And...what exactly is the defining line between those two sets of games?
What makes Triforce Heroes mainline, but Crossbow Training not?
I would not have called ANY of those "mainline" Zelda games.
Disagreeing with Nintendo again, I see.
Reworking Tour content is the reason they were willing to try such an unproven release model. If it wasn't successful, no big deal. Because it didn't take a ton of resources to develop.
Do you know what you're arguing? What release model do you think Smash will take? Waiting five years to get DLC? Why would they do that? The only reason it happened with 8D was because Tour provided more content. The next Smash will get content right away. As will the next Kart.
Or are you using the BCP to justify just making the next game the last game but with more content, even though that's not what the BCP is, it's not why it was made, it wouldn't provide comparable data to a game, and the new Mario Kart directly counters this scenario.
But now that the model has proven extremely successful, it's something Nintendo WOULD be willing to invest resources in. Confident that, if the game is big enough, additional DLC will still be successful, even 5 years later.
I don't know why you think Nintendo wouldn't already be aware that DLC for an evergreen game still selling millions of units five years after release with a nearly 1:2 attach rate would still sell. Ultimate's DLC didn't stop because it was no longer profitable... they know DLC still sells years later.
But if we're going by your paradigm we can now see Nintendo being aware of this market potential and still choose to make new games instead.
No, I'm doing the exact opposite of that. Other people are drawing conclusions based on patterns that have exceptions to them. And I'm pointing out those exceptions. Which makes their conclusions...inconclusive.
Being like, "That's not going to happen because it never happens.", while ignoring that one time it already happened, is disingenuous.
First off, this isn't even an exception, because Mario Kart is getting a new entry. If the BCP would establish a precedent of anything, it's not what you're arguing, because the BCP wasn't a deluxe port, it was just adding more content to an existing game later.
Second, that's a reductionist rendition of the counterpoint, because people explain
why these exceptions remain exceptions while you ignore the reasoning, looking only at the game existing. Because if you examine
why they happened, you'll see the current circumstances don't line up for them to recur.
Like bringing up MK8D as precedent for a Deluxe port. Using that as evidence ignores Nintendo's desperation to not repeat the Wii U while also getting the Switch out fast, therefore putting out an existing Mario Kart because the new one wasn't ready. Why do you think they gave a Mario Kart no real DLC for five years? Because MK9 was a bigger priority internally, but was rendered unnecessary for that system.
Smash not only doesn't serve the same purpose as MK has, to be a launch window killer app, but it likely being in development for a few years already would give them time to make a new game by year 2 or after. Not to mention Nintendo has had ample time to give Switch 2 a non-emergency launch lineup.
It also ignores the lack of people who played vanilla MK8, making it a new title for so much of the audience. Once again, people are typically less likely to buy some new version of a game they already own over a completely new title. Over 30 million people already own Ultimate, while no one owns Smash 6 yet.
Don't gaslight me. There are absolutely people here saying it's definitely not going to happen.
That's exactly what not ignoring means, they're addressing it and saying it's not going to/not likely to happen.
You were actively ignoring the alternative by not even addressing it, until it was brought up in direct reply.
