Nintendo Switch

[Tanooki]

Why is it so important to you that it's not just another high priced eye candy whore box to compete with MS and Sony? Underpowered doesn't mean shit in the end unless it prohibits game development. All that matters on a game playing device is having games, and a variety of games that are fun and make you want to play them. Only technonerds who get a boner over how many trillions of triangles some processor can do really care about such crap. The device is a somewhat souped up Nvidia Shield console device in a tablet format with joycon grips running some custom android looking OS without all the pure android overhead. It like the Shield has games that perform strongly beyond what some would expect, and being as it is, is insanely stupidly easy to port android code to to the point you can lift it, drop it in the Nintendo, and it will work or work with minor tweaks (outside of Nintendo TSA requirements.) Development costs are low, coding is easy enough for an android newb to handle, and Nintendo is the most pro-indie/download developer of the big 3. The fact any of these old or new game companies can life their stuff from Android for little expense and have another cash flow option is something that shouldn't be understated.

 

You're right they're stupid, it's not a console but they're saying it is, one that goes on the go...hmm gee like say Sony Vita aka PSTV? It's a handheld with a TV dock, they just oddly aren't pitching it that way which is a mistake. The only competition they ultimately really have is that of the Android and microconsole market in general. They're not fishing in the PS4/One well, but if they get some, and it runs admirably, more power to them.

[Starscream]

and Nintendo is the most pro-indie/download developer of the big 3.

 

Umm, Nintendo is the least and last Indie developer supporter in the industry. MS opened up the world of Indie games on the 360, Sony hammered it down on the PS4. Let's refresh a little:

 

Nintendo claimed online gaming was a "fad" 15 years ago

Nintendo claimed Indie developers weren't significant 5 years ago

Nintendo claimed mobile games weren't a threat as little as 2 years ago

 

See where this is going? They, in fact, are clueless to the very industry they helped revive 3 decades ago. So, please, don't give them unwarranted credit because they have finally embraced every thing that has slowly chipped away at their overall significance in the market because the have no choice.

 

With that said, my original assumption of the Switch looking cool remains, but, after watching the reveal and the days after, this is going to be another GC/wii/wiiu. It will be a 1st party game system, 3rd party support will disappear after a year, have a library mainly made up of shovelware, and will appeal to Nintendo die hards only who don't mind getting one good game every year and a half. This is what happens when you paint yourself in a gimmick corner. If it's one thing Nintendo dominates at consistently, it would be trying to reinvent the wheel instead of making the wheel better. Best of luck but I really don't think anyone should get their hopes up and believe the same rhetoric Nintendo says with every new console release. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a third time, I deserve it.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

 

Hey Tanooki, do you think a "sensor bar" is really needed in 2017, with the greater accuracy of gyro controls we have nowadays? I wouldn't want that extra crap, personally.

 

I don't know because I have no idea how damn good their eye in that one joycon controller really is. If that thing can not only see rock paper scissors, but small moving objects or placement of objects on a flat surface (say like cans on a ledge in Hogan's Alley or Ducks in Duck Hunt) then no it wouldn't. But if it can't and some basic thing is needed I was just kind of thinking it out there.

 

If you want to play Duck Hunt or Hogan's Alley or Wild Gunman on Virtual Console, yes you need a sensor bar. I imagine the camera is IR only which means all color TVs will not work. And there is absolutely no system in place for the Joycons to know even the approximate direction where the TV display is.

 

For what we know so far, the gesture sensor on the Joycon likely uses an IR emitter diode and an IR camera to capture reflected light from hand gestures at close proximity, less than 1 meter or so. This is very likely using old Wiimote cam tech without the sensor bar, and a "smart" chip that can relay more info to the console than simply the four brightest points in view. This gesture camera on the Joycon could very easily be made to work with a "sensor bar" with two IR LEDs that plugs into say the USB port rather than a proprietary jack.

