I think that the NS Pro Controller looks fine. It's basically an Xbox Controller. I just hope that there are more colorful options since I'm not a huge fan of monochrome.Would be interesting to see GC games on Switch, though I wonder how pricing will work... not to mention controls. Something about playing GC games using a GC controller just feels so... right.
Speak of controls, I'm not fully set on the Switch controller (the big one or the little Joycons). I never really cared for any of the controllers for the Wii or Wii U. Obviously, I haven't held it myself so I won't know for sure, but the button/stick placement don't look all that comfortable.
It looks like the Wii Pro controller and aside from being too light, I've been pretty happy with it.I think that the NS Pro Controller looks fine. It's basically an Xbox Controller. I just hope that there are more colorful options since I'm not a huge fan of monochrome.
![]()
That's one of the reasons I haven't gotten either a PS4 or the XBox 1. The only reason I want the PS4 is for Uncharted and The Last of Us, but I don't want to drop $300 for just those two. I can play most of the X1 games I would want on the PC.I don't care about GC games on Switch. I own a GC. I have a Wii. I have a Wii U, too!
I want fresh, original games first.
Is it the norm to offer older games that are "remastered" for consoles at launch?
I saw it with the PS4 and that system collected dust for the longest time. If Nintendo wants to attract more than just Nintendo fans, they have to launch with games that are "system sellers."
The Switch may very well be do or die for Nintendo. If this flops like the Wii U, they may very well go the route of Sega. Let's be real: Nintendo is competing with the PS4 and XBOX1.
It's why I say they should just delay the whole console until Zelda is done, but they can't do that because of share holders.I saw it with the PS4 and that system collected dust for the longest time. If Nintendo wants to attract more than just Nintendo fans, they have to launch with games that are "system sellers."
The Switch may very well be do or die for Nintendo. If this flops like the Wii U, they may very well go the route of Sega. Let's be real: Nintendo is competing with the PS4 and XBOX1.
No, you're not the only one.Am I the only one who doesn't care about VR at all?
The reason I say the Switch is Do or Die for Nintendo (anyone remember Skate or Die for the NES?) is because investors will urge Nintendo to shift its focus from making consoles to making games for other consoles and mobile. If Nintendo sees two flops in a row with its console, I'd argue they'd be hard pressed, due to pressure from investors, to develop and release a third console, regardless of how much money they have in a bank.That second part I don't agree with at all. Nintendo is worth about the same amount of money as Sony, maybe more now there is a new Pokemon. If a Sony movie fails do we call for them to stop making movies? Nintendo's main issue I don't think is the PS4 or XB1, it's mobile gaming. Nintendo has always been kind of mobile gaming and now that's dead, phones have replaced it. I don't think the Switch will fail but even if it does I still think it will be well enough for Nintendo to make another hybrid console 5 years from now.
What you're saying is true. However, one factor that you seem to be overlooking is who those investors are. The vast majority of Nintendo's investors and stock holders aren't in the US. Nintendo has a US branch, but it is just a branch. They are still primarily a Japanese company, and aren't necessarily beholden to the whims of a US audience. This is part of the reason why they frequently make decisions that probably wouldn't help them to excel in Western markets. Nintendo does have to answer to their investors, but they aren't being driven by Western trends. And I think the majority of pressure for them to become a multi-platform software developer comes from the US, and not Japan.Because Nintendo is a publicly traded company, they have to show year-over-year growth to investors.
I'm glad. I feel like it's a bigger gimmick than 3D movies and 'wearable tech'. Both have done so amazing right?No, you're not the only one.
Those aren't very good examples. 3D movies are still getting consistently produced and sold, both in theaters and for home display. Almost every major big-budget release has a 3D version produced. And "wearable tech" is extremely popular and profitable. Fitbit does great, and smart watches continue to do brisk business. Neither of these "fad" technologies are going to become standards for average users anytime soon. But neither of them has gone away, nor will they. Any fad or hot topic is going to scale back in popularity after the initial uproar. But normally these "gimmicks" will find a more balanced place in the market once the initial craze is over. Considering the fact that both are still a part of the market, it can legitimately be claimed that they are commercial successes. They have persisted, even if they aren't the de-facto approach to their respective fields.I'm glad. I feel like it's a bigger gimmick than 3D movies and 'wearable tech'. Both have done so amazing right?
