OK, so have 1-2 switch preordered digitally, the hard case and a tempered glass screen protector preordered. Just have to get a physical copy of Zelda, and we're good.
The average lifespan of a video game console is 5 years. The PS4 and XB1 have been around for 3 years.
Being at 80% of a competing product that's going to stop being relevant altogether in just 2 years is not a great situation to be in if you're trying to sell yourself as a home console.
Say whatever you want about how well the Switch runs Indy games, but Indy games do not a home console make.
I don't think you can talk about the "average" for console generations anymore. The model has changed quite a bit since the last time we saw a straight 5 year console cycle(which was the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation). First, both the PS3 and Xbox 360 were 8 years before their replacements launched. Second, both companies are releasing forwards compatable hardware bumps in the PS4 Pro and whatever the Scorpio will be called. That's never really happened before (I don't count optional addons like the 32x, etc)
I really don't think we're going to see a Playstation 5 and an "Xbox next" console anytime soon. Those consoles seem to be more like PC's now, where we're seeing minor hardware bumps every few years and the older devices still work just fine.
The average lifespan of a video game console is 5 years. The PS4 and XB1 have been around for 3 years.
Being at 80% of a competing product that's going to stop being relevant altogether in just 2 years is not a great situation to be in if you're trying to sell yourself as a home console.
Say whatever you want about how well the Switch runs Indy games, but Indy games do not a home console make.
I mean, the PS3 was out for 7 years before the PS4 came out so your argument is already somewhat off. And, if anything, this generation might last even longer.
Switch seems fairly unlikely to have many external hardware revisions.
It's not going to get any smaller, it's not going to get any bigger, and I doubt they'll change the form factor significantly.
Nintendo handhelds always get hardware revisions, usually many. I'm certain Nintendo's engineers are already working on the first one.
Yea to make them bigger or smaller. I highly doubt they will make the switch smaller without inventing magic as that thing is super tight inside, and it's already probably pushing the bounds of too big.
We're talking about the engineers who figured out how to turn this...
...into this...
...in just two years. If they've done it before, they can do it again.
The physical component size is roughly the same. It's just laid out differently. If you see the hardware tear downs of the Switch you'll see there's not a place for anything to even go. It's pristinely built. The only way you'd be able to get smaller is if you dropped a few process nodes so power draw was lowered by a ridiculous amount and even then you'd have to remove the reinforced Joy-Con rails.
Also at that point it certainly wouldn't be cheaper.
Edit: Additionally I'd wager future revisions would keep the same physical size and battery and use the advantages of a smaller node to increase clock speeds and such. Like iPad/iPhone revisions where realistically it's about the same form factor each time.
Console wars crap is tiresome. This console generation has already proven to be anything besides traditional, and Nintendo is seemingly embracing the "we're going to be your second console/primary handheld, the place where you get Nintendo and portable indie games".
Yes, they don't have power parity, but they're being better to indie devs, and unlike the Wii U the switch has the edge of being a handheld. They are entirely focused on the system, and are expected to have titles in two long running franchises as well as a sequel to one of their most popular new franchises within the first year.
I was absolutely savage on the Wii U before it came out and after, and I was right to be so. But the switch isn't the Wii U. This isn't a half measure released a year behind the competition. And it has the full force of Nintendo development behind it. I'm fairly confident this system is going to be something special even if it can't hit PS4 or Xbox One numbers in a hurry.
imo, the problem isn't that the switch is an underpowered console, but that it's an underpowered console that costs significantly more than the competition.
This console generation has already proven to be anything besides traditional, and Nintendo is seemingly embracing the "we're going to be your second console/primary handheld, the place where you get Nintendo and portable indie games".
That's my point though. The Switch succeeds at being one of those things, but fails pretty hard at being the other.
The Switch is very attractive as a primary handheld for those who want a handheld. In that regard, it's a big improvement over the Wii U.
But the Switch is also way too expensive to be attractive as a second console for people who just want to play Nintendo games. In that regard, it has a lot of the same problems the Wii U did.
Jesus, I'm gone for one afternoon and suddenly we're trying to argue the system's merits again? Why the hell would you come into the Switch thread justt to says it sucks? I've never been more excited for a system purely for the hardware and possibilities, ain't nobody gonna change that!
