Nintendo Switch

[enoofu]

 

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.

 

This system may be a streaming machine since it probably has a very small hard-drive

 

GeForce Now or some other partners is probably supporting the back-end

 

Also this console may have a local supplemental device which adds some specs

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/219008-new-patent-application-suggests-nintendos-nx-console-is-like-nothing-weve-seen-before

[keepdreamin]

Also, I miss the days when manufacturer's were proud to announce the specs of their systems along with displaying them on the box. All we really know is that it has a custom Tegra processor.

 

Buy a PC if you're concerned about processing horsepower.

[Punisher5.0]

Buy a PC if you're concerned about processing horsepower.

Thanks for the tip......

[Schizophretard]

 

This system may be a streaming machine since it probably has a very small hard-drive

 

GeForce Now or some other partners is probably supporting the back-end

 

Also this console may have a local supplemental device which adds some specs

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/219008-new-patent-application-suggests-nintendos-nx-console-is-like-nothing-weve-seen-before

 

It may possibly have streaming capabilities but I don't see any reason why to come to that conclusion based on a likely very small hard-drive. It doesn't require installing games from discs. It uses Game Cards that can load the games without installation like a 3DS. Most of the content would be stored on them and any potential internal storage and/or expanded storage through micro SD card would be reserved for things like the eShop, Virtual Console, game saves, etc. The 3DS has only 1GB of internal storage and isn't a streaming machine.

[Schizophretard]

Much better, thank you.

My pleasure.

 

Remember that the rules of the Google Play Store do not necessarily apply here, Nintendo can and will do its own thing.

If you would have been able to tolerate my longer version then even your post could have been shorter because you would already know that I would strongly agree that the rules of the Google Play Store and even tablet gaming as a whole do not necessarily apply here.

 

Curation is good but only so long as there's lots of good content.

 

I would agree that curation wouldn't be any good if there were nothing good to curate but without good curation it is harder to find what is good.

 

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

Me too. There is just something about it that makes its full reveal more interesting to me than usual. I think it is how almost everything about it seems like old ideas while also simultaneously being new ideas by how those old ideas are combined in new ways.

 

One of the things I'm very interested in seeing how it works is the D-pad only being on the pro-controller while only being mapped as buttons on the Joy-Con. It makes sense to me for making the Joy-Cons two controllers and for new games that use primarily the thumb sticks and therefore would only be using the D-pad for extra buttons anyway but what about something like buying a Game Boy game on the Virtual Console? That seems like the best way available to play it on the go would be using the kickstand and a pro-controller which would make Game Boy games less portable than being on an actual Game Boy. It makes me wonder if Joy-Cons with a D-pad will be optional accessories because I don't see how situations like that would work with the standard Joy-Cons or the pro-controller.

 

[Schizophretard]

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 bet they would filter a lot too but I also think many mobile developers would filter themselves. Many devs may not be willing, may not be able to afford, or may be too lazy to make all the necessary changes to their games like optimizing them for the hardware, changing how they monetize their games, adding controller support, etc. In other words, I suspect that the mobile devs that are already AAA developers, already have popular games, already change the ways they monetize their games to make them appropriate for all the platforms they support, already support as much hardware as they can, already add controller support and for multiple controllers, etc. would be the devs most likely to target the Switch.

 

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.

I hope the internal development of combining both handheld and console together gives them the ability to create games for every single franchise they have, create more remakes of past games, and even create brand new franchises so that even if third party support is less than ideal there wouldn't be anything from Nintendo that is lacking.

 

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.

I would be extremely surprised if it weren't iterative. The handhelds have been. The Game Boy line went all the way to the Game Boy Advance SP and the DS line went all the way to the New 3DS. The Switch's design is closer to them than their consoles so I can see them doing the same thing. It also seems like it would be much more simple to do than with their consoles for your mobile tech reasons but for other reasons. For an example, the Joy-Cons being detachable. If a new kind of control becomes popular then the new Switch could come with controllers for that but still use the old ones for backwards compatibility. If a new Switch gets a higher resolution screen that would work well with virtual reality then you could just slide the Joy-Cons off and use the same sliding mechanism to slide the screen into a headset. Another example would be the Game Cards. If it used optical discs then the next gen Switch may require a new disc drive for the new disc format but with the Game Cards the next gen Switch may just need more storage in the Game Cards. It also doesn't make sense that if they were successful with the Switch as a hybrid that they would split the next gen apart again into portables and consoles and it also doesn't make sense that if they kept the next gen a hybrid that they would break backwards compatibility with the previous generation unless there was something fundamentally different about the new hybrid that would make backwards compatibility impractical. Also, if the Switch becomes successful then it seems likely to make Nintendo think,"This is our big break! It works! Let's not mess it up this time by completely changing it up! We got a good thing going here and the fans love it! So, let's give them more of what they want!"

