Nintendo Switch Discussion Thread

[bigdaddy]

The 5 seconds I could put up with Jimmy Falon is still 5 seconds later than any ad of any kind for the Wii U.

 

[KillerRamen]

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.

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.

 

[EvilChamp]

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. 

 

[Condor_]

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.

It looks like the Wii Pro controller and aside from being too light, I've been pretty happy with it.

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.

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.

 

[bigdaddy]

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.

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.

 

[Richard Kain]

Recent pantent filings indicate that Nintendo is seriously considering constructing a VR headset to go along with the Nintendo Switch. The basic premise is that it would opperate similar to how phone-VR rigs currently work, with the Switch unit being slotted into the front of a headset, and the detachable joy-cons serving as controls for the game being played.

While this is a very low-cost means of getting into the VR space, I worry that the resolution on the Switch's screen just won't be up to the challenge. Screen resolution and screen refresh rates are vital to providing a smooth, motion-sickness-free VR experience. I doubt that the Switch's screen will be up to the challenge, only providing an experience comparable to lower-end VR phones. On the other hand, the extremely low cost of this solution is rather brilliant, so as an experimental accessory it would represent very little risk for Nintendo.

 

[bigdaddy]

Am I the only one who doesn't care about VR at all?

 

[RoytheRobot]

Am I the only one who doesn't care about VR at all?

No, you're not the only one.

 

[EvilChamp]

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.

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.

Because Nintendo is a publicly traded company, they have to show year-over-year growth to investors.

Just my two bits. #TwoBitEvilChamp

 

[Richard Kain]

Because Nintendo is a publicly traded company, they have to show year-over-year growth to investors.

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.

 

[bigdaddy]

No, you're not the only one.

I'm glad. I feel like it's a bigger gimmick than 3D movies and 'wearable tech'. Both have done so amazing right?

 

[Richard Kain]

I'm glad. I feel like it's a bigger gimmick than 3D movies and 'wearable tech'. Both have done so amazing right?

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.

The same will hold true for a technology experience like VR. We aren't all going to be sitting around with headsets on anytime soon. But the technology has reached an acceptable level where a broader swath of consumers can enjoy it if they so choose. It will normalize and standardize and in a few years anyone who can afford a headset will be able to indulge in the experience.

 

[bigdaddy]

No one talks about 3D movies. I think the last one I saw was Avatar. When friends and I go to the movies no one ever says "Let's see it in 3D!". Sure they make money. Same with 'smart' watches, but they are no a game changer, they didn't go out and get everyone to buy it because it's the newest thing. People rather get a new phone every year than a phone and a useless overpriced watch you need to recharge every day, one year and a phone the next.

I think VR will fit in with those perfectly. It will do fine, it will make money, but it's not the next super big thing that everyone will run out and get like smart phones. 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.

 

[RedvsBlue]

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.

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.

 

[Richard Kain]

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.

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.

Likewise, Nintendo's theoretical approach is very low-cost and low-investment, on pretty much every front. In truth, most of these companies are approaching this tech in much the way that you yourself would advise them to. None of them are going all-in, or trying to market and push VR the way that Microsoft did the Kinect. All of them were watching when Microsoft made that particular blunder, and aren't in a hurry to repeat that mistake.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about the Switch, and what we can expect from it. I'm thinking it could actually do fairly well for Nintendo, both in Japan and in Western markets. A portable/console hybrid would fit in with a lot of lifestyles that I see here in the West. I think the general audience is considerably less enamored of the high-end graphics race, and would appreciate the convenience of a hybrid console like this over the more performance-intensive competitors.

 

[EvilChamp]

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 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.

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.

 

[Richard Kain]

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.

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.

If the Switch is a global flop, and sells poorly everywhere, then naturally Nintendo will be under significant pressure to alter their strategy. But that's a bit of an extreme example. Even the WiiU turned a modest profit, despite the fact that it's global sales paled in comparison to the competition. (on account of not being sold for a loss) Nintendo's financial issues with the WiiU were the result of recouping their R&D costs as well as exchange rates going against them. Neither is likely to be as extreme for the Switch.

 

[EvilChamp]

Yea I disagree. This thing needs to be a global hit. 