Absolutely, if Nintendo was a US company with primarily US investors they probably would have been out of the console market back after the 1-2 punch of the N64 then GameCube. They certainly would have pulled the plug even sooner on the WiiU and probably would not have even been making the Switch. The greed demanding profits above all else (and continually increasing profits) is much more of a US thing.What you're saying is true. However, one factor that you seem to be overlooking is who those investors are. The vast majority of Nintendo's investors and stock holders aren't in the US. Nintendo has a US branch, but it is just a branch. They are still primarily a Japanese company, and aren't necessarily beholden to the whims of a US audience. This is part of the reason why they frequently make decisions that probably wouldn't help them to excel in Western markets. Nintendo does have to answer to their investors, but they aren't being driven by Western trends. And I think the majority of pressure for them to become a multi-platform software developer comes from the US, and not Japan.
It's worth noting that this bias probably affected the design of the Switch. Larger home consoles have been losing ground in Japan for quite some time, where rendering power frequently takes a back seat to size and convenience. A mobile console with a very small form factor that can also play nice in a small living space is going to be ideal for a lot of Japanese consumers.
Well, the point is that you get a higher-quality overall experience. It's a premium VR solution. There's also the fact that it is entirely optional, and won't be adopted nearly as fast or as broadly, and most developers are making their plans based on this assumption. This is why you see very, very few VR-only titles, and a lot more titles where VR features are an added bonus to an existing experience. Hardly anyone is going "all-in" on VR because the install base just isn't there, and any sane person knows that it will continue not to be there until the price on these things drops a little bit more. A company like Sony can afford this type of experiment because they aren't selling the hardware at a loss, and they are currently dominating the console landscape, and have a hardware platform whose install base justifies it. Sony themselves doesn't need their VR headset to sell like hotcakes right out of the gate. They'll turn a profit, even with modest sales, and can build their VR initiative more gradually.At least with the Switch it makes sense, you would just need a head set and stick i the console you already bought. With the PS4 and XB1 I don't even get the point.
I understand that. But the reality is, whether you're from Japan or Swaziland (actual country) or the West, everything always comes down to money. Investors in China, Japan, the U.S. all want the same thing: ROI.What you're saying is true. However, one factor that you seem to be overlooking is who those investors are. The vast majority of Nintendo's investors and stock holders aren't in the US. Nintendo has a US branch, but it is just a branch. They are still primarily a Japanese company, and aren't necessarily beholden to the whims of a US audience. This is part of the reason why they frequently make decisions that probably wouldn't help them to excel in Western markets. Nintendo does have to answer to their investors, but they aren't being driven by Western trends. And I think the majority of pressure for them to become a multi-platform software developer comes from the US, and not Japan.
It's worth noting that this bias probably affected the design of the Switch. Larger home consoles have been losing ground in Japan for quite some time, where rendering power frequently takes a back seat to size and convenience. A mobile console with a very small form factor that can also play nice in a small living space is going to be ideal for a lot of Japanese consumers.
I'm not attempting to make that argument. But I also believe that the Switch is likely to do well in the East, even if it's sales aren't stellar in the West. And if those investors overseas are seeing a decent ROI overseas, they probably won't be as demanding of drastic changes. I have no doubt that they would prefer a Wii-style situation, where the Switch is a global phenomenon, who wouldn't? But a product doesn't have to be a global hit to be financially successful, or deliver a respectable ROI. Not every product can be the latest iWhatever.To argue that should the Switch flop, Nintendo will do business as usual and likely release a fourth console because the bulk of their investors are from the Far East is ... far fetched.
What it means is you might not see a lot of 3rd party support again and almost for sure won't see games like mass effect or rdr 2 on it.The Nintendo Switch specs revealed.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis
My take: I don't understand what any of this means. But I do know Eurogamer has been accurate in the past. The consensus seems to be not as powerful as an X1, a Wii U when portable and a Wii U x2 when docked. I could be wrong, but that was what I gathered from comments, etc.
I know. And that really bums me out. Because third party support is critical.What it means is you might not see a lot of 3rd party support again and almost for sure won't see games like mass effect or rdr 2 on it.
Well, it depends. The Switch is rumored to be using a variation on an ARM processor. The ARM architecture is widely used across mobile devices, and the vast majority of third-party game engines support it. So porting to that architecture is not nearly as difficult as it would be for some of Nintendo's former systems. (which frequently used PowerPC IBM processors)But, some say porting over to the Wii U will be significantly easier because of the tech involved, and won't be as complicated as doing so with PS4, X1. Hoping that is the case.
