Nintendo Switch

[Tickled_Pink]

A few more details about things we didn't know before

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-27-nintendo-switch-has-a-6-2-multi-touch-screen

 

6.2" 720p multi-touch screen

capacitive, not resistive

right-hand JoyCon has a short range IR sensor, presumably tied to a sensor in the dock

 

Small, relatively low-resolution screen makes me think the price will be low, like $300 or less. I would get the handheld (only, no dock) if the price were right, I don't really need another TV thing in my life.

I thought it looked a little on the small side. I guessed 7" but it's worse than that. It's quite uncommon to get a tablet smaller than 7". In fact the only major manufacturers I'm aware of that does it is Amazon. I am thinking it was done with price in mind.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

 

Sounds like someone wants to receive lots of goatse and tubgirl pictures via PM. (please don't do that)

 

What does everyone think of the March timeframe for launch? That's where PSP, 3DS, Vita, and New 3DS launched. Does it signal that they're expecting weaker demand (otherwise they'd make it a holiday launch), or just that they want to get it to market as soon as possible since Wii U has dried up and 3DS is next?

 

 

 

I'd prefer it be a winter launch here in North America. Videogames are generally bad weather and indoor activities. March is the beginning of summer - when I'm least interested.

 

Besides so many neat things used to come out around the holidays back in the day. LED handhelds, other electronics, more console carts.. You get the idea.

Actually March releases aren't a bad move. Most companies release their blockbusters during the summer (movies) or fall release for tech gadgets. a spring release is the time when when people start getting bored with their Christmas toys an gadgets and have paid off their Christmas credit card debt or get tax refunds.

 

We don't know what the manufacture capacity of the NX is, and Nintendo is probably stockpiling for the initial launch as we speculate over fine details. This gives Nintendo extra time to polish launch titles such as Zelda BOTW and possibly the yet unannounced new Mario game, so hopefully there isn't a widespread post launch game famine like with 3DS and Wii-U. Lack of backwards compatibility with previous gen software will make the hurt even worse if there aren't day one releases.

 

Sans the Christmas gift rush, ample stock is more likely to get in the hands of diehards and early adopters and a steady rollout post launch, allowing the console to build momentum over time similar to 3DS. Historically I don't think spring release consoles are any worse off than fall release, in the long run anyway...

[Atariboy]

Nintendo's financial releases say 2 million units if I'm remembering what I said, so it's going to be a pretty small scale launch in March if that holds true and likely not a worldwide one.

[Bilnick]

If the Switch doesn't have a killer library of games, it doesn't matter when it launches. The early adopters will probably be satisfied with the Zelda game at launch. Anything else in March would be a bonus.

 

The real test is what will be available for the Switch in the fall of 2017. If the best offering in fall 2017 is a six month old Zelda game it will be in trouble. The competition will have Red Dead Redemption 2, Destiny 2, a new CoD game, Madden, FIFA, Halo, etc. How many of those third party games will be on the Switch?

 

I will buy the Switch to hook up to my TV and play the 1-2 good Nintendo games per year I am interested in. Based on what I have seen so far I doubt I will buy much else for it. I am not really interested in the portable capabilities of the Switch, my smartphone is more than capable as a portable entertainment device.

[Atariboy]

I don't think we have to worry about the 1st party lineup.

 

Nintendo is up to speed with HD development now, last-gen development has obviously been taking a backseat for a good two years now (Especially in-house at Nintendo other than the Zelda team) in preparation of the launch of this system, and they only have one unified system to concern themselves about here and keep supplied with a steady stream of releases.

 

They even have a ready-made pool of quality porting candidates like further HD remasters from the GameCube/Wii era that they barely tapped on the Wii U and several Wii U ports like Splatoon that they can sprinkle in over the coming years, that require significantly less resources than original efforts and which can be outsourced to 3rd parties like Tantalus Media.