[Andromeda Stardust]

On the topic of mobile games coming to Switch, there is a good chance they'll be much better experiences played on the Switch.

 

Touch optional when holding the tablet, pad controls mandatory when docked and when holding the tablet. So some games will play better with the controls or the touchpad but you get to choose which style you want to use.

 

Mobile is rampant with free-to-play games which IMO is toxic to the console gaming industry because developers find was to restrict play (ad supported, pay credits for powerups, time limits or credit limits which restrict the amount of time per day a user can spend with the game unless they pay for more, etc) in order to nag the player for revenue. Most mobile players basically refuse to download anything over 99 cents or so, whereas console gamers are more discerning and willing to spend $10 or even $20 here or there on a well made game.

 

Because mobile devs don't have to design their games around the mobile ecosystem where "whales" or compulsive gaming addicts supply the bulk of the income, they can charge a fair price for a full game and the Switch gamer gets a nag-free gaming experience by paying a flat fee for unlimited use of the full game, a far more enjoyable experience in the long run to the mobile equivalent.

 

Please Nintendo, help mobile devs buck the toxic trend of micropayments and show them they can make money by putting out quality experiences at a reasonable price.

[negative1]

Good article on why the Switch will be Nintendo's last gasp attempt at hardware if it fails.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/31/why-the-nintendo-switch-is-nintendoas-make-or-break-console

[Bill Loguidice]

Because mobile devs don't have to design their games around the mobile ecosystem where "whales" or compulsive gaming addicts supply the bulk of the income, they can charge a fair price for a full game and the Switch gamer gets a nag-free gaming experience by paying a flat fee for unlimited use of the full game, a far more enjoyable experience in the long run to the mobile equivalent.

 

Please Nintendo, help mobile devs buck the toxic trend of micropayments and show them they can make money by putting out quality experiences at a reasonable price.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't count on Nintendo bucking the micropayment trend. They're in too deep and have benefited already from it on smartphones.

[Bill Loguidice]

Good article on why the Switch will be Nintendo's last gasp attempt at hardware if it fails.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/31/why-the-nintendo-switch-is-nintendoas-make-or-break-console

 

More of a "water is wet" conclusion.

[Punisher5.0]

Good article on why the Switch will be Nintendo's last gasp attempt at hardware if it fails.

 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/31/why-the-nintendo-switch-is-nintendoas-make-or-break-console

Been hearing this for several generations and at least 15 years.

[Flojomojo]

Please Nintendo, help mobile devs buck the toxic trend of micropayments and show them they can make money by putting out quality experiences at a reasonable price.

 

Nintendo is already doing that with a few f2p experiments on 3DS and mobile. Different flavors I have observed:

 

Not so bad: I am not a fan of the gacha chance games, which take real money but do not guarantee you get anything (Badge Arcade), but this is usually mitigated by giving you free stuff every day.

 

Totally fine: Paying for optional, cosmetic things for fun is OK -- Miitomo is like that but doesn't force you to pay. I suspect the Animal Crossing mobile game will have this feature.

 

Better than paid games: Giving you a free taste and charging for more levels is a friendlier way to ask for gamer money. It's like the old shareware model, you can try before you buy. I'll bet they use this for the Fire Emblem mobile game. There are other choices between "free to play but spam for coins every 30 seconds" and "no game for you until you insert sixty dollars."

 

Pretty evil: What sucks, and is unfair, and stupid, are the pay-to-win games that ask for money for consumable things like smurfberries, with no limit to how much you can spend.

 

Acceptable: One way some mobile game developers have attacked this is via "subscriptions," which take a few dollars a month but expect you to log in every day to get your items. They're sold at a much better rate this way, and it drives engagement which is crucial for social or PvP games. That's less evil.