This console generation has already proven to be anything besides traditional, and Nintendo is seemingly embracing the "we're going to be your second console/primary handheld, the place where you get Nintendo and portable indie games".
That's my point though. The Switch succeeds at being one of those things, but fails pretty hard at being the other.
The Switch is very attractive as a primary handheld for those who want a handheld. In that regard, it's a big improvement over the Wii U.
But the Switch is also way too expensive to be attractive as a second console for people who just want to play Nintendo games. In that regard, it has a lot of the same problems the Wii U did.
I don't think it is too expensive. That will be something decided by sale numbers, not exactly something you can just pronounce right now. We'll see how things shake out, but from where I'm sitting it has every possibility of being very successful or at least moderately successful.
I don't think we're in much position to judge the Switch's failure as a console just yet. Maybe we'll get it in our hands and be like "huh, oddly enough I prefer it in console mode, and honestly I've played it twice as much like that as my other consoles for months."
Switch seems fairly unlikely to have many external hardware revisions.
It's not going to get any smaller, it's not going to get any bigger, and I doubt they'll change the form factor significantly.
Nintendo handhelds always get hardware revisions, usually many. I'm certain Nintendo's engineers are already working on the first one.
Yea to make them bigger or smaller. I highly doubt they will make the switch smaller without inventing magic as that thing is super tight inside, and it's already probably pushing the bounds of too big.
We're talking about the engineers who figured out how to turn this...
...into this...
...in just two years. If they've done it before, they can do it again.
Two years to do that isn't that impressive. They moved the screen and compressed the components a bit. There's a limit.
Plus who knows if those same engineers still work there!
The Switch getting a hardware revision would likely be for more storage or, given the competitors, beefier internals. The form factor is unlikely to change.
imo, the problem isn't that the switch is an underpowered console, but that it's an underpowered console that costs significantly more than the competition.
Exactly. Too underpowered to be a home console, too expensive to be a micro-console.
Why the hell would you come into the Switch thread justt to says it sucks?
Good question! Despite what may appear to be negativity, I'm actually pretty optimistic, not for the Switch itself, but for what can be made from the Switch.
Back before we knew what the NX was, there were many who speculated that it might actually be two devices, with each having the same internal architecture but different form factors. It was a great idea and still is! And Nintendo can do exactly that at any time they choose! All they have to do is sell a machine with the screen, battery, and speakers stripped out, and everyone will be happy.
Well, okay, not the people who want a handheld they can put in their pocket. That nut's gonna take a few more years to crack, but I don't believe it's impossible.
Well, crap. I was waiting to buy a month of Amazon Prime so I could use the 20% preorder discount for both Breath of the Wild and Mass Effect Andromeda, and Amazon just sold out of BotW.
The Switch absolutely looks compelling when compared to other handhelds, of which there are none.
Hey! The Vita still...exists! I guess!
I'm not as concerned about the hardware as the software lineup. Quite a few of the games are available elsewhere on systems people already have. First party titles are still the biggest draw and there's only a handful, and of those only a few that seem like guaranteed hits (Zelda/Mario).
Ports are fine but I don't think they'll be system sellers.
If you don't feel there's value there for the cost that's between you, your bank, and whatever games you like but for a lot of us we clearly see the value here.
That value equates to a lot of things there that aren't hard numbers and are more about portability and such.
To each their own but the arguments about hard numbers are not going to sway a bunch of people who specifically knew going into this system that it wasn't going to be a flops monster.
There are a lot of ways to get those numbers and the top edge graphics. We aren't here for that.
We want a system we can play on business trips or at the hospital with our loved ones and then drop it in to our big TV when we get home. Some of us even want the crazy joycons.
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Back before we knew what the NX was, there were many who speculated that it might actually be two devices, with each having the same internal architecture but different form factors. It was a great idea and still is! And Nintendo can do exactly that at any time they choose! All they have to do is sell a machine with the screen, battery, and speakers stripped out, and everyone will be happy.
Well, okay, not the people who want a handheld they can put in their pocket. That nut's gonna take a few more years to crack, but I don't believe it's impossible.