Good news, though: It totally looks awesome! 

 

[soonersfan60]

I saw an article where Nintendo was "bragging" that they sold 188,000 NES Classic units in November since the 10th release date. No wonder no one can find these... that's a pitiful number. Nintendo could have sold twice that many easily and still had a shortage frenzy.

 

[EvilChamp]

^ that's more than Wii U has sold in 6 months lol

 

[KillerRamen]

For an 8-bit plug in play console, that seems like a lot of systems to me. Especially when that's only for the US and doesn't include any other region.

 

[blueshinra]

Nobody here heard the news from yesterday?

https://twitter.com/Official_PAX/status/809800982729265152

 

[EvilChamp]

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. 

 

[Deader2818]

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.

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.

 

[EvilChamp]

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.

I know. And that really bums me out. Because third party support is critical.

But, some say porting over to the Wii U Switch* 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.

EDIT: *

 

[Richard Kain]

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.

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 one of the real challenges for porting to the Switch will be scalability of resources. One of the easiest ways to get a game running on less powerful hardware is to scale back the details. Whether this be the complexity of physics simulations, or the number of pixels or polygons being pushed to the rendering buffer, scaling back such features is usually how you squeeze games into a less performance-intensive device. Games that are already being developed with such scaling in mind should have fairly little difficulty in porting to the Switch. However, not all games are constructed with mobile platforms in mind. Those that aren't will find it more costly to port their efforts to the Switch. (since the game's various resources will have to be re-constructed at lower detail to run on the Switch) Games that primarily target the PC/Xbox One/PS4 trifecta will be harder to port, as all of these platforms assume a level of performance that will likely be above what the Switch is capable of handling. If the developer isn't making scalable resources from the get-go, it will be extra time and effort to produce lower-performance assets for the Switch version.

Developers with more mobile experience should be able to easily thrive on the Switch, while developers who have largely ignored the mobile space will probably ignore or marginalize the platform. I would actually assume that the Switch will swiftly take over the Vita's current status as standard-bearer for indie developers looking to get a foothold in the handheld space. Games like Super Meat Boy and Rogue Legacy would be a great fit for the Switch, as these titles already straddle the line between console and mobile play.

 

[bigdaddy]

I don't understand most of that article, however did anyone really expect the Switch to run the same in portable mode than in docked mode? 

Also let's not forget that Nintendo will be able to make twice the amount of games for the system being that it will be their portable and home console. I own 15+ 3DS games, 90% of which are Nintendo games. If they can make 6+ games a year for the system than they will be fine with the 'limited' third party games they might get.

 

[EvilChamp]

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. 

 

[Vinny]

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.

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.

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.

Based on the specs, I feel like this is probably going to be about 2x more powerful than the Wii U when docked.

 

[blueshinra]

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.

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.

 

[Vinny]

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.

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.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

As others have commented here, I too wasn't terribly surprised by the Eurogamer article's "revelation" that the Switch won't share comparable graphical prowess with the PS4 and Xbox One.  I agree that any gamer who believed the Switch would compete on power was either delusional or in denial. No matter how different a post-Iwata Nintendo might be, I don't think anyone who followed the company believed Nintendo would put out a machine at $400-500, or take a significant loss on every console sold.  Neither is a strategy Nintendo has used in any of its machines, at least since the Gamecube.  And frankly, I agree that it's simply not feasible for Nihtendo to compete on power.  It's a lost cause against two rivals whose war chests are just too big.

That all said, the Eurogamer article's dose of reality certainly drives a nice wedge into the Switch hype-machine.  Underpowered and outclassed on technology, the Switch may have a very hard time luring much third-party support.  It almost certainly will never see games like GTA6, Tekken 7, and other AAA third party releases.

I can't see companies like EA being much interested in bringing scaled-down versions of Battlefield or Titanfall to the Switch.  If Nintendo can't deliver amazing sales numbers, the business model for the Switch is going to look a whole lot like the Wii U.  And we all know how that story will go.

Yes, there will be more Nintendo games on this machine.  But I'm not convinced that this alone will mean much for the Switch; we all know it will sell through at least 10 million units.  That is about how many hardcore Nintendo fans there are based on Wii U sales.

