the product exactly as they say: an improved successor to their former home console (it is) that is the definitive expression of "Nintendo's DNA" (it is that for sure) that while designed for TV use, it can also be played away from a TV.
This is Nintendo talking to Nintendo's customers, right? Is this the kind of thing that would appeal *first and foremost* to the *majority* of those people...because they do NOT want to lose them.
Then, there is a play here, clearly, at/for a more...uh, affluent set of the usual claimed "everyone" target...BUT I believe I understand why this is - demand control. The more affluent will soak up the primary market inventory very quickly, and after a couple of cycles of this and more production and software, people's trepidation will be assuaged...both "general" consumers and developers/the 'punditry'. This will free up Nintendo to drop perf prices a little and offer some digital rebate in their store. Most of that first wave won't care as the "buyer's remorse" subset will have been weeded out and grousing on the Internet, and the rest, well these are the kinds of people that spend $100s on things sight unseen, because they can. They absorb the first big chunk of risk, everyone generally wins in these scenarios.
I think a big part of the "where are the 'Big name Games'? Why 'Nintendo'?" is only part of the question: do the *vast majority* of people that are already buying what Nintendo is selling really want these things...and if they *DO*...it appears to me that Nintendo isn't "nerfing" anything to stop developers from making whatever. Perhaps *they* don't believe it will sell on the platform because "Nintendo"?
And what does it matter, anyway? In virtually every space Nintendo has entered with every product...except the WiiU, they have dominated. Because Nintendo's answer was the same as everyone else's (more of what we were already doing, better. I mean, where did Sony or MS plant any new flags with the PS4 or Xbox One that were wildly divergent from the PS3 and 360? Right. Exactly. Triangles. Oh. And more "convergence" crap that "adds false value in the form of features"...like BluRay in a world of on-demand streaming from every source...or a clunky TV interface...or TV service. Ugh. And Sony. 4K that really isn't...not that it matters...HDR...I have a supported Bravia and...more eye candy. Same.) but people didn't want it *last time*. Not a bad record. Past Performance/Future Results do not always follow...YMMV.
And too, let's be honest. Virtually every recently released OMG Tour de Force in the last year has had the same basic "issue" - lot of flash. Lacking in substance. Save for the debacle that was NMS out of the gate, most of the accolades have been going to the indie crowd. If you are spending 60M+ to produce blockbusters that don't burn up the charts...but that's a digression.
If Most Anticipated Cross-Platform release of 2017 doesn't get released on a platform that is *coming out in March 2017*...who would expect otherwise...in the really-for-real-world? These titles were in most cases started like two years ago. C'mon
Very early angst here people. I mean except for Foxi4. This person seems to believe they have insights that the thing is already failed before it hits retail...and Nintendo, the channel and pretty much everyone else is just going thru the motions and have already moved on to the next thing