Mobile graphics are very impressive these days but are still behind desktop graphics for obvious reasons: battery life. Even the successor to the Tegra X1 likely won't beat PS4/Xbone graphics. I'm not surprised that this is the case but I'm baffled that Nintendo used a custom (seemingly weaker) version of the Tegra X1. While Sony gave developers more power and MS will be doing the same within a year, Nintendo is going backwards again.I was hoping the Switch could be as powerful as the X1. I don't say "when docked" because I figured that goes without saying. I just imagined undocked would have scaled back graphics, but overall, you could still play the game.
Anyway. It remains to be seen. I will admit, I have gone from, "OMG DAY 1!!!!" to keeping tabs on this and seeing how things shake out.
Eventually, though, I know I will get one; some Fire Emblem or Metroid game will come out and I'll end up buying it.
I have a PS4 and have passed on the numerous amazing deals for an X1 because what's the point? I have a PS4.
The Switch can prove to be a nice alternative and hopefully, others see it that way, too, and the Switch gets mainstream adoption. Because let's face it: A world without Nintendo making games for its console isn't good for gaming.
Don't forget that the Switch is the successor to the Wii U and the 3DS. That said, Nintendo handhelds have long had great third-party support, so I can see the same thing happening with the Switch. At the very least, it will probably be a solid JRPG machine, much like the DS and 3DS.Fine, graphics aren't everything, but it's hard to attract third party developers when they basically have to work backwards to make a game work on your console. And yes, I've seen the list of third parties who have committed to support the Switch so my point might be disregarded, but those same types of third party "commitments" lists existed for the Wii and Wii U and we all know how that turned out.
That might be truer than Nintendo initially wanted people to believe... with them cutting off Wii U production and with 3DSes nowhere to be found.Don't forget that the Switch is the successor to the Wii U and the 3DS. That said, Nintendo handhelds have long had great third-party support, so I can see the same thing happening with the Switch. At the very least, it will probably be a solid JRPG machine, much like the DS and 3DS.
Anyone who's hoping for the Switch to have the exact same types of non-remaster AAA games that the PS4 and Xbox One have is kidding themselves. That sort of thing hasn't been Nintendo's focus for a while now.
I'm glad you bring this up because it reminds me!Don't forget that the Switch is the successor to the Wii U and the 3DS. That said, Nintendo handhelds have long had great third-party support, so I can see the same thing happening with the Switch. At the very least, it will probably be a solid JRPG machine, much like the DS and 3DS.
You might be the only person I know who thinks the Wii U's failure wasn't due to a lack of third party support. I agree with EvilChamp that there is a consensus that the lack of third parties was at least one of the principal reasons for the Wii U's demise.I pretty much don't agree with anything you said. The 3DS is selling out because people want to play real Pokemon and not a mobile version. My cousin bought a 2DS just for Pokemon Moon last month.
The issue with the Wii U wasn't lack of third party support, it was lack of support. Nintendo made like two games on it a year. The 3DS sells because there are games for it. With the Wii U and the 3DS being replaced with the Switch there will be plenty of games for the new system.
100% agree. I don't have too much optimism however that Nintendo will have their digital issues straightened out with the Switch, at least nowhere at the beginning when it will count, and by no means any clear messaging about how it will work.We'll be getting more substantial details in the mid-January reveal. One of the more crucial factors that we are going to need to hear about is digital storage options for the Switch.
As has been pointed out by others, storage options for the Switch are going to be crucial to its success, and will especially be a big part of how third-party support shows up on the Switch. Cartridges and their production is part of what caused Nintendo to historically lose ground, and what allowed Sony a foothold in the console industry. While the technology situation has changed dramatically since then, it is still true that cartridge production is more expensive than optical media. And both are pricier than digital distribution. If Nintendo wants their new system to be attractive to third-party developers, the easiest and cheapest way is for them to make it easy and cheap for people to purchase digital games on the Switch.
And this is one of the pitfalls that the Switch faces. Nintendo has traditionally been really bad at handling digital distribution. They are so paranoid about piracy that they often let their security measures drastically affect the end-users convenience. Games have to be bought and tied to specific devices, instead of being tied to an account. Download speeds are glacially slow. All of this has to change.
The one ray of light in all this is that Nintendo has been open to using non-proprietary memory formats on their recent handheld and home console offerings. The SD and Micro-SD formats are extremely standardized, well supported, and cheap. If Nintendo continues that current trend of support for the Switch, it could be a boon for digital distribution on the platform, as that format is inexpensive, and the most modern versions of it have very high capacity. If Nintendo fails to support this style of digital storage, it could prevent the Switch from ever gaining momentum, as it would effectively lock them out of the digital space. The Vita already proved how onerous consumers consider proprietary, overpriced memory formats. A proprietary memory card on the Switch could sink the entire effort right out of the gate.