That Nintendo continues to push the message that the Switch is the "successor" to the Wii U could backfire.  While I understand the reason for the marketing here, if the machine can't really do home console specs, consumers may be turned off by the fact that the third party games they're accustomed to seeing aren't there.  In other words, it could become a classic case where the marketing message doesn't reflect the reality of the product.

And that brings me to the other problem - if the Switch winds up just being home to ported mobile games, that's hardly the desired outcome.  What good is the Switch if it plays games I can already play on my phone?  

As others have said, may be the Switch becomes the champion of indie games, but does that do much to distinguish it from the competition?  Is the luxury of carrying around the next Inside or Shantae enough to move millions of units?

The pessimist in me says, "No."  None of those games would be exclusive, and I'm hard-pressed to think Nintendo will really go out of their way to subsidize and publicize indie developers.  Just look at how terribly they've handled other licenses like Fatal Frame, or even relationships like the Capcom 5.  Nintendo's history here shows little to no commitment, and barely any success.

All of this is to say that the forecast on the Switch has went from tempered enthusiasm to a wait-and-see.  I'm still interested and will get one eventually but I'm part of the hardcore/faithful.  I'm far from being a fanboy; I am, however, one of those gamers who very much enjoy the craftsmanship of Nintendo games, and believe that at least the majority of them deliver the best gaming has to offer, bar none.  

Ever since I heard the rumors of this portable hybrid, I've concluded that the Switch will be Nintendo's LAST proprietary console.  Don't misunderstand me.  I want Nintendo to do well and stay in the gaming business, but I just don't see the Switch doing gangbusters like the Wii or the 3DS.  

I do see the Switch being a moderate success, akin to somewhere in between the two.  It will probably sell well in Japan, and initially move through all its units in Europe and North America.

After that, however, I see the same struggles as the Wii U had before.  Sure, there will be fewer release deserts because Nintendo's portable dev studios will also be making games for it.  BUT the reality is that Nintendo's franchises just aren't the massive appeal they used to be.  Pokemon will help, but enough to force third parties onto the Switch?  I just don't think so.  

Again, this doesn't mean the Switch won't be profitable, either.  Like always, Nintendo will make money day-one, and given everyone who buys it at first will only buy Nintendo's games, I'm sure the Switch will bring Nintendo back to black.

So why is the Switch the last Nintendo console?  It all comes down to effort vs. profits.  Nintendo is a publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to.  There's just no denying that those shareholders are going to start raising serious questions about why Nintendo keeps sticking with its own machines when it can put out mobile games and games on other consoles, and spare the humongous risks.  At some point, even profits are measured based on the risk and effort put in.  We need look no further than Disney Infinity - the company was making millions, but at some point, Disney just determined it's far less risky to just license its brands to other developers.

Yes, Nintendo isn't Disney.  Gaming is its core (and at least for now only) business.  But the strategy is to change that portfolio - the Universal theme parks, the merchandising, and the soon-to-be relentless string of classic consoles are just the beginning of Nintendo branching out (and diluting) its core business.  You can call it diversifying; I call it diluting.

At some point, Nintendo will see the writing on the wall.  If they don't, their shareholders will (or already have). 

I suppose it was only a matter of time, but at least the Switch gives the Miyamoto generation of gamers one last hurrah.  We'll get one last system to cherish the days of games when they didn't require day one patches and other unsightly gigabytes of downloads.  

But the fact is the future is calling, and Nintendo's incremental advancements just won't cut it.  And the economics of this home console business is getting too small and too risky.  

I see the Switch going the way of the Wii U - may be not as quickly, but eventually.  Nintendo's mobile games will take over the company, may be just in time for Miyamoto to call it a career.

 

[bigdaddy]

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. 

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.

 

[EvilChamp]

Just want to toss this out there: 

BB is doing 50% bonus trade in. Some incredible values. 

Traded in BF1, Dishonored 2 and new Tomb Raider for $103. 

A lot of other titles getting nice returns like Skyrim, too. 