 

A decent selection of quality exclusives from launch until the final days of this platform are the one thing that I really don't think we have to concern ourselves over here too much.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Atariboy

[Schizophretard]

Sans the Christmas gift rush, ample stock is more likely to get in the hands of diehards and early adopters and a steady rollout post launch, allowing the console to build momentum over time similar to 3DS. Historically I don't think spring release consoles are any worse off than fall release, in the long run anyway...

 

The Game Boy Advance SP was released in March and sold 43.57 million units.

[BadPricey]

I've often thought it's a lame excuse for Nintendo not to bring out a console that competes on spec/power with Sony and Microsoft. They have the franchises people like to play, Mario, Zelda, Pikmin etc. What they don't have are the major third party games like Overwatch, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Skyrim etc which kids today want. If their machine was top spec this really would be the machine of choice because it would cater for the majority not the minority. This is solely my opinion but can't help thinking the new system needs to be bells and whistles for success.

Rgds

BadPricey

[godslabrat]

It's weird how people are simultaneously criticizing the screen for being too big for a portable and too small for a tablet.

[Keatah]

..but can't help thinking the new system needs to be bells and whistles for success.

Rgds

BadPricey

 

If people are told that bells and whistles are required for success, then that's the way it will be.

[Keatah]

It's weird how people are simultaneously criticizing the screen for being too big for a portable and too small for a tablet.

 

Ahh yes the ago old problem of packing a big screen in a small housing. The industry will continue to vibrate around screen sizes until a variable size screen is invented.

[Asaki]

I've often thought it's a lame excuse for Nintendo not to bring out a console that competes on spec/power with Sony and Microsoft.

Don't Sony and MS sell all of their consoles at a loss?

[Punisher5.0]

Don't Sony and MS sell all of their consoles at a loss?

Initially but they should be making money now with all the cost saving on the updated systems.

[Tickled_Pink]

 

The Game Boy Advance SP was released in March and sold 43.57 million units.

 

Not that it actually had any competition by that point.

 

The Switch has masses of competition. So I am surprised they didn't go for at least a limited release in time for Christmas.

 

But I was just thinking - something that may go against a cheaper price is the likelihood that it's just a console. Unlike other tablets that have to make a profit, they are at least general purpose devices that can play games. The Switch may well be just a console with limited connectivity options. It's certainly going to have a much smaller library of games and apps than other tablets; and few are going to be free to play. This is going to limit its appeal to the general public. $300 for a tablet that can play a limited number of games vs $200 for an Android gaming tablet that can stream PC games. To me, there is no competition.

 

Nintendo are going to find it tough unless they get the price just right.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Tickled_Pink

[Jinks]

Sounds like this will not be available to the public till fall 2017 or Early 2018.

Usually all the preorders and resellers buy stock up for the first year.

This happened with the wii and wii u where I live.

The downside is I lose a year off the software that loses support. Example 3 or so channels on the wii and Google earth on wii u etc. Seems these consoles today are disposable as the phones we buy. When the batteries on the pads dont charge you throw it away because all online content which is 70-80% of the features is discontinued..

Yes by public availability I mean a person can walk into about any game store or wallmart etc. and find a dozen or so on the shelf for sale. Any other method that requires fanatical(camping in front of a store) and illogical actions(preordering or buying from resellers) to me means not available.

[Mord]

That wouldn't bother me personally. I'd probably just go ahead and start buying up some of the games I know I'll want and just get the console when it becomes available normally. (I won't be buying it from a reseller above normal retail price)

 

The console itself will definitely become available at some point - the games themselves, less likely so.

[Raticon]

Today we're all wrapped up in everything else surrounding the console. Worrying about its competitors. Screen sizes, hardware specs. How much retail space it will get. How it will appeal to others. Stuff that doesn't add to the enjoyment of the system. It's everything but the games! Is that where we get our fun from? Discussing the politics of how a console is marketed?

I guess we care more about such things today because those are the same things that developers look at when deciding to port or develop for said console. It isnt much fun if everyobe with other systems gets to play that new cool game except you because the console you got itself is underpowered, quirky and not selling very good.