 

I wouldn't count on any hidden "sensor bar" IR LEDs being built into the Switch dock itself as Nintendo has little control over what orientation the user decides to position the dock with respect to the screen. I imagine a lot of users will turn it sideways rather than front facing, creating a smaller profile in their entertainment center. That said, I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to create a sensor bar type device. The Wii-U Gamepad's built in Sensor Bar emitters even show up as bright purple dots on my 3DS and flip phone camera, both of which have poor IR filters.

 

That said, using the Joycon as a pointer onscreen Wiimote style would be extremely awkward due to the fact that the IR camera faces backwards rather than forwards, allowing for proper placement of the triggers on the top of the controller. I really don't think such tech would be necessary or desirable however. Dual analogs can handle onscreen cursors in docked mode, and touch control when undocked.

[Schizophretard]

its underpowered, simple as that, its a last gen XBOX360 era low powered mobile device ... clap clap they gave mario's shirt a texture

 

I wouldn't consider the power of something like the XBOX 360 made to fit into a handheld form factor underpowered. Considering this underpowered is like considering the PS Vita underpowered when it came out.

 

now the question really is where is this console marketed? Nintendoh has already said it's not replacing the DS lineup, so its not a handheld

 

It is marketed as a home console you can take anywhere. They are making that claim for the 3DS for the same reasons they made the same claim for the DS not replacing the Game Boy Advance. They wanted to make sure that just in case the DS flopped they could go back to the Game Boy line but since it didn't flop they did in fact replace the Game Boy Advance. The same will happen here if the Switch is successful. Another reason they made that past claim and are making it again is because they wanted to continue to sell Game Boy Advance hardware/software up until it was discontinued and it is the same thing now with the 3DS. In other words, they are saying that the Switch is only replacing the Wii U as a home console and it will coexist with the 3DS as its portable console just in case the Switch flops so that they would still be able to sell the 3DS but if the Switch is successful they will allow the 3DS to die of natural causes because the marketing won't just be,"A home console you can take with you." for past Wii U owners but also,"A handheld console that can be docked." for past 3DS owners. To put that another way, it is a handheld but is just being marketed as primarily a home console/Wii U successor but later if successful it will also be marketed or at least viewed as a handheld/3DS successor. Maybe this relevant video will help:

 

 

However, putting their marketing spin and strategy aside, it is obvious and common sense that just by looking at it that our eyes aren't deceiving us and it is in fact in a handheld console form factor. It is also obvious and common sense that power like that of the PS4 can't yet fit in that form factor and therefore based on its form factor it is unreasonable to consider it underpowered. The Nvidia Tegra chips are not underpowered mobile chips. They are high powered state-of-the-art chips.

 

but its a home console that does neither handheld or home console gaming all that well, which puts them into a sega

 

It hasn't even been released yet and we don't have a lot of examples yet but from the examples we do have like Breath of the Wild it will clearly do handheld gaming well. And how seamlessly it docks to quickly switch to a TV, the controller options like the Pro Controller and the configurations with the Joy-Cons, the couch multiplayer, etc. makes it look like it would do home console gaming well too. The bringing handheld gaming to the home console looks to me to be a big upgrade over the Super Game Boy and Game Boy Player methods of the past but even they did home console gaming well.

 

IS IT a handheld? they say no, but that's a marketing point

 

Yes, it is a handheld and it is a marketing point. One of the reasons they are marketing it this way is to help make it clear that this is suppose to be a home console/handheld console hybrid experience.

 

IS it a home only console? they say no its a console for yuppies on the go

It isn't a home only console or a handheld only console. It is both as a hybrid in a handheld form factor.

 

so what is is nintendoh? and why even before release you have competition for your own next gen ... still last gen non handheld non console ... console by your own handheld system, and not competing with even last generation home systems

 

PS ... dont call this tablet a tablet its a console for young professionals on the go... which have very little time to play games tween 50 hour work weeks and family ....

