Jump to content


* * * * * 1 votes

Nintendo Switch Discussion Thread


#181 Condor80   Let's Go Mets!!! CAGiversary!   4437 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Posted 16 January 2017 - 09:49 PM

Here's an important question: what size are the game cases?  

 

51-iEKJX%2B5L._SX215_.jpg

 

it looks like a PSP game case size.  Why wouldn't they use the DS and 3DS case size?  Seems like a waste of space and it won't fit next to my other games.



#182 RoytheRobot   El Piraguero. CAGiversary!   2551 Posts   Joined 5.7 Years Ago  

RoytheRobot

Posted 16 January 2017 - 11:31 PM

The only thing that is pissing me off about the Switch is that I have to pay to play online multiplayer, especially since Nintendo's online services have been crap for the most part. But other than that, I think the price for the console itself is ok and the lineup of games look very good so far (Splatoon 2, Zelda, MK8 deluxe, Super Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Arms, Fire Emblem Warriors, Snipperclips, etc). 

 

The Switch might not sell like the Wii did, but it definitely won't flop as the Wii U.



#183 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 17 January 2017 - 02:26 AM

The Switch might not sell like the Wii did, but it definitely won't flop as the Wii U.

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion.  This totally look like the Wii U ... and just wait til Nintendo delays Mario out of the holidays.  Come on, Mario games have always been delayed.  



#184 KillerRamen   OMG Lilac PSP! CAGiversary!   3649 Posts   Joined 9.7 Years Ago  

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:05 AM

Here's an important question: what size are the game cases?  

 

51-iEKJX%2B5L._SX215_.jpg

 

it looks like a PSP game case size.  Why wouldn't they use the DS and 3DS case size?  Seems like a waste of space and it won't fit next to my other games.

 

It certainly looks like PSP size. 

the_legend_of_zelda_breath_of_the_wild_m



#185 Richard Kain   The Kaiser CAGiversary!   2690 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Richard Kain

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:18 AM

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion.  This totally look like the Wii U

Well, let me just put this into context for you. The Wii U was initially sold for $300 as well. However, that version came with no stand for the gamepad, no software, less flash memory, and almost no one understood what the heck it was. Most consumers who bought the Wii assumed that the Wii U was an additional tablet/gamepad that they were charging $300 for. The version that everyone wanted cost $350. The lesser bundle was incredibly unpopular, sold terribly, and was discontinued within the system's first year on the market. Ironically, that initial version is now one of the rarest, and will eventually command a much higher price on the second-hand market.

 

The Switch is a game-tablet with a decently-sized screen that by all accounts looks really good. There is no additional box to rig up to your TV, everything you need fits right in your hand. Explaining all of this to the average consumer is extremely easy. It's a Nintendo-tablet that plays Nintendo games. Done. That is an easier sales pitch than the Wii U ever had. This alone improves the Switch's chances in the market. Hey, did you like the Wii? Well here's a tablet that does everything the Wii did, and you can take it with you on the go.

 

And then you have to take into account just how low the bar was set with the Wii U. No matter how anyone feels about the system, it is one of Nintendo's worst selling consoles. It only avoids that dubious distinction because the Virtual Boy exists. And all this despite the fact that it had a very strong line-up of games. History is going to pick over the Wii U, and try to sort out exactly what went wrong. The point is, the Switch would have to sell REALLY poorly to be in the same ranking as the Wii U. Even with modest sales, the Switch will likely double the Wii U's sales over it's lifetime. It just has to shift 20 million units over the course of five years to pull that off. In this industry that's peanuts. Even Microsoft has likely managed to shift that many XBones by now, despite their colossal screw-up at its launch.



#186 KillerRamen   OMG Lilac PSP! CAGiversary!   3649 Posts   Joined 9.7 Years Ago  

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:33 AM

The Wii U had a killer line up of games and it's really sad that it didn't sell. If you collect and if there's anything on the Wii U that you want then you better get it as soon as possible because the good titles (especially the early ones) are already getting hard to come by. 



#187 Vinny   Bang, bang... pew... CAGiversary!   22613 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:22 AM

 

In short, Nintendo has learned nothing. The absolute best thing you could say about it is that, because it's just an overpriced combination of concepts and games that we've already seen, you will no immediately if it appeals to you. Sadly, that will be a very small population indeed.

 

 

I share similar feelings and was always baffled at how quickly people brushed them off. I just couldn't see what everyone else saw-- still can't. I don't know if it's just Nintendo that hasn't learned or if it's their fans who don't seem to care and end up buying everything for the sake of nostalgia. 



#188 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9389 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:23 PM

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion.  This totally look like the Wii U ... and just wait til Nintendo delays Mario out of the holidays.  Come on, Mario games have always been delayed.  

 

Bingo!

What exactly has Nintendo been doing for the last few years as the Wii U flopped? They still don't make enough games even when the only games they need to make are for the Switch now. It's insane. Are they going to release the game on time and fix it with patches, or delay it?

80% of what I have seen online has been "I'll pass", 10% is "I like it but overpriced" and 10% think it's amazing as ice cream. A friend of mine is like "All my other friends love it, you are just pessimistic". I was thinking "That's because all your friends are exact copies of yourself".