 

In my opinion EAs decision to drop support for the Wii U contributed to its poor performance, because whatever we may think about it the FIFA, NHL and other EA regular titles are massive sellers.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Raticon

[Bill Loguidice]

I guess we care more about such things today because those are the same things that developers look at when deciding to port or develop for said console. It isnt much fun if everyobe with other systems gets to play that new cool game except you because the console you got itself is underpowered, quirky and not selling very good.

 

In my opinion EAs decision to drop support for the Wii U contributed to its poor performance, because whatever we may think about it the FIFA, NHL and other EA regular titles are massive sellers.

 

Lots of companies dropped support, though. That's what happens when games sell at mere fractions of what they're projected to sell. It's not like EA and the other third parties didn't put in a reasonable effort in the first year.

 

Nintendo definitely has a third party problem (which we've known about for several generations), although it looks like they'll be given at least a modest fresh start in that regard with the Switch. It's up to Nintendo to attract buyers who have an interest in supporting third party Switch content. If they don't like they didn't with the Wii U, then they'll be in the same boat, where first party titles sell great, but third parties don't get to benefit and leave for greener pastures. That's not a recipe for success these days.

[phoenixdownita]

To be fair naming is somewhat important, although different languages do not get to be on the joke.

 

When the Wii came out ..... see what I mean ... it's a bad double entendre in just about any English sentence you can think of.

 

With the "Switch" it's not as bad but still ... "switch it off" comes to mind.

[Schizophretard]

Not that it actually had any competition by that point.

 

The Switch has masses of competition. So I am surprised they didn't go for at least a limited release in time for Christmas.

 

But I was just thinking - something that may go against a cheaper price is the likelihood that it's just a console. Unlike other tablets that have to make a profit, they are at least general purpose devices that can play games. The Switch may well be just a console with limited connectivity options. It's certainly going to have a much smaller library of games and apps than other tablets; and few are going to be free to play. This is going to limit its appeal to the general public. $300 for a tablet that can play a limited number of games vs $200 for an Android gaming tablet that can stream PC games. To me, there is no competition.

 

Nintendo are going to find it tough unless they get the price just right.

 

Considering tablet computers as competition for gaming handhelds is like considering personal computers as competition for gaming consoles. Both are true to an extent because there are those who prefer to game either on PC's or tablets instead of consoles and handhelds but they aren't direct competition like it is between two or more consoles or two or more handhelds because they cater to different types of gamers. That is why console gaming and PC gaming has been able to coexist. I don't see much of a difference between handheld gaming and tablet gaming coexisting. In other words, if it weren't a handheld but was a console you could make the same argument that it would have a lot of competition because of PC's. So, it doesn't matter rather or not if Nintendo decides to make a console or a handheld because either way they would have masses of competition. And since they decided to make it a hybrid of both I guess that means they have masses of competition from PC's and tablets but only indirectly because its direct competition would be the PS4 and XBOX ONE when docked and the PSVITA when not. I think it is likely that compared to the PS4 and XBOX ONE it would be in third place because Nintendo is too far behind in the race but as long as it isn't third place in the complete flop Wii-U sense then I think it would do fine and compared to the PSVITA I think it is likely to be in first place and then the only one racing when the PSVITA is discontinued. I think being in a healthy third place as a console and basically a monopoly first place as a handheld are good positions to be in.

 

But if as a console it flops like the Wii-U and as a handheld flops like a Virtual Boy then I think it will be screwed but not because PC gamers and tablet gamers put them in that position because, as I said, they cater to different gamers. In other words, it has to live up to what console gamers, handheld gamers, and/or both want in a Nintendo console/handheld. Anyway, handheld gamers are console gamers in portable form. So, for similar reasons that a console gamer would choose a console over a PC a handheld gamer would choose a handheld over a tablet. Here are some reasons I would prefer the Switch as a handheld over a tablet:

 

1. Power. This is similar to PC's vs. consoles but in reverse because with consoles gamers are willing to sacrifice some power for the conveniences of a console but with the Switch it would be the other way around because if it has a modified Tegra X1 and requires vent holes on the top and bottom of the handheld then it would be the choice of tablets where one would be sacrificing power. More power means more potential for high quality console style games. And potentially ports of tablet controller games because it should be powerful enough for all of them too. So, it could potentially get games that tablets can't run while potentially getting the same controller games that are on tablets.