 

so confused by this thing

I'm so confused too but not about the Switch but with your use of the English language in this last quote.

[Keatah]

Tegra is so generic.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Keatah

[Keatah]

Not that anybody gives a rat's ass, but lag more than 20-30 ms is really annoying.

[Tickled_Pink]

Why do games hafta be so big? I got flight simulators that take 300GB and more! So the problem is not limited to low-end consoles. Can't they use like zip or rar or something?

It's just more work for the CPU. With flight simulators, having to unzip more terrain as it goes could lead to chopiness. It's also more work to program and doesn't give the coders much leway regarding how much terrain data to load.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

The exact specifics may be hearsay but the entire console being in the console and the dock just being a dock has been confirmed. You don't have to seriously doubt that it has helper chips in the form of more processing power because you can know it because the dock only has in it what is necessary for docking it to the TV while the entire console being in the console. It has already been confirmed that the dock is just for playing your Switch in HD on your TV.

Um, you were the one parading the notion that helper chips may in fact exist in your previous post. I replied stating that any chips are not helpers but rather translational circuits for the USB/Power/Video.

[Andromeda Stardust]

I'd rather have a cheap dock too, not sure why you're arguing.

I'd rather not have a cheap dock. While I commend Nintendo's useage of USB-C, you've got to be really careful what kind of chargers and accessories you plug into USB-C devices as a lot of uncertified devices or cables simply won't work at best or could potentially damage your device. I wouldn't trust a 3rd party dock if my life depended on it. Also the Switch is supposed to pull about 18 watts or so when docked and turned on.

 

I may buy a couple USB-C wall warts rated for "laptop" levels of current draw to charge/power my switch tablet while I game on it off the dock. I'll definitely want to buy a USB-C charger for the living room couch and one for the bed, but a typical phone charger probably won't cut it. An underrated charger designed for phones may be able to trickle charge the tablet but brown out or cut off abruptly when actively using it which would be bad. That said, I wonder if we get access to enhanced performance benchmarks when playing undocked but plugged into a charger? Would the extra power consumption get hot for comfort? We still don't quite know yet if the dock provides active cooling to the Switch tablet when docked. If active cooling from the dock is required for high performance mode, then gaming plugged into the charger would likely not yield any performance benefit as the necessary cooling solution would be absent.

 

Lastly what happens if I put the Switch in the dock with the AC adapter disconnected, or power goes out momentarily while gaming on the dock? Assuming the tablet has adequate battery, does power cut off hard, rebooting the system and losing progress, or does the tablet simply go into "portable" graphics mode while still on the dock? If I take a USB-C to HDMI cable and connect the Switch tablet to a TV without using the docking station, do I get "mobile quality" graphics on the big screen while running on the battery? Would a USB-C HDMI cable with pass through for charging cable (external display plus charger) function in a pinch as a "poor man's dock"?

 

So many unorthodox ways the USB-C connection could potentially be exploited when bypassing the dock by hooking industry standard USB-C cables, or will Nintendo "pull an Apple" and embed a security chip in the dock or add-on devices so that only licensed accessories (besides generic wall chargers) can utilize the docking port?

[Schizophretard]

Um, you were the one parading the notion that helper chips may in fact exist in your previous post. I replied stating that any chips are not helpers but rather translational circuits for the USB/Power/Video.

No, I wasn't. I was responding to this:

 

...when it's a handheld, yes. But there's no reason the dock couldn't have a helper chip or two in it.

Then I started out my post with,"I think I can think of some reasons." with the entire post being about reasons why the dock couldn't have helper chips.

[Austin]

I've had more time to think about the Switch in general, and I'm solidly lukewarm on it. I'm glad to see people excited for it, but for me personally, I'm not interested in several of its features. I also will only have use for it as a game console, not a portable device. The specs of the system leave a bit to be desired as well. I don't consider myself a graphics whore, but the fact is I already own a Wii U, and what's been shown on the Switch looks no different (in some cases, perhaps slightly worse in the performance department). I'd be using it strictly as a console connected to the TV, so dropping another $300 for something I already have isn't appealing to me.