I will give Nintendo slight credit, at least there is more press with the Switch than the Wii U.



#189 ebucel   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   275 Posts   Joined 11.6 Years Ago  

Posted 17 January 2017 - 07:14 PM

 

Ethernet: Nintendo has never made a console with an ethernet port. The Wii and even Wii U should have really had one built in. I know both have WiFi built in but WiFi isn't very good with long term changes (DS and 802.11b / WEP being a good example). I can still plug in 10Mbps ethernet devices into a switch and they'll still work. I can't with old WiFi devices or, I have to go through a lot of work and kind of open up an insecure hole in my network which I don't want to do (and that doesn't always work). Still, for the GameCube, Wii, and Wii U you could buy an ethernet port which was nice. I prefer to have everything that is sitting still in my place hard wired.
The Wii U is, for me, the best console I've owned so far. I know some will compare the specs to the PS4 (or even the PS3) or XBoxes, etc.. 

http://hypergamer.50.../broadband.html the gamecube had a Ethernet/broadband module. I will submit if you meant out of the box then you are right the gamecube's wasn't built in.



#190 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 17 January 2017 - 07:53 PM

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. This totally look like the Wii U ... and just wait til Nintendo delays Mario out of the holidays. Come on, Mario games have always been delayed.


I'm saying that the Internet railing against an announced Nintendo system is not a gauge of its long term success. People bitched on the internet endlessly about the Wii and it went down as one of the most successful consoles of all time. Same for DS as well.

Hell, it's not just Nintendo either. The backlash against the PS3 was monstrous and the dumb thing ended up being a bigger seller than the 360 when all was said and done (not Wii big but still put up impressive numbers).

#191 Richard Kain   The Kaiser CAGiversary!   2690 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Richard Kain

Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:48 PM

I'm saying that the Internet railing against an announced Nintendo system is not a gauge of its long term success.

 

Very true. This is old hat ever since the internet became a common tool for communication. I read all the same arguments and discussions a decade and change ago when the DS and Wii were released. Back then everyone was swearing up and down that the PSP was going to finally trounce Nintendo out of the handheld space. The most vocal portions of the internet only make for a small sub-section of humanity. And that sub-section tends to be heavily biased in various ways. One of the more obvious and prominent leanings are in favor of technological superiority. Internet discussions almost always lean toward "more tech = better." If a device is technologically inferior to its most direct competition, it is doomed to failure, end of discussion. And I see this opinion parroted over and over, despite the historical precedent being strongly against it.

 

One of the most common complaints I've been hearing out of the Switch reveal was disappointment in the fact that "1, 2, Switch" was not a bundled title. To a certain degree I agree with this sentiment. I like bundled software. Having a "free" game come with your system is always a plus. Apparently part of the reason for this is that Nintendo considers 1, 2, Switch to be a more robust and extensive experience than a title like Wii Sports. While this is fair, one could easily argue that the value of highlighting the systems strengths right out of the box is more important than the potential lost sales of a single title. This holds true even if the title in question has more going for it than previous pack-in games. So while I appreciate that Nintendo might want to get their money back from the development of 1, 2, Switch, I can't say that this desire was justification for refusing to pack the game in with every system.

 

I DO agree with their decision to have only one basic bundle, and to only separate bundles based on colors, as opposed to features. While I would have liked to see a pack-in game, I did not want to see two options for bundles that offered different options. Keeping the base bundle simple was a good move. The Wii U created too much consumer confusion with it's split bundles. And with that platform already confusing consumers with its nature, that was more variety than Nintendo could afford.

 

The best argument in favor of not bundling a game with the Switch is this. Bundling a game with the system more strongly targets the system toward a particular demographic or style of play. If you want to target a system toward a broader audience, bundling a game is the wrong approach, especially if the game in question heavily favors a particular demographic or style of play. Doing so can limit how the system is perceived by the general public, and by developers. This was a problem for the Wii, despite the success it enjoyed. During its run, the Wii was constantly getting mini-game collections. It was frequently viewed as a local-multiplayer mini-game machine. Every developer had their own take on the genre, and the shovelware for the Wii was lousy with that kind of experience. And all of this was a direct result of the success of Wii Sports.

 

If Nintendo bundled the Switch with 1, 2, Switch, people might associate it the same way they did the Wii. And that could potentially damage the long-term viability of the platform. A broader, more diverse set of experiences would allow the system to appeal to a broader swath of consumers. If the Switch gets pigeon-holed early on, that might damage its long-term prospects. Likewise, bundling it with a game like Zelda might convince users that it's just a Nintendo adventure-game machine. Bundling it with nothing makes it easier for people to choose their own initial association, in the shape of the game they initially buy with the system. For a lot of long-term Nintendo fans that will be Zelda. For more casual users it will likely be 1, 2, Switch. For some it might be Bomberman, or Puyo/Tetris.



#192 Spybreak9   $exy Game Scholar CAGiversary!   9435 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:27 AM

Yes and no. Now that it's a hybrid system you have the home console developers and the mobile console developers coming up with games for the system. So if Nintendo bundled in a game there'd be plenty of other titles people would receive, unlike what happened to the Wii.