 

I think Nintendo has been good about showing leadership to how it's possible to do F2P without being greedy or hostile to the player.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't count on Nintendo bucking the micropayment trend. They're in too deep and have benefited already from it on smartphones.

 

 

Plus, it's not necessarily a bad thing, if you can get a dynamic, social, well-supported, and widely-played game out of it -- especially if new content comes out all the time. I wonder if there's an experimental F2P MMO somewhere deep in Nintendo already.

 

I went through a phase of not even looking at F2P stuff like Gameloft on mobile, because the initial asks for money were just terrible -- artificial timers tacked onto everything, obvious paywalls, greedy storefronts. I've found a few well supported games that are lots of fun, and I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for things I like.

 

Nowadays I have a lot more money than I have time to play games. If something is fun enough to occupy my time, I do not mind paying a bit of money to keep the developer in business.

[Flojomojo]

If you would have been able to tolerate my longer version then even your post could have been shorter because you would already know that I would strongly agree that the rules of the Google Play Store and even tablet gaming as a whole do not necessarily apply here.

Well, duh! Why even bring it up?

[Bill Loguidice]

Been hearing this for several generations and at least 15 years.

 

I think this time it's true, though (and something we've talked about from well before that article). The declining gaming handheld market and the Wii U's outright failure mean this is likely Nintendo's last chance at the traditional console model. It's clear even Nintendo sees that, because they've already been hedging their bets by putting their IP in unexpected places (like mobile) well before the Switch's release.

 

In any case, I don't think it's any shocking thought or revelation or in any way similar to the past proclamations of Nintendo's death. This time they're all in one product and there are no backup markets (handheld or console) left. If people don't respond to the Switch like they didn't respond to the Wii U, Nintendo can't be fiscally irresponsible and release ANOTHER major system after that that would likely suffer yet another similar fate. Investors are already uneasy. Money in the bank only buys you time, it doesn't buy you unlimited do-overs.

 

Now, if indeed the Switch does outright fail for whatever reason, Nintendo will have no issue remaining relevant, just not in traditional hardware. They'll be fine, so yeah, no death in that sense, just the death of their direct presence in the console market.

 

EDIT: By the way, I think it behooves Nintendo to follow Microsoft and Sony's lead and have both free and paid online tiers. Those are significant, reliable revenue streams for both companies that foster community and something Nintendo shouldn't be missing out on (and would hopefully correct their nonsense account system once and for all).

Edited November 3, 2016 by Bill Loguidice

[Flojomojo]

Now, if indeed the Switch does outright fail for whatever reason, Nintendo will have no issue remaining relevant, just not in traditional hardware. They'll be fine, so yeah, no death in that sense, just the death of their direct presence in the console market.

I agree.

 

Nintendo won't die, they'll just change.

[Punisher5.0]

I think this time it's true, though (and something we've talked about from well before that article). The declining gaming handheld market and the Wii U's outright failure mean this is likely Nintendo's last chance at the traditional console model. It's clear even Nintendo sees that, because they've already been hedging their bets by putting their IP in unexpected places (like mobile) well before the Switch's release.

 

In any case, I don't think it's any shocking thought or revelation or in any way similar to the past proclamations of Nintendo's death. This time they're all in one product and there are no backup markets (handheld or console) left. If people don't respond to the Switch like they didn't respond to the Wii U, Nintendo can't be fiscally irresponsible and release ANOTHER major system after that that would likely suffer yet another similar fate. Investors are already uneasy. Money in the bank only buys you time, it doesn't buy you unlimited do-overs.

 

Now, if indeed the Switch does outright fail for whatever reason, Nintendo will have no issue remaining relevant, just not in traditional hardware. They'll be fine, so yeah, no death in that sense, just the death of their direct presence in the console market.

 

EDIT: By the way, I think it behooves Nintendo to follow Microsoft and Sony's lead and have both free and paid online tiers. Those are significant, reliable revenue streams for both companies that foster community and something Nintendo shouldn't be missing out on (and would hopefully correct their nonsense account system once and for all).

I respect your opinion but disagree. Nintendo has sold 60 million 3ds units and can still sell over 100,000 a week. If the Switch doesn't make it then they will go back to another fully portable system imo.