(emphasis mine)
You mean you'll be happy. I personally love the positioning of the Switch. It's not a console, not a handheld, not either exactly. It's its own thing, and Nintendo is marketing it as that. Once you split it up into two things, you'll end up with a console that people won't replace their already-bought PS4/XBones for, and a handheld that feels wimpy compared to the console that the developers are developing for, making each less attractive.
I have the following that you might just want to consider: Maybe it just isn't for you, you know? That's fine. The Xbone's not for me and I have nothing against the people who like it or Microsoft who seem perfectly happy to keep it in its current category.
I mean, there is a handheld to compare it to, the over 60 million unit selling 3DS? Nintendo wants that market, and especially in Japan, home consoles are dead and dusted. Didn't the PS4 only just pass the WiiU in sales? They are trying to make a single device that caters to both markets. I don't think they have much interest in selling it with no screen, battery, and speakers. All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
I highly doubt Nintendo has much interest in that. It's just a Vita TV at that point, and we all know how well the Vita TV did.
Maybe that exists like the Wii Mini late in the cycle, but I can't imagine it'll be any time soon.
I mean, of all the systems, nintendo ones are the ones you should be the least worried about software lineups, at least for 1st party stuff. Even with them pretty much abandoning the WiiU, it still had a bunch of really good exclusives. And theoretically, they're consolidating their dev teams, so this would get the 3ds teams working on stuff for it too?
I mean, there is a handheld to compare it to, the over 60 million unit selling 3DS? Nintendo wants that market, and especially in Japan, home consoles are dead and dusted. Didn't the PS4 only just pass the WiiU in sales? They are trying to make a single device that caters to both markets. I don't think they have much interest in selling it with no screen, battery, and speakers. All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
I highly doubt Nintendo has much interest in that. It's just a Vita TV at that point, and we all know how well the Vita TV did.
Maybe that exists like the Wii Mini late in the cycle, but I can't imagine it'll be any time soon.
Uh if we're talking about hardware sales, the Wii U sold according to wikipedia 13.56 million units. The PS4 has sold 53.4 million.
Wii U sold around 96 million pieces of software. PS4 is over 400 million.
I mean, of all the systems, nintendo ones are the ones you should be the least worried about software lineups, at least for 1st party stuff. Even with them pretty much abandoning the WiiU, it still had a bunch of really good exclusives. And theoretically, they're consolidating their dev teams, so this would get the 3ds teams working on stuff for it too?
I don't agree with this at all. Nintendo first party stuff is often good, but not always. There are certainly some gems on the Wii U I'm sad I didn't get to play (Mario Maker mostly) but overall nothing really comes to mind. It didn't get a main line Zelda game did it? And no core Mario Galaxy/64 esque mario game.
Uh if we're talking about hardware sales, the Wii U sold according to wikipedia 13.56 million units. The PS4 has sold 53.4 million.
In Japan the PS4 just finally surpassed the Wii U's sales at the end of last year. Both systems were outsold by the Vita. That's what he was talking about.
Uh if we're talking about hardware sales, the Wii U sold according to wikipedia 13.56 million units. The PS4 has sold 53.4 million.
In Japan the PS4 just finally surpassed the Wii U's sales at the end of last year. Both systems were outsold by the Vita. That's what he was talking about.
Well clearly Japan is insane. That makes way more sense though.
Aren't consoles in general kinda dying in Japan? They have a lot more arcades and mobile focus. Does make the nature of the switch make a lot of sense when viewed in that lens though.
The Switch getting a hardware revision would likely be for more storage or, given the competitors, beefier internals. The form factor is unlikely to change.
While that's certainly a possibility, it seems rather uncharacteristic of Nintendo. They have a tendency to be rather frugal in their logic.
Selling a machine at a reduced price point that plays Switch games but doesn't have any of the components that allow for portability would only cost Nintendo the price of physically manufacturing them. It would require basically no engineering, because it only involves taking things out, not putting anything in.
Beefing up the internals to make the Switch closer to parity with home consoles, on the other hand, would be expensive. Not only would the new components cost more than the ones already in the Switch, but they would have to pay their engineers to figure out how to shove them into that handheld frame.
Of these two options, which one seems like the lower risk?