#193 Vinny   Bang, bang... pew... CAGiversary!   22613 Posts   Joined 14.8 Years Ago  

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:47 AM

http://www.gamespot..../1100-6447008/ 

 

I think this might help us understand how powerful the Switch is compared to the Wii U. Zelda BotW runs at 900p Switch docked, and 720p undocked and Wii U. Runs at 30 fps at all times. Switch version also has "high quality" sounds, which I'm guessing is probably attributed to better sound processing- not sure it's a huge benefit. I don't mind the resolution but was really hoping that it would run 60 fps on the Switch when docked. 



#194 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 18 January 2017 - 07:01 AM

I'm saying that the Internet railing against an announced Nintendo system is not a gauge of its long term success. People bitched on the internet endlessly about the Wii and it went down as one of the most successful consoles of all time. Same for DS as well.

Hell, it's not just Nintendo either. The backlash against the PS3 was monstrous and the dumb thing ended up being a bigger seller than the 360 when all was said and done (not Wii big but still put up impressive numbers).

Everyone keeps pointing to the Wii - listen, that was alchemy, lightning in a bottle - you can't look at the Switch and say there is anything about that system that is going to launch a cultural phenomenon.  This is especially the case because "HD/console gaming on the go" has already been done twice by the PSP and the Vita, and the motion record has been played -- and played by Nintendo.  It's not a record anyone wants to listen to again.  Thinking the Switch will be anything remotely successful like the Wii is just being unrealistic.  It's like saying - well Apple struck gold with the iPod - of course their watch will be gangbusters -- except that it's not.

 

You're absolutely right about the PS3's initial reception, and it's amazing Sony climbed out of the big hole they dug themselves in, BUT I think you're not being honest about the context of that.  Sony came off the WILDLY successful PS2; Nintendo is coming off the WILDLY UN-successful Wii U.  Sony had third parties in Japan that remained loyal to its console, and was willing to pay them to make exclusives.  Nintendo hasn't demonstrated any interest in doing that since its Gamecube days with RE4 and MGS Twin Snakes.  If anything, Nintendo is doubling down on its development work, and seems more than willing to carry on with the Switch like business as usual.

 

PS3 was coming off 100 million PS2 consoles sold - without that, it's likely the system would have never come back.  Frankly, the only reason Xbone is selling at all is because the 360 was such a success.  Even still, Microsoft is struggling this generation, and that's after it's admitted to mistakes and tried to correct the ship.

 

Nintendo Switch arrives from a largely failed venture -- and a combined userbase between the 3DS and Wii U that is about half the number of PS2s sold.  

 

That is a steep climb for any company to come back from, and I'm not convinced Nintendo can, especially given that from everything I've seen - it feels like Nintendo hasn't learned a freaking thing from the failed Wii U.



#195 Brad Bishop   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   339 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Brad Bishop

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:24 PM

Something else about the Wii:

 

It was a huge success... except it wasn't.

 

When the Wii was released there was all of this talk about the "casual gamer" and how this is the the new way to do gaming and all of the hard-core gamers would go to Xbox and PS but Nintendo was being genius by going after the casual gamer.

 

It worked. They sold 100M+ units. Most of those units were stuck on Wii Sports for most of those years at Grandma's house. If you look at the installed based of Wiis it was huge. Why weren't there more good/fun games for it? Most people I know, myself included, had the thing sitting dormant collecting dust after the first year or so. Something like Mario Kart would get us to turn it on for another few months but then it was back to being dormant.

 

I don't have a lot of fond memories of the Wii. I have some fond memories of the GameCube.

 

Worse, Nintendo did this thing which is kind of good but kind of bad to rely on: They brought games from the GameCube to the Wii mostly unchanged and some direct copies. Ok, it's nice on the one hand but then it kind of sucks that those were the better games on the Wii. They did the same thing with the Wii U but at least provided some other great titles.

 

I think that the Wii was a kind of flop. Sure, 100M+ units but just mounds and mounds of junk games at Target and elsewhere to where you didn't even want to sift through all of the Petz, and Horsez, and Barbie's Brothel titles. I remember looking through the Wii Shop each week for new and interesting titles (some VC). I remember going to Best Buy or Target looking for titles. I remember when I gave up because it just looked like everything was junk.

 

None of that even includes the overuse of the motion controls. I actually don't mind the motion controls where it makes sense and is limited. Nintendo really pushed the motion controls early on which made the initial games suck compared to what they could have been.



#196 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9389 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:32 PM

The difference I see between the Switch and the Wii and more so DS is people were actually very open minded after the teaser trailer in November. Then Nintendo did the 'reveal' which revealed almost nothing and did it horribly. The Wii and DS people were bitching just to bitch, which still is an issue, but now it's actually certain issues with the launch itself. I haven't heard much complaining about the 'gimmick' of the two in one system, it's about games and price.

Comparing sales to the PS2, which Sony was sued for making systems poorly so they would break and people buy a new one, is silly. It's not 2003 anymore. The 3DS has sold 60-65 million systems, if Nintendo can get half of those people to buy a Switch than Nintendo will be fine. But the internet complaining isn't just the internet, there are serious issues that Nintendo clearly hasn't learned it's lesson from.