 

I am glad Nintendo is trying to tackle both the handheld and console markets with a single device, and I truly think this is the direction they need to head. I'm crossing my fingers that they won't be relying too much on controller gimmicks (milking cows, for instance) and stick with the basics. That's what originally had me excited about the thing, based on the announce trailer from months back.

 

Games-wise, Xenoblade 2 was the most interesting announcement for me. However, the first ended on a pretty firm note, so I'm not sure how they can go about a direct sequel. That is, unless they decided to take the series in a Final Fantasy-like direction, where none of the games are actually connected (X did this, but it wasn't a numbered entry). I think I would have preferred a direct follow-up to X, as that one left things hanging and the story should be continued.

[Flojomojo]

I think the difference between "handheld" and "console" is pretty meaningless in 2017. Ever see the logic units in a modern tablet or laptop? They're tiny, like a mobile phone's brain. The rest is battery.

 

I'm fine with that, and confident that Nintendo will bring the fun at a lower spec, like they have so many times before. Maybe it will even encourage some more high end games on mobile, which I enjoy.

 

Nintendo is very indie-friendly. One look at the eShop or at developer interviews of people who have released small games (Nicalis comes to mind first, but there are many others) and you'll find stories of them being helpful, and it's not just PR fluff.

 

So the dock costs $90. Hopefully that means it's a quality component. If this is a "problem" in the marketplace, third parties will fill in the gap with a crappy but cheap version. I still think it's weird that they aren't selling the handheld part by itself. It seems more likely to me that someone would want another tablet before they'd want another dock.

[Andromeda Stardust]

No, I wasn't. I was responding to this:

 

Then I started out my post with,"I think I can think of some reasons." with the entire post being about reasons why the dock couldn't have helper chips.

Ugg, nevermind. Miscommunication. It happens...

[boog]

Why is it so important to you that it's not just another high priced eye candy whore box to compete with MS and Sony? Underpowered doesn't mean shit in the end unless it prohibits game development. All that matters on a game playing device is having games, and a variety of games that are fun and make you want to play them.

 

Agreed 100%. To me, games are the only deciding factor on whether to buy the Switch (or any device). It will be the only platform that plays new Nintendo games. Simple. Why does it matter if Mario Odyssey doesn't look as good as Uncharted 4 Pro? I suspect it will be a great game regardless of the system's specs.

Edited January 18, 2017 by boog

[Tanooki]

I dont' feel I gave Nintendo unwarranted credit when just during the last run of systems multiple indie developers were praising how helpful they were in getting games going, getting them to bring stuff to the system. They were happy with the lowest fees involved in getting games sold on the eshop as far a Nintendo's cut. The pre-eShop was a ripoff, they set these stupid caps where Nintendo would pay someone nothing until they broke that level, but on the eShop it did a 180. Helpful, low cut fee, friendly, encouraged development. Probably since the WiiU was floundering and the eshop was where much of anything still was coming out. Long term sure they weren't the best by far to indies, and you're right with that fad stupidity 15 years ago, but 5 years back in the eShop they clearly changed up their minds on that, and yeah they are/were unhinged on mobile games being a threat because now they're making them (and they're the highest profit ones as well from some news stories) and even with Switch going as far as a companion smart app for account services and more.

 

I've got every reason to be negative on them having owned that last turd of theirs as it's the first console I sold in disgust and being so annoyed I ditched the Wii while I was at it too. Gamecube I never once ever regretted, solid system with lots of good games to go around. This time though I think they'll not do WiiU bad, but I don't think they'll move WII numbers either. I'm thinking something of more healthy but not awesome 3rd party support say like Gamecube had, but better numbers than the Cube and WiiU, but nothing like Wii as that was a true one and done. There's enough developers who ignored the WiiU and mostly/completely the Wii as well that are making stuff for it now I think it has a chance to be that 2nd system with a good selection of things to do (a second to a PC or the pc-lite wannabes from Sony and MS.)