Any who. I bring this up because I'm putting that money toward the Switch preorder -- whenever it goes live. You can get alerts from BB about Switch here: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/clp/nintendo-switch/pcmcat1476977522176.c?id=pcmcat1476977522176&pageType=REDIRECT&issolr=1&searchRedirect=nintendo+switch&CMP=ocss

Honestly, I would imagine all the games I traded in will be worth soooooo much less in a few weeks. So this might be a good move for some -- $100 off Switch is starting to sound VERY appealing now!

 

[EvilChamp]

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.

I'm glad you bring this up because it reminds me!

Was at BB yesterday and checked out the 3DS aisle -- totally deserted. Like, 100% empty. No 3DS systems of any kind for sale, nearly all games were gone. It was kinda weird. Did a Google search and "SHAME ON YOU!" Polygon wrote something up.

Anyone have insight on this? Maybe you work or know someone who works at BB, etc?

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.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

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.

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 love Nintendo games, but even I don't accept the premise that Nintendo's own games are enough now to lift a sinking ship. I don't deny the Switch will get more Nintendo games - it will surely see the next Luigi's Mansion, Rhythm Heaven, and other quirky Nintendo titles ala Elite Beat Agents or Codename STEAM.

But not for one second do I think Nintendo's games will be enough to make Switch much more successful than the Wii U. If the Switch ends up being another console that just has a load of Nintendo games, I just cannot see the penetration figures coming anywhere close to numbers like Xbox One, PS4, or even the 3DS.

The 2DS/3DS are at mass market price now. At $100, it's essentially a Fisher Price toy parents are happy to get for their kids. It has a vast historic library, but the 2DS/3DS success was largely based on the fact that when it arrived, mobile gaming hadn't reached the ubiquity it has now. In other words, I don't think it's correct to look at the overall sales figures of 2DS/3DS to justify that the Switch has an automatic audience to bank on.

Today's industry is fundamentally different compared to when the 2DS/3DS came out. Sure, there are people who want to play a real Pokemon game. But we also know fewer than 1% of F2P players spend a penny on those games. Just because millions downloaded a FREE Pokemon game (a terrible one at that) does not translate to people dropping $300 on a game system to play it. That's just the basic math.

As I said before, my comments are not meant to say the Switch will fail. To the contrary, I think the Switch will do better than Wii U, but unfortunately, the reason for that is exactly as you say - it will have more Nintendo games. Also, doing better than the Wii U isn't very satisfying. I think the Switch sells about 15-20 million over its lifecycle, and it'll struggle to get there with pricecuts and a lot of offers.

Nintendo games just don't have the brand/allure they used to. We're among the enthusiasts, but while kids today might recognize Mario, they're far more interested in playing the next Tomb Raider, Watchdogs, or GTA. None of those games are going to make it to the Switch.

I do see the Switch effectively replacing the Vita so as to finally kill off any trickling software coming to that evice. But does that really get the Switch anywhere? Nope. Come to think of it, I can see Nintendo blocking games like Valkyrie Drive, so publishers like Marvelous may be in for a rough ride -- at least until it becomes clear the Switch sales have little upside, and Nintendo gets desperate for any software.

Bottom-line is that unless the Switch sells like hotcakes, it'll never force any third parties to bring their AAA franchise games to it, and that will put the Switch EXACTLY at the same place as the Wii U. The only difference will be Nintendo will have consolidated their two markets to at least drive some efficiencies. It's as if the company knows there is no longer a mass dedicated home console base, and it also knows its hand in the mobile/handheld space may be severely compromised in this smartphone OS/Apple world.

In this sense, I've seen the Switch as a concession by Nintendo that it can no longer risk/afford supporting two machines because it realizes its base isn't big enough to sustain both. I think that is the right call. Sadly, I also think that what crippled the Wii U is now looking like the same problem that will keep the Switch from being more than a system for Nintendo games.

Add to that the cartridge issue - and that is the nail in the coffin for third parties. Developers nowadays are accustomed to releasing 50GB games that need another 10GB download. I doubt the Switch will have the HDD space to accommodate that, especially if it intends to come in at a pricepoint that won't make it a laughing stock compared to a $250 base PS4. That will means even if third parties wanted to bring AAA franchises to the Switch, those versions are at risk to be the most buggy or incomplete, not to mention scaled down.