Having Wiimotes and a touch screen is nice, but the DS games are unplayable because Nintendo make everything touch screen when a D pad would have worked just fine.

Nintendo is releasing two-three real games that are exclusive to the Switch this year  and that's if they aren't delayed. Sure they can show more at E3, but that's months away and you want people to want the system right away and get it off to a great start... and they won't.

Nintendo needs to grow up. They can grow up and still be Nintendo.



#197 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 18 January 2017 - 01:42 PM

This thread is like the telephone game. I never said the Switch will be as popular as the Wii and yet look at how the preceding 3 posts made it that argument.

It's like the nouns were picked out of my post and then an argument was presumed around it.

#198 Brad Bishop   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   339 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

Brad Bishop

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:21 PM

This thread is like the telephone game. I never said the Switch will be as popular as the Wii and yet look at how the preceding 3 posts made it that argument.

It's like the nouns were picked out of my post and then an argument was presumed around it.

 

I don't know that everyone is responding directly to your post like you think they are. I certainly wasn't. I was only pointing out the oddity that while the Wii was successful in console sales, it really wasn't a successful gaming platform.

 

I think a lot of this is just people posting thoughts, not really arguing for the sake of arguing.



#199 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9389 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 18 January 2017 - 04:23 PM

This thread is like the telephone game. I never said the Switch will be as popular as the Wii and yet look at how the preceding 3 posts made it that argument.

It's like the nouns were picked out of my post and then an argument was presumed around it.

 

I really think you need to go get some mental help, or simply glasses, because you are seeing things there that aren't there... at all. 

 

I was replying more to Brad and Rome...'s post and having reread this page of post.... I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you vote for a certain fat ass orange piece of shit last election? Because you have the "I'm the victim because I say so" thing down perfectly.



#200 Richard Kain   The Kaiser CAGiversary!   2690 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Richard Kain

Posted 18 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

I think the real complaint is that a lot of the posts that are trying to make a point are doing so poorly, almost as if they haven't absorbed any of the reasoning from the preceeding posts. It can be a bit frustrating to read responses with very little coherent arguments, just a lot of venting about personal opinions. Personal opinions and impressions do not make for compelling rhetoric.

 

One person says "I didn't like the Wii, or the games that were released for it. Therefore it was a bad video game system that was not successful."

 

Another person points out, "That's your personal opinion. It may not have been successful for you, because you personally didn't like it. However, by every metric outside of your personal tastes, the system was objectively successful. It sold well, made lots of money, and garnered widespread critical praise and cultural acceptance."

 

Conflating personal impressions with facts isn't persuasive. We've all been there, and we've all done that. So anyone with any common sense can see such reasoning for what it is.

 

Take Rome's statements as an example. He points out that Sony was able to turn things around for the PS3, and eventually sell a decent number of them, thanks to the previous success of the PS2. He posits that Nintendo won't be able to succeed with the Switch because the Wii U failed, and "turning around" a system like this requires that its predecessor be successful. But this reasoning doesn't hold water. The PS1 succeeded, even though it was Sony's first system, and they had no console experience prior. The Wii succeeded, despite the fact that the GameCube had sold less than either the PS2, or the XBox, itself a new competitor in the market. (and the GameCube sold less than the N64) So what has occurred in the past does not support his reasoning.



#201 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 18 January 2017 - 08:15 PM

I really think you need to go get some mental help, or simply glasses, because you are seeing things there that aren't there... at all.

I was replying more to Brad and Rome...'s post and having reread this page of post.... I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you vote for a certain fat ass orange piece of shit last election? Because you have the "I'm the victim because I say so" thing down perfectly.

Rome's post quoted mine and you were replying to Rome so ergo you were replying to the same discussion.

As for rest, make whatever assumptions you want and keep trolling about the Switch in every possible thread you want (I mean, even the Lego thread? Really?), that's more telling of you than your supposition that I voted for Trump (which you could know the answer to pretty easily just from my postings on these boards).

I think the real complaint is that a lot of the posts that are trying to make a point are doing so poorly, almost as if they haven't absorbed any of the reasoning from the preceeding posts. It can be a bit frustrating to read responses with very little coherent arguments, just a lot of venting about personal opinions. Personal opinions and impressions do not make for compelling rhetoric.

One person says "I didn't like the Wii, or the games that were released for it. Therefore it was a bad video game system that was not successful."

Another person points out, "That's your personal opinion. It may not have been successful for you, because you personally didn't like it. However, by every metric outside of your personal tastes, the system was objectively successful. It sold well, made lots of money, and garnered widespread critical praise and cultural acceptance."

Conflating personal impressions with facts isn't persuasive. We've all been there, and we've all done that. So anyone with any common sense can see such reasoning for what it is.

Take Rome's statements as an example. He points out that Sony was able to turn things around for the PS3, and eventually sell a decent number of them, thanks to the previous success of the PS2. He posits that Nintendo won't be able to succeed with the Switch because the Wii U failed, and "turning around" a system like this requires that its predecessor be successful. But this reasoning doesn't hold water. The PS1 succeeded, even though it was Sony's first system, and they had no console experience prior. The Wii succeeded, despite the fact that the GameCube had sold less than either the PS2, or the XBox, itself a new competitor in the market. (and the GameCube sold less than the N64) So what has occurred in the past does not support his reasoning.