 

 

Kosmic good questions. I know you can get a poor USB-C but that's why you do a little research first. You find out what the draw/amps are on the thing and match it up and not from some cheap chinese crap peddler, at worst, eat the cost and pay an added $5 or so and order from Nintendo's web store. I may not be off my mark with this but it's possible the cable/adapter could be the one the NES Mini uses as it has 5.2V and 1A rating on it. I'm curious too if I got some spares, but the odds are it probably would in fact run at an enhanced level unless they intentionally blocked it. In the dock, which is nothing more than a charging cradle with a HDMI port on it, the reason it ramps up is because it's not running on battery. As long as something isn't in the locking mechanism or code itself that says hmm no HDMI, no increase, it should work much like a good tablet can get better GPU and WiFi performance plugged in vs not as it's not a battery vampire then.

 

In the end I think Flojo has something there. They probably will succeed fairly well in their own corner, and as easy as it is to dump an android game on there or variants of it should help promote more developers to bother as it's a cash-in for minimal output of effort and funds and given the dumb way the market has behaved in budgeting stuff since going HD any added cash coming in couldn't hurt. Console and handheld are kind of meaningless, yet not, it's just more blurry as the performance output isn't so shockingly different. Before you had N64 vs GBC, big difference, and even with the Gamecube/Wii you had the GBA and the DS(n64 at best) which was big still. But when you get into stuff like Vita vs PS3, tablet vs microconsole that can do PS3 level like stuff(Shield) it's a blurry mess. It seems to just come down to the games, price, how they're handled, and if it's just fun to use. Nintendo needs to win on that.

[Flojomojo]

Agreed 100%. To me, games are the only deciding factor on whether to buy the Switch (or any device). It will be the only platform that plays new Nintendo games. Simple. Why does it matter if Mario Odyssey doesn't look as good as Uncharted 4 Pro? I suspect it will be a great game regardless of the system's specs.

And for me, the fact that Mario Odyssey doesn't come out for many months is a feature, not a bug!

 

Breath of the Wild is probably a 50+ hour game, and Skyrim is pretty much endless. I don't mind having just a few games at launch so long as they're very good.

[Flojomojo]

It seems to just come down to the games, price, how they're handled, and if it's just fun to use. Nintendo needs to win on that.

Agreed ... and let's not forget that "winning" doesn't necessarily mean "the only game in town for the hot new games." The market for games is huge and they don't necessarily have to eat the PS4, Xbone, or mobile market to succeed comfortably.

 

Does anyone believe this for an instant? I think this could only be true "from a certain point of view."

"Nintendo says Switch won't replace the 3DS."

 

[BillLoguidice]

Agreed ... and let's not forget that "winning" doesn't necessarily mean "the only game in town for the hot new games." The market for games is huge and they don't necessarily have to eat the PS4, Xbone, or mobile market to succeed comfortably.

 

Does anyone believe this for an instant? I think this could only be true "from a certain point of view."

"Nintendo says Switch won't replace the 3DS."

 

I agree that this needs to create its own relative niche and thrive from there. While I have agreed and continue to agree that, despite Nintendo's protests, this is indeed the successor to the Wii U AND 3DS, the latter, dedicated mobile gaming, is not necessarily a potential growth market (in fact, just the opposite). With that said, if it even sold only half as much as the 3DS series, that alone would get it to at least 30 million units, which would get the Switch to Nintendo 64 levels of sales. Perhaps add in Wii U-like console sales performance, and that gets us to over 40 million units sold. That's still about 10 million units less than the PS4 sold in a little over 3 years, but a bit more than the Xbox One has sold in roughly the same amount of time. That's probably good enough for a viable third place (the thriving relative niche) for the Switch, especially if sales levels remain reasonably consistent on the way to that number.