All of this aside, I'm very happy we get one more Nintendo proprietary console. It does exactly what I want it to do. But I know I'm part of a small crowd that's only getting smaller.

 

[Richard Kain]

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.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

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.

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.

Take Mario Run, for example. Even if you pay $10 to outright own it, you can't play unless you're connected to wi-fi. That's just a bonehead move that's purely driven by piracy concerns. It may not matter too much in the OS/Andriod world but it suggests Nintendo will go head over heels to manage piracy.

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?

Oh boy ...

 

[Richard Kain]

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?

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.

Given how the Wii-U supported digital distribution, we could also see support for external hard drives and USB-based memory devices. However, I strongly suspect that such support will not show up on the Switch itself, but on the Switch's dock. External USB memory devices require extra power, often a decent chunk of extra power. As such, any memory device of that type isn't going to work well with the Switch on-the-go. But a full-size USB port on the Switch's dock makes a lot more sense. Providing extra power for large-scale storage devices from a component that is plugged into a wall would be trivial. Allowing external USB storage from the dock would be a fine idea, and help to allow a cheap storage solution, especially for larger-scale console-style games. I do worry that such support might hamper the on-the-go nature of the Switch.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

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.

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.

The problem is in this fickle gaming industry, you don't get many do-overs, no matter how much money you have. The damage to a brand in screwing up once is oftentimes enough to *kill* even the most revered of franchises, or at least significantly damage its ability to succeed.

Nintendo took a headblow with the Wii U, and it's unclear at the moment how much it harmed its brand with its core loyalists. Surely, some of that 13 million who bought the Wii U aren't coming back right away for the Switch party. I'm one of them. I'm not jumping in day 1. I like my Wii U but I don't think it came anywhere close to the Gamecube in terms of Nintendo's software.

Nintendo knows it needs to broaden its appeal to capture the young players it has essentially neglected for over a decade. That's why it's getting into the themepark and licensing business. That's why we ARE going to see a Mario movie by Universal in the next 5 years. Whether any of that will be enough to bring up Nintendo's core base remain to be seen.

I just don't see how Nintendo isn't a third party in the next decade. It seems inevitable from a business standpoint. One might say Nintendo is well on its way there with Mario Run ... and the other games that are coming to mobile. Even Reggie admitted in a recent interview that if the mobile sales take off (and they will), Nintendo may be hard pressed to keep brushing off mobile as a "teaser" to bring people over to its Switch platform.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Richard Kain]

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.

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.

While hardcore game fans often lament the support for big-budget titles like Call of Duty on Nintendo systems, the truth is that such titles frequently represent too much financial risk thanks to their bloated budgets. A single flop from such a title can sink studios. (and frequently does) The industry in general would be better served by more titles that are made with more modest budgets. I expect the Switch to be a natural fit for such experiments.

The Switch can also serve as a platform for numerous Wii-U ports. The lack of success of the Wii-U works in Nintendo's favor for providing the Switch with an early stable of solid titles. A large number of Wii U games could potentially be ported to the Switch for very little expense, especially Nintendo's first-party offerings. Since so few people bought a Wii-U, there will be little mainstream outcry over such ports, as the games will be new to most of the people purchasing a Switch. Profiting from the Wii-U's library is a strategy that I fully expect Nintendo to employ, especially early in the system's life.

 

[matrix9280]

Unless that new Mario and Zelda game are the greatest games ever made the Switch is looking like a disaster. A Playstation Vita Virtual Boy level disaster.

 

[Mattiful-Joe]

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.

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.

This is the diversity Nintendo HAS to rely on their third parties to supply. If the Switch gets just scaled down or the worst version of these games - which even that is doubtful - will people buy it JUST for Nintendo's games? Well, I think the Wii U answered that question, and the answer is yes for the diehards and no for the mass market. And without the latter, there's no way third parties will even bother.

The Switch is a huge risk for Nintendo. I can see it bombing really badly. That said, I would gather it would last at least 2-3 years before it completely dies. At least I'll get a handful of excellent Nintendo games that'll never sunset.

 

[EvilChamp]

Hey all! 