[+save2600]

One more hardware blunder and they should just go back to making playing cards.

 

Okay, that was harsh... but since hardware is what it is today, perhaps they could just become a software house like Sega. Let others spend the R&D and come up with profit draining loss leaders so they could focus on making great games again. And better yet, across several platforms: consoles, computers, tablets, phones, handhelds, etc.

[godslabrat]

Yeah, because it worked so well for sega.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

I think this time it's true, though (and something we've talked about from well before that article). The declining gaming handheld market and the Wii U's outright failure mean this is likely Nintendo's last chance at the traditional console model. It's clear even Nintendo sees that, because they've already been hedging their bets by putting their IP in unexpected places (like mobile) well before the Switch's release.

 

In any case, I don't think it's any shocking thought or revelation or in any way similar to the past proclamations of Nintendo's death. This time they're all in one product and there are no backup markets (handheld or console) left. If people don't respond to the Switch like they didn't respond to the Wii U, Nintendo can't be fiscally irresponsible and release ANOTHER major system after that that would likely suffer yet another similar fate. Investors are already uneasy. Money in the bank only buys you time, it doesn't buy you unlimited do-overs.

 

Now, if indeed the Switch does outright fail for whatever reason, Nintendo will have no issue remaining relevant, just not in traditional hardware. They'll be fine, so yeah, no death in that sense, just the death of their direct presence in the console market.

 

EDIT: By the way, I think it behooves Nintendo to follow Microsoft and Sony's lead and have both free and paid online tiers. Those are significant, reliable revenue streams for both companies that foster community and something Nintendo shouldn't be missing out on (and would hopefully correct their nonsense account system once and for all).

 

I agree.

 

Nintendo won't die, they'll just change.

Pull a Sega in other words. Gotcha.

 

One more hardware blunder and they should just go back to making playing cards.

 

Okay, that was harsh... but since hardware is what it is today, perhaps they could just become a software house like Sega. Let others spend the R&D and come up with profit draining loss leaders so they could focus on making great games again. And better yet, across several platforms: consoles, computers, tablets, phones, handhelds, etc.

Nnooooo!!! Super Mario on PS4/5 just sounds so dirrty and wrong...

 

Yeah, because it worked so well for sega.

This.

[+save2600]

Who knows, Sega might not be around in any form today, had they not switched their business acumen. We'd then have missed all those wonderful sports and driving games featuring obscure Sega characters on other systems.

[Raticon]

If the Switch doesn't make it then they will go back to another fully portable system imo.

Mobile phones and tablets, that is.

 

It is no secret that portable gaming outside of mobile phones has been dying slowly the last years. If that wasnt the case we would see many kinds of handhelds around. We dont.

 

Why spend millions developing hardware that might flop when you can just push software for the device that everyone already carry in their pocket? I mean, Nintendo is already doing it. They are not going to stop.

[Flojomojo]

Pull a Sega in other words. Gotcha.

Hardly. It's not like your choices are (1) Nintendo as it was in the 1980s, (2) A B-lister like Sega, and (3) Ceasing to exist.

 

Here are some profitable, prolific software houses I can think of off the top of my head:

 

Valve

Blizzard

Activision

EA

Bethesda

Ubisoft

 

Need I go on? Those are just the western ones, there are plenty more from Japan.

 

In other words, think of all the third parties that everyone wants to light up the Nintendo Switch.

[godslabrat]

The difference is, those are all companies that never dabbled in hardware, certainly not on the scale Nintendo has. History suggests the downgrading process is a painful one. Sega is perhaps the most appropriate example, but Atari isn't a bad one either. I'd hate to sss Nintendo become another Atari.

[+save2600]

EA never dabbled in hardware?

[Punisher5.0]

Mobile phones and tablets, that is.

It is no secret that portable gaming outside of mobile phones has been dying slowly the last years. If that wasnt the case we would see many kinds of handhelds around. We dont.

Why spend millions developing hardware that might flop when you can just push software for the device that everyone already carry in their pocket? I mean, Nintendo is already doing it. They are not going to stop.

They are selling over 100,000 3ds units a week. Why would they not release another handheld? Saying that a company should stop releasing hardware that they are making crazy money off of makes zero sense to me.