Besides, they could very well end doing both. The 3DS led to both the 2DS and the New 3DS, after all.
Switch feels like a soft launch to me. I want one and I'm sure I'll eventually pick one up but I'm very uneasy about it. The release day is just over a week away and there's still a lot of unanswered questions. We still don't know how our existing virtual console purchases will be handled, do we?
I mean, there is a handheld to compare it to, the over 60 million unit selling 3DS? Nintendo wants that market, and especially in Japan, home consoles are dead and dusted. Didn't the PS4 only just pass the WiiU in sales? They are trying to make a single device that caters to both markets. I don't think they have much interest in selling it with no screen, battery, and speakers. All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
I highly doubt Nintendo has much interest in that. It's just a Vita TV at that point, and we all know how well the Vita TV did.
Maybe that exists like the Wii Mini late in the cycle, but I can't imagine it'll be any time soon.
Uh if we're talking about hardware sales, the Wii U sold according to wikipedia 13.56 million units. The PS4 has sold 53.4 million.
Wii U sold around 96 million pieces of software. PS4 is over 400 million.
The Wii U was not exactly an amazing seller.
I was obviously taking about Japanese sales. The PS4 is barely competitive with the WiiU, a console so dead even it's own maker stopped giving a shit 2 years ago. The Switch exists to bridge the Japanese and NA/EU markets with a single device. Every decision they made about the hardware and future decisions they will make must be taken through that lens.
Switch feels like a soft launch to me. I want one and I'm sure I'll eventually pick one up but I'm very uneasy about it. The release day is just over a week away and there's still a lot of unanswered questions. We still don't know how our existing virtual console purchases will be handled, do we?
Switch feels like a soft launch to me. I want one and I'm sure I'll eventually pick one up but I'm very uneasy about it. The release day is just over a week away and there's still a lot of unanswered questions. We still don't know how our existing virtual console purchases will be handled, do we?
It absolutely is a soft launch. They want the rabid fans like myself to whet their appetites in time for them to build up stock for a Winter Seasonal Holiday Sales Bonanza. They're betting big on it, which is good, because Nintendo's at their best when they're on the ropes. Let's hope they deliver the knock-out.
I'd be shocked if Virtual Console on Switch wasn't handled identically to how it was on the WiiU: upgrade fees, delayed releases, and all. It sucks but I know better than to expect more of Nintendo. Nintendo's "more" is the free rentals with your Switch Internet Subscription.
Starting to hear about some bundles from one retailer here in Australia today, though the catalogues aren't out yet - with the Switch priced at $469 locally, apparently Big W are offering it with 1-2 Switch for $499 or Zelda for $519, so saving about $40AUD either way off RRP.
They're already advertising the games at about $15 off RRP though individually for launch, so only a saving of $25, but still the first news of any kind of bundle I'd heard so thought it was worth sharing.
Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
Double that, if not more. Touchscreens of that size are expensive to manufacture. That's why the Wii U cost so much, and the Switch's touchscreen is even larger. Not to mention the further reduced price by selling the SKU with a pro controller instead of two joycons and a comfort grip.
Comparisons to the PSTV have been made elsewhere in the thread, but I see the concept as more comparable to the Super Gameboy or the Gameboy Player. Access to an established library of games at a drastically reduced price.
Switch feels like a soft launch to me. I want one and I'm sure I'll eventually pick one up but I'm very uneasy about it. The release day is just over a week away and there's still a lot of unanswered questions. We still don't know how our existing virtual console purchases will be handled, do we?
It absolutely is a soft launch. They want the rabid fans like myself to whet their appetites in time for them to build up stock for a Winter Seasonal Holiday Sales Bonanza. They're betting big on it, which is good, because Nintendo's at their best when they're on the ropes. Let's hope they deliver the knock-out.
I'd be shocked if Virtual Console on Switch wasn't handled identically to how it was on the WiiU: upgrade fees, delayed releases, and all. It sucks but I know better than to expect more of Nintendo. Nintendo's "more" is the free rentals with your Switch Internet Subscription.
On the issue of VC games, yeah, I don't expect much, sadly. But in a more general sense, Nintendo has been surprising me pleasantly lately.