 

We know that the PS4 initially sold well in its first year or so on promise rather than compelling content, and that Xbox One sales were initially retarded my Microsoft bungling the marketing message and holdover from their original intentions for the console that they eventually fully reversed course on, etc. Both companies have respectively recovered from said deficiencies and continue to thrive, including with an incremental upgrade plan that has seen little consumer backlash and positions them well for continued future sales. In terms of the Switch, they have a content issue, and it looks like the usual major third parties are taking a mostly wait-and-see approach, so they'd need some of that PS4 magic and initially sell as much on promise as on content (keeping in mind, Zelda, Splatoon, Mario, etc., WILL help, and that's something Sony didn't really have). And a la Microsoft, they'll have to carefully manage their marketing message and change course when necessary, e.g., presently having a subscription online service with suspect value.

 

So, what are my thoughts? While I'm a supporter of the concept (and buyer of the actual system), I do fear Wii U-like ennui from buyers, particularly if, like previous Nintendo consoles, third party software support seriously lags. The concept is wonderfully versatile, but the big question is will the average consumer think it's wonderful, especially in regards to the portable nature of the unit. In other words, does the average consumer really want a portable device that's not their smartphone (or, sometimes, their tablet)? I'm not necessarily convinced they do, but hope that I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, then we'll have another Wii U on our hands, and who knows where Nintendo can go from there in the traditional sense.

[Flojomojo]

who knows where Nintendo can go from there in the traditional sense.

 

I know where they go. PS4 for big games, iOS/Android for little games, and their subscription-based service tying it all together with regular revenue.

 

Hardware should be transparent and irrelevant, and if Switch flounders, it makes exactly as much sense for Nintendo to stay with hardware manufacturing as it does for Apple to make low-margin printers and monitors. One can protest, "but SEGA!" ...but I think the two really aren't in the same universe in terms of resources or potential.

 

It wouldn't be so bad.

[spacecadet]

Why is it so important to you that it's not just another high priced eye candy whore box to compete with MS and Sony? Underpowered doesn't mean shit in the end unless it prohibits game development.

 

It *does* prohibit game development. Why do you think Nintendo has not been able to attract meaningful third party home console support since the N64 and early days of the GameCube?

 

There are two things third party developers care about: ease of development, and potential sales volume. Those are the two things that directly affect the bottom line. The N64 began to have problems attracting developers not because it was underpowered (it was just differently powered), but because both porting games to it and then releasing them on cartridge in an era when Sony and Sega had moved to CD was a lot more difficult and expensive. The GameCube mostly remedied these issues but it just didn't sell, so there wasn't much point in developers releasing games for it. There was not enough sales potential for developers.

 

The Wii sold like hotcakes for a while but it was 100% due to the fact that it was underpowered that it didn't get much third party support. Developers complained constantly about how they couldn't just take the assets they'd created for the other two systems and reuse them on the Wii (as they did between the PS3 and Xbox 360) - they'd have had to basically recreate entire games and they'd look much worse than on the Wii's competitors. The Wii U had the exact same problem, *plus* it didn't sell.

 

The Wii proved that it doesn't make a lick of difference how well a system sells initially if it's underpowered - it's not going to get games. And that will hurt it long term. The Wii died a pretty quick death for a system that sold 101 million units. That's because sales more or less stopped cold after about 4 1/2 years, with Nintendo taking their now-standard sweet time releasing first party games, and basically *no* meaningful third party games taking up the slack.

 

To say it doesn't matter that a system's underpowered is to completely ignore all of Nintendo's post-N64 (really post-SNES) problems, as if they never even happened. Nintendo's current position in home consoles is proof that it *does* matter if a system's underpowered.