Given that the Switch is almost certainly NOT going to support connecting to phone networks, the always-online requirement is something that we won't be seeing. We see that already with digital distribution on the 3DS, so I have no real fears on that front. The reason they pull that kind of stunt with Mario Run is because they can. It is a game designed to only run on smartphones, so they can more easily rely on a constant on-line connection.Which brings me to the digital question. Will the mass market really go out and buy SD cards for this system if Nintendo doesn't put a substantial HDD in it (and we know it probably won't)? Will it mean I need to carry around a bag of SD cards to play? If the Switch doesn't connect online outside of the home, does it mean I can't start playing anything outside unless I find a hotspot that authenticates the game as one I own?
Yeah, I know Nintendo is a financially healthy company. At no point am I suggesting Nintendo is closing its doors. It has enough money to screw up multiple times.Also, just an FYI:
Nintendo is a $29.7 billion company.
Sony is a $37.3 billion company, or more than 20% the overall net worth of Nintendo.
And Pokemon, God Bless it's soul, is not the reason behind the 3DS sell outs. Lack of 3rd party support had 100% to do with Wii U's demise. This is all common knowledge. Just saying.
You're right - there will be no HDD due to battery life limitations. I too don't expect the Switch to connect online in any way unless docked at home. The small built-in memory will be a severe limitation on the system. While I certainly think Nintendo will allow for SD cards, I'm not sure that will be a good enough solution for the Switch to get any of the third parties we're usually talking about in the home console space.Given that the Switch is almost certainly NOT going to support connecting to phone networks, the always-online requirement is something that we won't be seeing. We see that already with digital distribution on the 3DS, so I have no real fears on that front. The reason they pull that kind of stunt with Mario Run is because they can. It is a game designed to only run on smartphones, so they can more easily rely on a constant on-line connection.
As to the built-in storage, there is no chance that the Switch will feature a plate-based hard drive. Such a drive would simply consume too much power for portable considerations. If it does get built-in storage, it will almost certainly be flash-based. That would be the cheaper, more affordable option from the production side of things, and fits much better into Nintendo's usual approach. Given that the Wii U's eventual standard model featured 32 GB built-in, I would expect the Switch to have no less than 64 GBs built in, possibly more. Nintendo would be well-served to squeeze as much in as they can. Even taking a loss on that component would be worthwhile, as it would strongly encourage users to take advantage of digital offerings, and the cost of production would likely reduce considerably over the course of the system's lifespan. 128 GB would be much better than 64, but I'm sure Nintendo is brave enough for that particular risk.
Well, this is all an area where Nintendo stands to gain quite a bit of support. The market, as it currently stands, is a bit starved for a mid-tier and mid-expense solution. The 3DS is currently the closest thing we have to a compromise for this, with the Vita coming in as an Eastern alternative. Mid-tier development could be a great place for larger indie developers and major publishers/developers who want to mitigate their risk with a large number of smaller-budgeted projects. And a lot of those same developers are waking up to this fact. The mobile market was where a lot of these kinds of projects ended up, but that is changing. The Switch is well-placed to serve as a home for more modestly budgeted titles. Serving as a new home for the kind of indie title that was popular on the Vita is almost a foregone conclusion. That is just a natural fit.I expect Switch to get a lot of Vita ports, and then some terrible shovelware mobile games. It'll get a few Ubisoft exclusives just like the Wii U, but then I expect it to see the same release deserts from third parties as the Wii U.
As for Nintendo games, sure, there'll be more. But Nintendo is notorious for slow and long development cycles, and I have no reason to think that will change now. Honestly, how long has Zelda BOTW been in development? And if rumors are right, it's STILL going to miss the Switch launch.
Not exactly sure what you mean by this. Of course, Nintendo is a gaming company and thus spends its money on games. That's not the point. Nintendo releases a certain amount of games per year, and aside from Mario and Zelda, few of their games sell huge numbers. More critical, Nintendo games lack the diversity of Sony or Microsoft's portfolios. Sony has made games like PaRappa, but also games like Little Big Planet, Uncharted, Beyond, Killzone, etc. Nintendo's games just don't look like Sony's AAA titles. Nintendo won't make a game like God of War 4. Nintendo won't make a game that looks like Witcher 3.More so that your argument is that Nintendo doesn't have the money to go up against Sony and Xbox, when Nintendo is worth more than Sony and is only a gaming company, so they can and will, spend 100% of the money on games, not tech and movies.