It's the same old song and dance for every Nintendo release since after the GameCube. There's no logic or reason in the arguments just endless vitriol that doesn't even follow any logical reasoning.

#202 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 19 January 2017 - 05:51 AM

I think the real complaint is that a lot of the posts that are trying to make a point are doing so poorly, almost as if they haven't absorbed any of the reasoning from the preceeding posts. It can be a bit frustrating to read responses with very little coherent arguments, just a lot of venting about personal opinions. Personal opinions and impressions do not make for compelling rhetoric.

 

One person says "I didn't like the Wii, or the games that were released for it. Therefore it was a bad video game system that was not successful."

 

Another person points out, "That's your personal opinion. It may not have been successful for you, because you personally didn't like it. However, by every metric outside of your personal tastes, the system was objectively successful. It sold well, made lots of money, and garnered widespread critical praise and cultural acceptance."

 

Conflating personal impressions with facts isn't persuasive. We've all been there, and we've all done that. So anyone with any common sense can see such reasoning for what it is.

 

Take Rome's statements as an example. He points out that Sony was able to turn things around for the PS3, and eventually sell a decent number of them, thanks to the previous success of the PS2. He posits that Nintendo won't be able to succeed with the Switch because the Wii U failed, and "turning around" a system like this requires that its predecessor be successful. But this reasoning doesn't hold water. The PS1 succeeded, even though it was Sony's first system, and they had no console experience prior. The Wii succeeded, despite the fact that the GameCube had sold less than either the PS2, or the XBox, itself a new competitor in the market. (and the GameCube sold less than the N64) So what has occurred in the past does not support his reasoning.

Thank you, Mr. Kain for coming here and saving us.  I'm glad you think you must be the only one who has any sense of reason.  

 

I don't even know where to begin with the level of arrogance in this post.  Your comment about my apparent lack of reasoning in suggesting the PS2's success was a factor in the PS3's leaves me to conclude that you may simply be unable to grasp the rather rudimentary concept of using past history to analyze events.  It's, well, one of the fundamental ways we examine many actions.  

 

You must also know nothing about advertising or brands.  As someone who works in the game industry, and in particular, was charged with managing parts of Nintendo Gamecube's marketing initiatives (among other clients), I can assure you how a company manages its brands with customers affects future performance.   I can assure you the vast success of the brand, Sony PlayStation, helped the company dig itself out of the almost-fiasco that was its successor, PlayStation 3.  I can assure you the vast network of third parties that Sony PlayStation catered to, generously embraced, and active supported, appreciated the PlayStation brand, such that they continued to support the console during difficult times because the brand carried a legitimacy and hipness inside the industry.  

 

The Nintendo brand is - like any other brand - a sum of the company's successes, failures, and decisions.  I never said past failure mandates future failure.  That's asinine.  What past failures do is harm a brand; it makes consumers doubt the company's future actions.  In that sense, it results in making future success less likely.  If you find that illogical, then I'm unsure you understand what logic actually is.  I recommend you stay away from law school.

 

By your reasoning, there is apparently no basis to judge anything based on past actions because there is supposedly an exception.  Couldn't it be that the PS1 succeeded because Nintendo made serious miscalculations with the N64?  Or because Sony had worked with Nintendo on the console, and had studied what Nintendo had done and not done, and then leaned on those technologies Nintendo (wrongly) ignored?   Nintendo's inability to accept and embrace the benefits of CD-ROMs could be seen as a failure to better analyze the past disadvantages of cartridges, and what gaming customers were looking for (i.e. voice acting, cinema-like cutscenes - elements that were hard to deliver on expensive, data limited cartridges).

 

My reasoning about the Switch's tough road ahead is based on Nintendo's repeat failures to understand its past actions, and a seemingly tone-deaf approach to analyzing their decisions - good and bad - in the context of where the industry is headed.  The Wii was successful because Nintendo had a good pulse on a casual gaming community that had not yet been exposed to smartphones and free mobile games.  The Wii U failed for a host of reasons.  Ultimately, it was because Nintendo failed to understand why the Wii was successful, and failed to understand that success in the context of the industry as a whole.

 

if you're suggesting the Gamecube failed, that's an incorrect assumption.  Nintendo made money on every Gamecube sold; and while it may not have sold as well as PS2 and Xbox, keep in mind Microsoft lost millions on the Xbox to try to establish its brand.  I doubt you'll find many at Microsoft who would necessarily declare the Xbox a success.  MS was willing to burn millions to get into the gaming industry because - guess what - they looked at the history of the market, saw an opening, and analyzed the past to project the industry's direction.  

 

So excuse me if I take offense that you think my thoughts lack reasoning.  I think the arrogance in your tone shows a blatant lack of sophistication, and frankly, the responses you offer lack any understanding of the facts or events of that time.  You give no indication that you know anything about videogame history.  You don't seem to know Sony and Nintendo jointly made the PlayStation.  You don't seem to know that Microsoft rushed to the 360 because the OG Xbox was in fact a fiscal fiasco even Gates retrospectively suggested was too high a price for MS to have paid just to get a brand in the door.