All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
Double that, if not more. Touchscreens of that size are expensive to manufacture. That's why the Wii U cost so much, and the Switch's touchscreen is even larger. Not to mention the further reduced price by selling the SKU with a pro controller instead of two joycons and a comfort grip.
Comparisons to the PSTV have been made elsewhere in the thread, but I see the concept as more comparable to the Super Gameboy or the Gameboy Player. Access to an established library of games at a drastically reduced price.
I'd be kinda ticked if they ever sell a model without two joycons and a comfort grip. Get rid of the screen, fine. But the joycons and the grip are the standard method of control for the console. Any game can use the 2 joycons in any configuration knowing that every switch owner has them. Part of the problem with the Wii U was that there were too many damn accessories for the console. You could use the tablet, the pro controller, the Wiimote, or the Wiimote with nunchuck. And it only came with the Tablet. This comes with the standard, the joycons. And the pro controller is the secondary control method. I don't want them to drop the split controls in any hardware revision and split the userbase. It'd be bad for the console in the long run.
All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
Double that, if not more. Touchscreens of that size are expensive to manufacture. That's why the Wii U cost so much, and the Switch's touchscreen is even larger. Not to mention the further reduced price by selling the SKU with a pro controller instead of two joycons and a comfort grip.
Comparisons to the PSTV have been made elsewhere in the thread, but I see the concept as more comparable to the Super Gameboy or the Gameboy Player. Access to an established library of games at a drastically reduced price.
I'd be kinda ticked if they ever sell a model without two joycons and a comfort grip. Get rid of the screen, fine. But the joycons and the grip are the standard method of control for the console. Any game can use the 2 joycons in any configuration knowing that every switch owner has them. Part of the problem with the Wii U was that there were too many damn accessories for the console. You could use the tablet, the pro controller, the Wiimote, or the Wiimote with nunchuck. And it only came with the Tablet. This comes with the standard, the joycons. And the pro controller is the secondary control method. I don't want them to drop the split controls in any hardware revision and split the userbase. It'd be bad for the console in the long run.
To be fair, the tablet had every function that the Pro Controller had. The Pro Controller was just a matter of convenience. And I don't think I saw any games that offered Wiimote / Wiimote + Nunchuck controls except as a way to make multiplayer more convenient. It meant I never had to buy extra controllers for Mario Kart, so I can't say I am disappointed with the result.
On the other hand, the use of Wiimotes also shows that Nintendo was so desperate to hold onto the Wii's success that they couldn't let them go, and this led to a whole bunch of identity confusion and marketing disasters that were at the core of the WiiU's failure.
All it does is split the market and causes brand confusion for how much off the price, 50 dollars?
Double that, if not more. Touchscreens of that size are expensive to manufacture. That's why the Wii U cost so much, and the Switch's touchscreen is even larger. Not to mention the further reduced price by selling the SKU with a pro controller instead of two joycons and a comfort grip.
Comparisons to the PSTV have been made elsewhere in the thread, but I see the concept as more comparable to the Super Gameboy or the Gameboy Player. Access to an established library of games at a drastically reduced price.
I'd be kinda ticked if they ever sell a model without two joycons and a comfort grip. Get rid of the screen, fine. But the joycons and the grip are the standard method of control for the console. Any game can use the 2 joycons in any configuration knowing that every switch owner has them. Part of the problem with the Wii U was that there were too many damn accessories for the console. You could use the tablet, the pro controller, the Wiimote, or the Wiimote with nunchuck. And it only came with the Tablet. This comes with the standard, the joycons. And the pro controller is the secondary control method. I don't want them to drop the split controls in any hardware revision and split the userbase. It'd be bad for the console in the long run.
On the contrary, the Wii U's problem was that they doubled down on the gamepad so much that they couldn't get rid of it when they needed to do so. In the middle of that console's lifespan, it started to become obvious that the gamepad was being used by an increasing amount of games for nothing more than off-screen play, which the market did not seem to consider worth the enormous amount it was adding to the upfront cost. Late in the Wii U's life, Nintendo started attempting to justify the gamepad's continued existence by adding awkward touchscreen segments to some of their 1st party games, which popular consensus deemed to be out of place at best. Ask a Star Fox fan how they feel about the gamepad some time.