 

2. Game Cards. Tablets are exclusively download only devices designed for small apps for limited space. I think Google Play has something around 1GB as the maximum size for an app and something around needing double the free space to install them. That makes the installation of bigger games sloppy because you have to download the 1GB APK while making sure you have the extra free space, launch it, then it downloads more from, I assume, the devs' server, and then if all goes well like it not freezing and therefore making you start over you get a big ass game that took a big chunk of your free space. What if the Switch gets games that are 10GB, 20GB, 30GB, etc.? No problem because it takes Game Cards. A tablet? Lots of problems.

 

3. With the Switch controllers would be standard but with tablets touch is standard. This is similar to PC gaming vs. console gaming. There are many PC gamers that are fine with just a keyboard and mouse but for a console gamer a controller is a must. There are many tablet gamers that are fine with just a touch screen but for a handheld gamer a controller is a must. You can find controllers and controller games for tablets and make sure that you choose a tablet compatible with the games you want but the experience is closer to playing controller games on a PC than it is to playing them on a console. With the Switch you would know that the games work with a controller and exactly which controllers you need because it comes with the controllers.

 

4. Everyone has the same hardware. Devs don't have to make sacrifices to make sure their games run on the cheapest phone to the most premium tablet. They can just push the hardware because the games only have to be optimized for one device. They don't have to worry about device specific bugs and issues from gamers having different hardware. Gamers don't have to worry about rather or not a game is compatible with their hardware and would know that any bugs and/or issues would be shared by every gamer on the platform. These kind of things makes it easier for devs and a better experience for the gamers.

 

5. The dock. There are tablets that can be docked but it isn't a universal feature that is commonly shared by all gamers and the Switch dock appears to be intended to work seamlessly. You slide in the Switch, push the two release buttons for the controllers(or leave them in and use the pro controller), slide the controllers together to make one, and the game automatically shows up on the TV in 1080p and looks optimized for the big screen. The reverse of the process is just as seamless. With tablets there are different docks and not everyone has them, different controllers for different games, games not optimized for the big screen like showing up in portrait mode instead of landscape, touch controllers showing up on screen, tiny text because they expect you to read it on a tablet close to your face instead of a TV, etc. If tablets came even remotely close to what it appears that Nintendo is trying to do then I should be able to sideload any controller game onto my Nvidia Shield Android TV that isn't in Android TV's curated Google Play store and they all would work with the Shield controller with not even needing a mouse to launch them, none of them would require unplugging the Ethernet cable to launch because the games' always online DRM is expecting the "tablet's" WIFI, none of them would show up in portrait mode, etc. The opposite holds true because the devs have to optimize their apps for both tablets/phones and Android TV to get on its curated Google Play while also selecting the Shield as a supported device and if all devs did so there would be no need to experiment with sideloading. But with the Switch's dock it appears that Nintendo will be doing most of the work to make the switch from portable to TV a seamless optimized experience.

 

The dock also seems like it should appeal to anybody that has used a Super Game Boy, Game Boy Player, or other handheld on TV solutions like the PlayStation TV, handheld emulators, etc. because it is the same basic concept but more perfected. You would know that every game would work and look just the same as on the portable but in 1080p without even having to remove then reinsert the cartridge. It would also appeal to those who like consoles and handhelds with no sacrifices with the handheld experience like having the NES version of Castlevania and then the Game Boy version of Castlevania. Both versions would be the same version without having to buy two game systems and two cartridges.

 

6. Nintendo first party titles. I think this one is self explanatory why the Switch would be a better solution for a handheld gamer to get them compared to a tablet.