 

You don't seem to understand at all the industry forces that Nintendo is again ignoring with the Switch, or how any of the decisions that it has made may be fatal given it is now releasing mid-cycle as opposed to start-cycle like it did with the Gamecube, Wii, or Wii U.  All the dynamics and risks that are at play now given what the past tells us -- your comments either ignore them or show you have no grasp of them.

 

So before you go on and accuse someone of lacking reason, I would check to make sure you know enough about the subject.  In my view, you sound like a fanboy desperate to pretend like you're the superior mind around here, but without any actual knowledge of the facts, history, and nuances around them.  If you're so much better at persuading others, then I'd like to see a better grasp of the facts and the analysis in your skin-deep examples.



#203 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 19 January 2017 - 06:39 AM

And now back to more interesting conversations about the Switch.

 

I have yet to watch the Fire Emblem video, but have at least read about the announcements.  I'm beginning to think that Nintendo's refusal to dismiss the 3DS may be more than mere corporate lip service.  While no one at Nintendo will say it, the Switch may be an experiment in the truest sense.  What I mean is that Nintendo may have a *serious* back-up plan to release a handheld device after all.

 

What the Switch tells me is that Nintendo is - for better or worse - taking everything about the Wii and putting it front and center on the Switch: the motion controls, the "HD rumble," the colored peripherals, the inevitable joy-con 2, or the multitude of custom joy-cons for specific games.  In other words, Nintendo seems to think these elements were the reasons for the Wii's success, and has concluded that enhanced iterations of them (or literally more of them) should help Switch succeed.

 

Based on my posts, most of you know what I think of that reasoning.  I think it completely misses the mark; Nintendo is looking at the trees instead of the forest.  It's neglecting the market conditions that I believe were the largest reason for the Wii's success - and that is casual gamers who had no smartphones or free, downloadable games.  In short, it was a world without Angry Birds.  

 

All of this is to say the Switch's gimmicks - many of which are why the system is so expensive - are peddling things most consumers probably don't care about anymore.  Didn't Nintendo learn that no one wanted the Wii U and its motion-based, gyroscopic games?  

But what the Switch shows, perhaps, is that Nintendo may be more married to dual-screen gaming than we think.  Sure, it may not have worked on a home console, but to Nintendo, the dual-screen (DS) line has sold almost 200 million machines.  Even the 3DS sold 60+million units.  

 

Most podcasters and analysts seem to think the Switch is a hybrid that will lead to the end of the 3DS, but it might be that Nintendo is in fact prepping a real DS successor for 1-2 years down the road.

 

Think about it.  A DS system that has backwards compatibility to the Switch.  There's nothing that makes that sound crazy.  In fact, Nintendo's Fire Emblem announcement, which include 3DS and N3DS releases, and a Switch FE game for 2018 (which we all know will probably be delayed to 2019), suggests Nintendo may be serious about keeping its handheld system on the market alongside the Switch.  It's a decision that seems to indicate Nintendo either shares in people's skepticism for the Switch, or earnestly believes that dual-screen gaming is something that its customers still want -- in a marketplace where smartphone devices are only getting more and more powerful.

 

It's an interesting possibility.  What makes me consider it with a little more legitimacy is due to the company's decisions behind the Switch hardware in light of its apparent willingness to carry on support for the 3DS despite the fact that the Switch is desperate for software.  Why bother porting FE Warriors?  It's not like Hyrule Warriors ran well even on the N3DS.  Do we really need another gimped one?

 

Why waste time on DS development at all if you're making mobile games, which Nintendo is?  Why spread yourself thinner when it seemed the point of the Switch was convergence of the divisions.  This FE announcement only reinforced the notion that Nintendo lacks confidence in the Switch.  If we get an E3 where Nintendo announces more 3DS titles, then I think we have to start believing the DS line is coming back.

 

Frankly, that may be a smart move.  As others here have commented, the Switch seems to be catering to a crowd Nintendo is gambling is big enough to be worth it.  It's too weak to be a home console so the AAA developers are going to wait until there's critical mass to invest resources to port down.  And on the flipside, it's perhaps too big and clunky for the average handheld player, not to mention substantially more expensive when compared to launch prices for the DS, 2DS, and 3DS (again, systems Nintendo apparently plans to keep selling).

 

The market seems to suggest the handheld pool may be a small one.  Those players may not be much interested in all the doo-hickey tech inside the Switch.  And meaty, home console games don't seem to be what they want, and especially ones priced at anything more than "free."  The home console gamer, on the other hand, may not like getting "watered down" versions of AAA titles.  This is the same crowd that screams on message boards about specs and resolution, even if it's practically impossible to tell with human eyes.  It's the crowd that visits Eurogamer to read the head-to-heads, and buys a game because it offers even a small edge on frame-rates.  Would they buy the Switch?  As long as Nintendo keeps messaging it as a home console, may be not.

 

So who does that leave?  The Nintendo faithful.  But that wasn't the intent of the Switch, right?  Surely that can't be.