 

I think we pretty much have proof that the Switch is underpowered at this point - yesterday Nintendo detailed the differences between Zelda for Wii U and Switch, and there aren't all that many. The biggest is that the Switch runs the game at a slightly higher resolution (900p vs. 720p). If the Switch is only marginally more powerful than the Wii U, which was already underpowered at its launch 5 years ago, then this thing is going to have a really hard time getting developers to port any high-end titles to it. And I'm sure Nintendo fans will continue to whine about how life isn't fair and developers hate Nintendo, rather than blaming Nintendo for yet another underpowered system.

[Flojomojo]

Spacecadet, everything you say is true, yet I don't think it's the whole truth.

 

I want to believe Nintendo is motivated by something other than just gross sales and profit. They like to control the whole stack (why else bother with making your own hardware nowadays?) and they generally polish their stuff more than the average software house. Yes, good software drives adoption of hardware, but I doubt that having hundreds of crappy shovelware games on Wii contributed to its success. A great many of those Wii consoles that sold were only ever used to play Wii Sports, the pack-in game.

 

"Power" is one thing, ease of development is another. Nintendo has embraced Unity as middleware for 3DS/Wii U, and I imagine this tool-based approach will only get stronger with the Switch's well-understood architecture. They should not be splitting their resources between console and handheld anymore.

 

I'm no longer impressed by raw graphical power, I think we hit a "good enough" milestone several years ago, and Switch appears to be many clicks beyond that point. As Touch Arcade points out, the stuff in the Switch isn't terribly different from existing tech on mobile. What Nintendo brings to the game is ecosystem, brand name, refined/innovative controls, and tons and tons of polish.

 

Like with the N64, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U, that's all there for other developers if they choose to embrace it, rather than just chase numbers and sales. I think there were some very special developers in old Nintendo times like Rare, Factor 5, and to some extent, Midway. I would expect those seats to be filled by developers like Level-5, Square Enix, and maybe some surprises to come.

 

If there's no Call of Duty or Madden on the system, I won't care much at all, and I doubt Nintendo cares much, either.

Developers complained constantly about how they couldn't just take the assets they'd created for the other two systems and reuse them on the Wii (as they did between the PS3 and Xbox 360) - they'd have had to basically recreate entire games and they'd look much worse than on the Wii's competitors.

I think that Switch is weird enough that it demands that you rethink your game for the platform. Easy ports won't work well for the same reasons as Wii or Wii U.

 

Something like Skyrim (a 6 year old game that has already been HD remastered and extensively modded) is going to be like the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 or Batman City Armored Edition: interesting, but not likely to sell enough to justify a repeat performance after system launch. I think that's what you're saying too ... but I guess I just don't care ... so long as they sell enough to stay alive and be different, I don't really want to see boring cross-platform ports on Switch.

[Starscream]

 

If there's no Call of Duty or Madden on the system, I won't care much at all, and I doubt Nintendo cares much, either.

And this is the exact reason why nobody cares to support Nintendo systems. When was the last time anyone invested in an epic game for Nintendo? Epic like say, Destiny, COD, Mass Effect, Uncharted? Who cares enough to make a series like GOW, Halo, LBP for a Nintendo system? I am sure someone will say "but I don't like that style of game" which, isn't the point. The point is, MS and Sony love those games and developers love those games, not for the content, but for the money, a pat on the back for a job well done which in turn, leads to the developers really putting effort into making more and more games to keep people coming back. It builds a great relationship for everyone including the consumer. Meanwhile, Nintendo keeps an abusive type of relationship, and people keep going back for more like a battered wife. One thing Nintendo has proved for a decade and a half is that they don't care if their customers/fans get table scraps and nothing else. Meanwhile, Sony and MS rake in good money but more importantly, expanding user base year over year because they provide an ever growing user experience, not just for games, but entertainment and everone wants in on that action. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both of those companies have proven beyond a doubt, that you can have it all and not leave your customers in a position to be screwed over year after year after year. If the Switch turns it around, I would be shocked. I will say, the milking the cow game is quite appropriate.