The Switch library seems like it's being designed with a lot more foresight in mind. Every game announced so far, other than 1 2 Switch, is playable with a pro controller. I mean, of course they are! Nintendo wants as many games as possible to be playable in all three of the modes they've been touting since the big presentation (TV, tabletop, and handheld). One of those three, handheld mode, absolutely requires the joycons to be attached to something. And any game that's compatible with that configuration is also compatible with the pro controller.
Ironically, Nintendo's commitment to ensuring that every game works in a handheld is the very thing that will allow them to sell a future hardware revision that isn't one.
The Wii U had multiple problems. The continued reliance on the gamepad being one of them doesn't negate that the thing had far too many control devices.
Off-screen play is one of the things people liked about the Wii U, to the point where I think it heavily influenced the main feature of the Switch.
Everything else about the gamepad went underutilized, even by Nintendo. I wish Nintendo would look at the release pipeline and think "Well, we're not using this hardware feature, so should we expect other developers to do so?" and then ax the goddamn gimmick if the answer is "No." Because, mark my words, two years from you're not going to see games using the infrared or waggle on joycons.
If nothing else it leaves a lot of room for indie developers to play with tools they don't normally have available, which can lead to some of the more creative uses.
Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
To clarify, I'm not married to the idea of a hypothetical Switch micro-console SKU being packaged with a pro controller instead of joycons. I would prefer it, and I believe it would appeal more to the hardcore gamer demographic that such a product would be targeted toward, but ultimately the added expense of the joycons is negligible compared to the added expense of the touchscreen.
Regardless, I still maintain that a microconsole would be far more likely to generate price savings than a mobile only version, whose ability to cut stuff would be pretty marginal
Posts
I don't think you can talk about the "average" for console generations anymore. The model has changed quite a bit since the last time we saw a straight 5 year console cycle(which was the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation). First, both the PS3 and Xbox 360 were 8 years before their replacements launched. Second, both companies are releasing forwards compatable hardware bumps in the PS4 Pro and whatever the Scorpio will be called. That's never really happened before (I don't count optional addons like the 32x, etc)
I really don't think we're going to see a Playstation 5 and an "Xbox next" console anytime soon. Those consoles seem to be more like PC's now, where we're seeing minor hardware bumps every few years and the older devices still work just fine.
I mean, the PS3 was out for 7 years before the PS4 came out so your argument is already somewhat off. And, if anything, this generation might last even longer.
The physical component size is roughly the same. It's just laid out differently. If you see the hardware tear downs of the Switch you'll see there's not a place for anything to even go. It's pristinely built. The only way you'd be able to get smaller is if you dropped a few process nodes so power draw was lowered by a ridiculous amount and even then you'd have to remove the reinforced Joy-Con rails.
Also at that point it certainly wouldn't be cheaper.
Edit: Additionally I'd wager future revisions would keep the same physical size and battery and use the advantages of a smaller node to increase clock speeds and such. Like iPad/iPhone revisions where realistically it's about the same form factor each time.
Yes, they don't have power parity, but they're being better to indie devs, and unlike the Wii U the switch has the edge of being a handheld. They are entirely focused on the system, and are expected to have titles in two long running franchises as well as a sequel to one of their most popular new franchises within the first year.
I was absolutely savage on the Wii U before it came out and after, and I was right to be so. But the switch isn't the Wii U. This isn't a half measure released a year behind the competition. And it has the full force of Nintendo development behind it. I'm fairly confident this system is going to be something special even if it can't hit PS4 or Xbox One numbers in a hurry.
That's my point though. The Switch succeeds at being one of those things, but fails pretty hard at being the other.
The Switch is very attractive as a primary handheld for those who want a handheld. In that regard, it's a big improvement over the Wii U.
But the Switch is also way too expensive to be attractive as a second console for people who just want to play Nintendo games. In that regard, it has a lot of the same problems the Wii U did.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I don't think it is too expensive. That will be something decided by sale numbers, not exactly something you can just pronounce right now. We'll see how things shake out, but from where I'm sitting it has every possibility of being very successful or at least moderately successful.
Two years to do that isn't that impressive. They moved the screen and compressed the components a bit. There's a limit.