I created a poll in the Wii U thread:

"What is the MOST you would be willing to pay for a Switch?"

https://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/360628-what-is-the-most-you-would-pay-for-a-switch-poll/#entry13579998

 

[KillerRamen]

So Hyperkin revealed some of their first NS accessories today and it's pretty standard fare, but it looks like Nintendo will be using USB-C as their charging port of choice. I personally see Nintendo using a standard cable as opposed to their proprietary cables a big step in the right direction. USB-C is also probably how the dock works.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/01/05/6-nintendo-switch-accessories-announced-by-hyperkin

I'm pretty excited to see what kind of games it will have next Friday.

 

[Richard Kain]

We're just two days away from the Friday news-drop. Starting to get hyped again. The obvious big news that will need to come out of this announcement will be...

1. Price

2. Date

3. What Game (if any) will come with it

These are the biggest unknown factors. The earlier reveal did a decent job of showcasing what the Switch was, and how consumers will be able to use it. It's a much easier pitch than the Wii U was. Most other information regarding the Switch is going to be details, and will only really be significant to fans whose interest has already been captured. For the broader demographic that Nintendo is trying to reach, the most important things to know are when is it going to be available, how much will it cost, and what software will be in the box?

Announcements for additional software and upcoming titles can wait for the day after. But these three pieces of information are crucial to the success of the system. The expected launch of the system is in March. If that's going to be pushed back at all, we will almost certainly hear about it tomorrow. They can't wait any longer on an announcement like that. This close to release they have to nail down a firm ship date.

The price is even more important. The cheaper the better on this sort of thing. Nintendo systems have always sold best when they have been affordably priced. Older, legacy hardware that is cheap and sturdy and can be sold at competitive prices has always been the winning strategy for them. It SEEMS that this is the direction they're taking with the Switch, but with a built-in screen it's likely that the thing won't be dirt cheap. They need to have this thing come in at no more than $300. $200 - $250 would be a lot better for shifting product quickly. Anything above those ranges is going to seriously hamper how quickly they can sell the Switch in the current hyper-competitive game market. There are simply too many competitively-priced alternatives these days.

And lastly there is the matter of a bundled-in game. This has always been a boon to Nintendo system sales. They need a solid entry to bundle with the system. It doesn't need to be terribly deep or terribly long, but it needs to be good, and it needs to be bundled by default. For minimized cost, they could bundle a digital copy of a game. This would make the production cost negligible, and help to encourage users to start using the on-line store. That's a win-win for Nintendo. A fairly simple mini-game local-multiplayer focused title would be ideal, something along the lines of Wii Sports. Something that wouldn't cost them much to produce, and focused purely on gameplay over complicated, expensive visuals. Something that people can try out real quick with their friends from the get-go.

 

[Condor_]

So that was it? Man, what a let down. If Zelda is the only big name for launch, I might be waiting it out.

 

[KillerRamen]

There's another event in New York on Friday. Launches generally are light on titles, but I'm a buyer with a new Zelda. 

 

[Richard Kain]

We finally have some actual details.

Launch Date: March 3rd, 2017

Launch Price: $300 USD MSRP

Capacitive touch-screen confirmed

Joycon controllers will have L-R buttons embedded in the slide, as well as slide-on wrist straps that will make the L-R buttons easier to access. They're doing something with the rumble feature to make it more precise and responsive. And there is some manner of IR sensor on one of the Joycons, likely to provide similar sensing/pointing functionality to the original Wiimote. It seems to have limited ability to sense objects in front of it, including distance and some shapes.

No word on bundles with games, so it is likely that there won't be any game bundles at launch. (there will be eventually, but that's always the way) The two known bundles are just color variations for the Joycon controllers. One bundle comes with standard grey Joycons, the other comes wtih red and blue Joycons. The standard bundle comes with the system, the dock, the left and right Joycons, two Joycon wrist-strap slides, the Joycon-standard controller mount, a power adapter, and an HDMI cable.

A maximum of 8 Switch units can connect together over WiFi for local multiplayer.

More technical details will likely be released over the coming days.

Zelda: Breath of the Wild will be available at launch.

Super Mario: Odyssey is expected to be available holiday season 2017. Full 3D Mario adventure.