[bojay1997]

And this is the exact reason why nobody cares to support Nintendo systems. When was the last time anyone invested in an epic game for Nintendo? Epic like say, Destiny, COD, Mass Effect, Uncharted? Who cares enough to make a series like GOW, Halo, LBP for a Nintendo system? I am sure someone will say "but I don't like that style of game" which, isn't the point. The point is, MS and Sony love those games and developers love those games, not for the content, but for the money, a pat on the back for a job well done which in turn, leads to the developers really putting effort into making more and more games to keep people coming back. It builds a great relationship for everyone including the consumer. Meanwhile, Nintendo keeps an abusive type of relationship, and people keep going back for more like a battered wife. One thing Nintendo has proved for a decade and a half is that they don't care if their customers/fans get table scraps and nothing else. Meanwhile, Sony and MS rake in good money but more importantly, expanding user base year over year because they provide an ever growing user experience, not just for games, but entertainment and everone wants in on that action. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both of those companies have proven beyond a doubt, that you can have it all and not leave your customers in a position to be screwed over year after year after year. If the Switch turns it around, I would be shocked. I will say, the milking the cow game is quite appropriate.

You've raised a very interesting point. I think that people tend to underestimate how much third party software sales both digitally and physically contribute to the bottom lines of Sony, Microsoft and other competitors in the mobile gaming space like Apple. While Nintendo may make some money on hardware sales and great margins on first party software, there just isn't enough first party software in the pipeline to sustain an entire hardware platform long-term. I mean look at the launch lineup, it's basically a very minimally enhanced port of the WiiU version of the new Zelda, what looks like a budget version of Bomberman and a mini-game compilation and then a few hurried ports of older games that are already available on other platforms. MK8 apparently has slightly enhanced visuals but no new tracks and Splatoon 2 is barely a full sequel based on early impressions. That really just leaves the new Mario game which I'm hoping is awesome. Later in the Spring/Summer, there are $40 versions of indie games like Binding of Isaac that are great, but probably don't appeal to the average consumer, especially at distinctively non-indie prices. That's a pretty poor software lineup and even if every Switch owner buys each first party game at launch, it seems like most dedicated gamers couldn't have a Switch as their primary console as there just wouldn't be enough to play and likely not enough profit to sustain Nintendo.

 

I'm hopeful that there are further game announcements at E3 and later in the year, but I get the impression that most of the games previewed in the Direct last week won't make a 2017 launch and could easily be late 2018 or early 2019. As someone who has purchased a Wii and a WiiU at launch, I feel like I've been down this road before and I just don't know if the marketplace will embrace another Nintendo hardware launch with limited prospects for a steady flow of compelling titles in the pipeline.

[Flojomojo]

I'm perfectly fine with buying this for Zelda and whatever Virtual Console offers, then shelving it for a while until something else comes along. It reminds me of Nintendo 64, which launched with Mario 64 and Pilotwings ....then a whole lot of nothing for a long time until the next big thing.

 

Surely I'm not the only person with multiple consoles/devices?

[bojay1997]

I'm perfectly fine with buying this for Zelda and whatever Virtual Console offers, then shelving it for a while until something else comes along. It reminds me of Nintendo 64, which launched with Mario 64 and Pilotwings ....then a whole lot of nothing for a long time until the next big thing.

 

Surely I'm not the only person with multiple consoles/devices?

Sure, I've done the same thing for the last two Nintendo console generations. The problem is that at some point, that becomes a no longer sustainable business model and Nintendo either does what they have just done (i.e. cut the regular console lifecycle short by a few years to release new hardware in hopes of jumpstarting things again) or you end up like Sega and the hardware business goes away completely. I personally think both outcomes are bad for consumers and gamers, so I was hopeful that Nintendo would have made good on some of their earlier hyping of developers attached to the new platform and actually showed some unique games from EA, Bethesda, Activision and others rather than just relying on last-gen ports of stuff everyone already owns.