 

7. Greater potential for console quality third party titles. I think it is obvious that the Switch has greater potential for third party titles than these: http://androidgamepadgames.com/ and closer to what you can get on the other consoles. And the best of the best of that list may make it on the Switch anyway. Maybe not by Game Card but by download and definitely all would use the same Switch controllers.

 

8. Less potential for always online DRM. Tablets and phones are always online devices that only get their software from app stores. The app stores are full of games that phone home to verify your in-app purchases. I doubt the Switch is going to come with a Sim card, data plan, and you are going to run into issues launching your games while on a camping trip. Especially for the games that come on Game Cards.

 

9. Less potential for pay to win, ads, in-app purchases for everything, $99.99 for a bag of coins, etc. for similar reasons to number 8.

 

10. Nvidia. Probably the closest a handheld gamer could get to the Switch's functionality with a tablet and therefore the closest to almost being direct competition would be buying the Nvidia Shield K1 Tablet($199.99), two Shield controllers($59.99 x 2), the Shield cover that doubles as a stand($39.99), the Shield charger which might not be necessary if you already have other means of charging($29.99), and the IPEGA PG-9023 Telescopic Wireless Bluetooth Game Controller for a completely handheld experience($25.25 on Amazon) That is $385.21 to $415.20 worth of gear(difference of price with the charger) and there would be other things needed like SD cards for storage. Granted, there are much cheaper alternatives but if a handheld gamer considers the Switch but turns it down because they believe they can get the same experiences in tabletville then to get even close to the same experiences they are looking at that kind of set-up in those price ranges with most of the gear coming from Nvidia because they are the high end in Android gaming. But the Switch with all its necessary gear conveniently already in the box would likely be somewhere at or below that kind of price range, it also has Nvidia's Tegra inside but not the K1 but a modified X1 that if you want in tablet form and not even at full needing vent holes power would be the Google's Pixel C that starts at $499.99(We are getting into Nvidia's Tegra for self-driving cars territory if the Switch gets something much more than a modified X1), and Nvidia is likely to offer much more support for the Switch than their own devices in the form of dev tools, helping with ports(maybe even doing some of their own like they do with their Lightspeed Studios that they use on the Shields), working with Nintendo on the OS, etc. In short, the same company that offers the top off the line premium Android gaming experience for tablets that would be the closest thing to a direct competitor to the Switch in the tablet market is the same company working with Nintendo on the Switch.

 

 

[Flojomojo]

Shorter

[Schizophretard]

Shorter

 

Handheld not tablet.

[Flojomojo]

Much better, thank you.

 

Remember that the rules of the Google Play Store do not necessarily apply here, Nintendo can and will do its own thing. Curation is good but only so long as there's lots of good content.

 

I look forward to learning more about this thing in January.

[Atari Master]

I suspect that Nintendo won't be against a lot of mobile games coming to the system, though I'm betting they'll filter out a lot of the bad stuff.

 

I'm still not sure where I fall on this system. I really want it to do well because I'm a big fan of Nintendo. And I do think it will do a LOT better than the Wii U simply because this system will have the full support of ALL of Nintendo's internal development. Not having to develop for a handheld AND a console is a pretty big boon for them. I hope Nintendo can at least get some third parties on board. There's potential for a console that's mobile. I hope it's powerful enough to get reasonable ports of many third party games.

Another thing I wonder about is if this system will be iterative. Will we see a Switch V2 in the future with better hardware? Then maybe a Switch V3 a few years later with even better hardware? Mobile tech is advancing at an insane pace, so if they find success with this platform I see no reason for them to not upgrade it every few years.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Atari Master

[Osgeld]

I suspect that Nintendo won't be against a lot of mobile games coming to the system, though I'm betting they'll filter out a lot of the bad stuff.

 

well they did an outstanding job keeping crapware off the wii

[Atari Master]

 

well they did an outstanding job keeping crapware off the wii

I think they've done an okay job if keeping bad games off of their online stores so far so I guess we'll see.