Plus who knows if those same engineers still work there!
The Switch getting a hardware revision would likely be for more storage or, given the competitors, beefier internals. The form factor is unlikely to change.
Exactly. Too underpowered to be a home console, too expensive to be a micro-console.
The Switch absolutely looks compelling when compared to other handhelds, of which there are none.
When compared to other types of gaming devices though, it has some pretty significant disadvantages.
Good question! Despite what may appear to be negativity, I'm actually pretty optimistic, not for the Switch itself, but for what can be made from the Switch.
Back before we knew what the NX was, there were many who speculated that it might actually be two devices, with each having the same internal architecture but different form factors. It was a great idea and still is! And Nintendo can do exactly that at any time they choose! All they have to do is sell a machine with the screen, battery, and speakers stripped out, and everyone will be happy.
Well, okay, not the people who want a handheld they can put in their pocket. That nut's gonna take a few more years to crack, but I don't believe it's impossible.
Hey! The Vita still...exists! I guess!
I'm not as concerned about the hardware as the software lineup. Quite a few of the games are available elsewhere on systems people already have. First party titles are still the biggest draw and there's only a handful, and of those only a few that seem like guaranteed hits (Zelda/Mario).
Ports are fine but I don't think they'll be system sellers.
That value equates to a lot of things there that aren't hard numbers and are more about portability and such.
To each their own but the arguments about hard numbers are not going to sway a bunch of people who specifically knew going into this system that it wasn't going to be a flops monster.
There are a lot of ways to get those numbers and the top edge graphics. We aren't here for that.
We want a system we can play on business trips or at the hospital with our loved ones and then drop it in to our big TV when we get home. Some of us even want the crazy joycons.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
(emphasis mine)
You mean you'll be happy. I personally love the positioning of the Switch. It's not a console, not a handheld, not either exactly. It's its own thing, and Nintendo is marketing it as that. Once you split it up into two things, you'll end up with a console that people won't replace their already-bought PS4/XBones for, and a handheld that feels wimpy compared to the console that the developers are developing for, making each less attractive.
I have the following that you might just want to consider: Maybe it just isn't for you, you know? That's fine. The Xbone's not for me and I have nothing against the people who like it or Microsoft who seem perfectly happy to keep it in its current category.
I highly doubt Nintendo has much interest in that. It's just a Vita TV at that point, and we all know how well the Vita TV did.
Maybe that exists like the Wii Mini late in the cycle, but I can't imagine it'll be any time soon.
Uh if we're talking about hardware sales, the Wii U sold according to wikipedia 13.56 million units. The PS4 has sold 53.4 million.
Wii U sold around 96 million pieces of software. PS4 is over 400 million.
The Wii U was not exactly an amazing seller.
I don't agree with this at all. Nintendo first party stuff is often good, but not always. There are certainly some gems on the Wii U I'm sad I didn't get to play (Mario Maker mostly) but overall nothing really comes to mind. It didn't get a main line Zelda game did it? And no core Mario Galaxy/64 esque mario game.
In Japan the PS4 just finally surpassed the Wii U's sales at the end of last year. Both systems were outsold by the Vita. That's what he was talking about.
Well clearly Japan is insane. That makes way more sense though.
Aren't consoles in general kinda dying in Japan? They have a lot more arcades and mobile focus. Does make the nature of the switch make a lot of sense when viewed in that lens though.
While that's certainly a possibility, it seems rather uncharacteristic of Nintendo. They have a tendency to be rather frugal in their logic.
Selling a machine at a reduced price point that plays Switch games but doesn't have any of the components that allow for portability would only cost Nintendo the price of physically manufacturing them. It would require basically no engineering, because it only involves taking things out, not putting anything in.
Beefing up the internals to make the Switch closer to parity with home consoles, on the other hand, would be expensive. Not only would the new components cost more than the ones already in the Switch, but they would have to pay their engineers to figure out how to shove them into that handheld frame.
Of these two options, which one seems like the lower risk?
Besides, they could very well end doing both. The 3DS led to both the 2DS and the New 3DS, after all.