 

But may be Nintendo has planned ahead because it could be.  And if it is, may be the next DS line is the opposite message of the Switch.  That tagline may be "the handheld console you can play at home."  Besides, if messaging doomed the Wii U, it would seem very unwise for Nintendo to muddle the Switch's message, which has been and remains, "the home console you can take on the go."  The two may sound interchangeable, but trust me, as a branding guy, they couldn't be any more different.

 

The Gamescoop crew surmised we'll know a lot sooner whether the Switch is going to fly like the Wii or burn down like the Wii U.  I think they're right.  Since Nintendo plans to support mobile games now, one might say that their development teams are saddled with two platforms even if they abandoned the DS line.  

 

Perhaps better to start with the Switch, and then get your real handheld killer hardware out, and just absorb the Switch's software with the tagline you meant to use in the first place ... May be by then the mobile players will realize free-to-play games and micro-transactions are, in a word, "abysmal."



#204 The Green Giant   Leader of the Veggies CAGiversary!   9389 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

The Green Giant

Posted 19 January 2017 - 02:03 PM

I think after Nintendo went from 100 million Wiis to 13 (?) million Wii Us they are being careful about ditching a system a system with 63 million users. Are you reading a hell of a lot into two games being released in the next year? Yes, but it is very interesting they are porting Warriors to the New 3DS being that it's only the second game exclusive to the New 3DS vs just the 3DS. I mean they are trying to push the Switch and yet Zelda can be bought on the Wii U and FE: Warriors can be bought on the New 3DS. I currently just chalk it up to Nintendo being slightly out of touch, however you never know.



#205 Richard Kain   The Kaiser CAGiversary!   2690 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Richard Kain

Posted 19 January 2017 - 04:59 PM

but it might be that Nintendo is in fact prepping a real DS successor for 1-2 years down the road.

 

Think about it.  A DS system that has backwards compatibility to the Switch.  There's nothing that makes that sound crazy.

 

This is the first interesting idea you've proposed. It's also wrong.

 

Nintendo isn't going to ditch the 3DS out of hand. It would be foolhardy to do so at this juncture. But they aren't also going to go all-in on a DS successor when they are currently launching another portable system. A New-New 3DS is only possible with the utter failure of the Switch. Granted, this seems to be something you are quite keen on, and fully expecting. But as it stands this is the only scenario that could lead to another DS. Where is the GameBoy line right now? It was supplanted by a successful DS line. If the Switch has solid first-year sales, it will prevent any successor DS system from appearing.

 

As to my personal arrogance, I'll readily cop to that. I have a strong tendency towards a swelled ego. But you can't really blame me under the circumstances. You haven't done a single thing to refute any of what I've posted. Incoherent, unfocused rambling walls of text do not constitute an argument.

 

The basic hypothesis I've put forward is that the Switch will do better than the Wii U, but will likely sell less than the Wii in a similar time frame. I understand that this is a difficult position to oppose. When you actually look at it, it's a very reasonable prediction that constitutes a huge swath of outcomes. The Wii U sold only around 13 million over the course of 4+ years. The Wii sold 100+ million over roughly the same time frame. That's an 87+ million spread to cover. Not exactly an ambitious prediction. It's a safe, conservative estimate with plenty of common sense to back it up.

 

Your assertion that the Switch will be another Wii U, and will perform as badly or worse, baffles me. And you still haven't provided any solid reasoning to back up your claims.



#206 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 19 January 2017 - 09:29 PM

This is the first interesting idea you've proposed. It's also wrong.
 
Nintendo isn't going to ditch the 3DS out of hand. It would be foolhardy to do so at this juncture. But they aren't also going to go all-in on a DS successor when they are currently launching another portable system. A New-New 3DS is only possible with the utter failure of the Switch. Granted, this seems to be something you are quite keen on, and fully expecting. But as it stands this is the only scenario that could lead to another DS. Where is the GameBoy line right now? It was supplanted by a successful DS line. If the Switch has solid first-year sales, it will prevent any successor DS system from appearing.
 
As to my personal arrogance, I'll readily cop to that. I have a strong tendency towards a swelled ego. But you can't really blame me under the circumstances. You haven't done a single thing to refute any of what I've posted. Incoherent, unfocused rambling walls of text do not constitute an argument.
 
The basic hypothesis I've put forward is that the Switch will do better than the Wii U, but will likely sell less than the Wii in a similar time frame. I understand that this is a difficult position to oppose. When you actually look at it, it's a very reasonable prediction that constitutes a huge swath of outcomes. The Wii U sold only around 13 million over the course of 4+ years. The Wii sold 100+ million over roughly the same time frame. That's an 87+ million spread to cover. Not exactly an ambitious prediction. It's a safe, conservative estimate with plenty of common sense to back it up.
 
Your assertion that the Switch will be another Wii U, and will perform as badly or worse, baffles me. And you still haven't provided any solid reasoning to back up your claims.


Oh, but he has. "The internet hates it" is his proof.

#207 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 20 January 2017 - 07:53 AM

This is the first interesting idea you've proposed. It's also wrong.

 

Nintendo isn't going to ditch the 3DS out of hand. It would be foolhardy to do so at this juncture. But they aren't also going to go all-in on a DS successor when they are currently launching another portable system. A New-New 3DS is only possible with the utter failure of the Switch. Granted, this seems to be something you are quite keen on, and fully expecting. But as it stands this is the only scenario that could lead to another DS. Where is the GameBoy line right now? It was supplanted by a successful DS line. If the Switch has solid first-year sales, it will prevent any successor DS system from appearing.

 

As to my personal arrogance, I'll readily cop to that. I have a strong tendency towards a swelled ego. But you can't really blame me under the circumstances. You haven't done a single thing to refute any of what I've posted. Incoherent, unfocused rambling walls of text do not constitute an argument.

 

The basic hypothesis I've put forward is that the Switch will do better than the Wii U, but will likely sell less than the Wii in a similar time frame. I understand that this is a difficult position to oppose. When you actually look at it, it's a very reasonable prediction that constitutes a huge swath of outcomes. The Wii U sold only around 13 million over the course of 4+ years. The Wii sold 100+ million over roughly the same time frame. That's an 87+ million spread to cover. Not exactly an ambitious prediction. It's a safe, conservative estimate with plenty of common sense to back it up.

 

Your assertion that the Switch will be another Wii U, and will perform as badly or worse, baffles me. And you still haven't provided any solid reasoning to back up your claims.

Again, you're putting words/thoughts there that I didn't say.  I think we're actually in more agreement than you think.  

 

I never said Nintendo would ditch the 3DS.  I absolutely agree with you; that would be foolish.   My post was only imagining a remote possibility where Nintendo might release a successor to the DS line.  Of course, even if it did happen, it wouldn't be anytime soon.  Nintendo should and needs to be committed to the Switch (though based on some of Reggie's comments, I'm not sure they are).

 

I also agree with you about the Switch.  You seem to think I am arguing it will sell less than Wii U.   I never said that.  In fact, I've said it looks like a 15-20 million console.  That's better than the Wii U, and I agree it should sell more.  But I'm not sure 20 million would be seen by many to be a success.  The Wii U set the bar low, but just beating by ~10 million won't sit well, and it may only further prove the Big N's base is ... well, small.

 

Anyways, it'll be fun/interesting to watch.  I don't game too much anymore; I'm more fascinated by seeing how the industry rolls, and evolves. There really are few business like it, and the players are intriguing to watch as they compete/jockey for position.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a long-time Nintendo gamer.  Have every system since the NES; bought Gamecube on launch day.  Also have the Wii, two GBA (still enjoy some FF Crystal Chronicles now and then), the 3DS, and (yes) the Wii U.  Have 25 games on the system everyone seems to hate.  

 

I've said my piece on the Switch, and I'm done writing in this forum as well as any others as they relate to this machine.  I hope the console does well.   I hope we get amazing Nintendo games (we will).  I also hope Nintendo does better at E3 to convince people to buy it.  

 

That all said, my hope is largely clinging to a very small likelihood.  

 

I think the Switch is going to be a debacle (meaning 15-20 million sold).  That's not enough to maintain an ecosystem, and certainly not enough to get the AAA developers on board.  

 

It'll be Nintendo's last proprietary machine.  Sad, but that's the writing on the wall (IMHO).  



#208 Spybreak9   $exy Game Scholar CAGiversary!   9435 Posts   Joined 12.7 Years Ago  

Posted 22 January 2017 - 10:18 PM

Two individuals that share my thoughts on the Switch and Nintendo:
Spoiler

Spoiler


#209 romeogbs19   Henshin A Go-Go Baby! CAGiversary!   2558 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

romeogbs19

Posted 23 January 2017 - 12:28 AM

Listen to the Glixel reactions - IMHO, spot on.  Caution to fanboys - you may not like what you hear.

 

The most devastating fact is when Davison (an industry regular) says he talked with his developer friends who said the Nintendo Switch looks like a "&*&$en disaster" (that's the second podcast).

 

Btw, on the second podcast below, it appears I am not alone in thinking Nintendo may be readying a real DS successor handheld in the future ...  I like it when I'm right ... it's good to know my feelings/impulses are still in line with those who live and breathe the industry on a daily basis :-)

 

Glixel (1/13/17)

https://megaphone.link/PNP6371275224

 

Glixel (1/21/17)

https://megaphone.link/PNP5671199290



#210 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 23 January 2017 - 04:21 AM

I've said my piece on the Switch, and I'm done writing in this forum as well as any others as they relate to this machine. I hope the console does well.


1post and 2 days later...

Listen to the Glixel reactions - IMHO, spot on. Caution to fanboys - you may not like what you hear.

The most devastating fact is when Davison (an industry regular) says he talked with his developer friends who said the Nintendo Switch looks like a "&*&$en disaster" (that's the second podcast).

Btw, on the second podcast below, it appears I am not alone in thinking Nintendo may be readying a real DS successor handheld in the future ... I like it when I'm right ... it's good to know my feelings/impulses are still in line with those who live and breathe the industry on a daily basis :-)

Glixel (1/13/17)
https://megaphone.link/PNP6371275224

Glixel (1/21/17)
https://megaphone.link/PNP5671199290