I was obviously taking about Japanese sales. The PS4 is barely competitive with the WiiU, a console so dead even it's own maker stopped giving a shit 2 years ago. The Switch exists to bridge the Japanese and NA/EU markets with a single device. Every decision they made about the hardware and future decisions they will make must be taken through that lens.
I think deep down we all know.
I for one will not be rebuying any VC games
It absolutely is a soft launch. They want the rabid fans like myself to whet their appetites in time for them to build up stock for a Winter Seasonal Holiday Sales Bonanza. They're betting big on it, which is good, because Nintendo's at their best when they're on the ropes. Let's hope they deliver the knock-out.
I'd be shocked if Virtual Console on Switch wasn't handled identically to how it was on the WiiU: upgrade fees, delayed releases, and all. It sucks but I know better than to expect more of Nintendo. Nintendo's "more" is the free rentals with your Switch Internet Subscription.
Let's Plays of Japanese Games
They're already advertising the games at about $15 off RRP though individually for launch, so only a saving of $25, but still the first news of any kind of bundle I'd heard so thought it was worth sharing.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185
Double that, if not more. Touchscreens of that size are expensive to manufacture. That's why the Wii U cost so much, and the Switch's touchscreen is even larger. Not to mention the further reduced price by selling the SKU with a pro controller instead of two joycons and a comfort grip.
Comparisons to the PSTV have been made elsewhere in the thread, but I see the concept as more comparable to the Super Gameboy or the Gameboy Player. Access to an established library of games at a drastically reduced price.
On the issue of VC games, yeah, I don't expect much, sadly. But in a more general sense, Nintendo has been surprising me pleasantly lately.
I'd be kinda ticked if they ever sell a model without two joycons and a comfort grip. Get rid of the screen, fine. But the joycons and the grip are the standard method of control for the console. Any game can use the 2 joycons in any configuration knowing that every switch owner has them. Part of the problem with the Wii U was that there were too many damn accessories for the console. You could use the tablet, the pro controller, the Wiimote, or the Wiimote with nunchuck. And it only came with the Tablet. This comes with the standard, the joycons. And the pro controller is the secondary control method. I don't want them to drop the split controls in any hardware revision and split the userbase. It'd be bad for the console in the long run.
To be fair, the tablet had every function that the Pro Controller had. The Pro Controller was just a matter of convenience. And I don't think I saw any games that offered Wiimote / Wiimote + Nunchuck controls except as a way to make multiplayer more convenient. It meant I never had to buy extra controllers for Mario Kart, so I can't say I am disappointed with the result.
On the other hand, the use of Wiimotes also shows that Nintendo was so desperate to hold onto the Wii's success that they couldn't let them go, and this led to a whole bunch of identity confusion and marketing disasters that were at the core of the WiiU's failure.
Let's Plays of Japanese Games
On the contrary, the Wii U's problem was that they doubled down on the gamepad so much that they couldn't get rid of it when they needed to do so. In the middle of that console's lifespan, it started to become obvious that the gamepad was being used by an increasing amount of games for nothing more than off-screen play, which the market did not seem to consider worth the enormous amount it was adding to the upfront cost. Late in the Wii U's life, Nintendo started attempting to justify the gamepad's continued existence by adding awkward touchscreen segments to some of their 1st party games, which popular consensus deemed to be out of place at best. Ask a Star Fox fan how they feel about the gamepad some time.
The Switch library seems like it's being designed with a lot more foresight in mind. Every game announced so far, other than 1 2 Switch, is playable with a pro controller. I mean, of course they are! Nintendo wants as many games as possible to be playable in all three of the modes they've been touting since the big presentation (TV, tabletop, and handheld). One of those three, handheld mode, absolutely requires the joycons to be attached to something. And any game that's compatible with that configuration is also compatible with the pro controller.
Ironically, Nintendo's commitment to ensuring that every game works in a handheld is the very thing that will allow them to sell a future hardware revision that isn't one.
Everything else about the gamepad went underutilized, even by Nintendo. I wish Nintendo would look at the release pipeline and think "Well, we're not using this hardware feature, so should we expect other developers to do so?" and then ax the goddamn gimmick if the answer is "No." Because, mark my words, two years from you're not going to see games using the infrared or waggle on joycons.
PSN / Xbox / NNID: Fodder185