Orochinagis
Member
Wait so there wont be a new portable console aka NDS on Switch release?
Devil's Advocate: Why should I trust Nintendo Switch to be any different than Wii U?
- Thread starter RedZaraki
- Start date
We have no idea.
Only real positive is there being one software line rather than two. At least you won't have to buy more than one device if you like Nintendo games, and it will absorb 3rd party support from the 3DS and Vita. Wouldn't expect much in the way of "console level" support especially from western devs.
People are speculating that it's replacing both platforms. I don't think that's how it's going to pan out. The Switch is going to have abysmal battery life. Calling it now.
bronk
Banned
You shouldn't the Wii U was the worst console purchase of my life and I'm not gonna make that mistake again.
TheSpoiler
Member
After the Wii U fuckery I'm inclined to wait it out a bit. I will cave if I see Capcom or Sega related shit.
PseudoViper
Member
Because usually after failure companies get it right...
The NS looks like what the Wii U should have been and so far there's a lot of promise. It looks like Nintendo are trying to move in the right direction and gain back their 'mojo'. I am still smitten about the Wii U, but I still love it. It's a brilliant console, with some really awesome games. I, for one, will not be buying the NS day-1 because of the Wii U fiasco, but I do plan to purchase a NS once I see growth; maybe a year or two after release.
The NS looks like what the Wii U should have been and so far there's a lot of promise. It looks like Nintendo are trying to move in the right direction and gain back their 'mojo'. I am still smitten about the Wii U, but I still love it. It's a brilliant console, with some really awesome games. I, for one, will not be buying the NS day-1 because of the Wii U fiasco, but I do plan to purchase a NS once I see growth; maybe a year or two after release.
HawthorneKitty
Sgt. 2nd Class in the Creep Battalion, Waifu Wars
State a number, not "abysmal" or your call means nothing.
Nintendo will take the wait and see approach just like they did with the Gameboy and DS. At first they said that they were separate but once the DS succeeded it completely replaced the GB line.
The same thing will happen with the Switch. The DS line will be their back up plan if the Switch fails.
VectorVictor
Member
Wow...you must be pretty young then. Because I can remember the Sega Master System, TG-16, the Coleco ADAM, and Atari 7200 as being worse purchases than the Wii U ever was.
I'd lump the Sega Saturn in there, but I only purchased after it died off for the 2D fighting games and Sega exclusives...so I can't say I felt burned by that. But I would understand if someone that bought it at full price day one did.
It's not that simple.
Assets on Switch will be HD console level. All those awesome handheld games we got before will take longer to make. Some 3rd parties may think it's too expensive to develop games on the system and stick to making smartphone or 3DS games.
DrROBschiz
Member
I think they can hit 5 hours average based on how other modern tablets are performing
at least 4-6 range considering they are running 720p when undocked and its seems like they are going to have a reasonable sized battery in there
We will have to wait and see how they tackle this issue
Yeah I call bullshit
Most modern game making tools already make assets in HD and then they have to downgrade them for 3DS. Just look at how good some 3DS games scale up in Citra. Clearly the base assets CANT be THAT low quality to look that good when upscaled
Look at how amazing the original Dark Souls looks when you simply UNLOCK the ability to run it at higher resolution
I maintain that many games are already made in higher quality as it is
They can't mess this up, they won't have another console to jump to if it fail, like Wii U -> 3DS.
Well I guess, at worst they'll go full mobile...
That's the point of the Switch existing after all, Nintendo said Japan loves Handheld and in the West it's console, so they merge both and don't have long drought periods like on Wii U.
Well I guess, at worst they'll go full mobile...
That's the point of the Switch existing after all, Nintendo said Japan loves Handheld and in the West it's console, so they merge both and don't have long drought periods like on Wii U.
dead souls
Member
I'm expecting mine to be a Nintendo box with some decent Japanese 3rd party games. I'm definitely not buying one until it's been out for a year or two though.
James Scott
Banned
Is there anything wrong with a game like Zelda being $60?
As long a they're worth the asking price it should be fine.
Allows devs to make bigger games and for consumers it allows bigger games to be made
If we do see a Pokemon stars on it, you bet there won't be any.
WrenchNinja
Member
You shouldn't trust them. Always take a wait and see approach.
.
This. No reason to rush out to get one IMO. I have a Wii U, so I'll play Zelda there, and wait a bit to pick up one for anything that comes out afterwards.
Switch will be the first Nintendo console that I don't pick up Day One ever.
LegendofLex
Member
There are three reasons why I'm more confident in Switch than I was in Wii U:
1) They're unifying their architecture, so no back-and-forth between platforms for various franchises. In the past, that back-and-forth inevitably meant we only get 1-2 true new entries per franchise, per system. Now, they'll theoretically be able to achieve the same pace they were across both platforms on one platform.
2) No back-and-forth between platforms also means the cost of entry to play all Nintendo games is lower. No $300-350 console + $130-200 handheld anymore; just one device, ideally priced at $200-300.
3) They've engineered this thing specifically for long-term support by embracing an architecture that already supports major game middleware and that's being actively developed by their hardware partner. In particular, you can tell they're planning to capitalize on the shift away from traditional TV entertainment toward mobility. They're ahead of a curve in that sense; the question is whether they'll be able to convince their software partners that this future is worth investing in now and on Nintendo hardware.
Bonus reason: Going with a mobile architecture means they get to take advantage of rapid technology improvements and software scalability in future system models. That likely means more frequent model refreshes, which means problems with first-gen devices will be ironed out. This was not a problem they were able or willing to fix with Wii U.
That said, there are three reasons why I'm skeptical of Switch after learning from Wii U:
1) Nintendo hardware doesn't get to justify high costs of entry. So if Switch has a more-than-expected price tag (more than $250), it needs to go majorly above and beyond with software to justify that price tag. Remember that Wii, the only Nintendo system to be sold at $250 and do well, had fuckin' Wii Sports to drive sales. If a Nintendo platform doesn't have something with the selling power of Wii Sports (plus the Wii lineup in aggregate, which did phenomenally well across the board), it doesn't get to succeed at $250. Full stop.
And before you say "but inflation!", Nintendo's typically very deliberate about implementing cost controls for their hardware. 3DS and Wii U were exceptions, where they tried to push pet project ideas using successful brands from the previous gens (brands that really had nothing to do with the pet projects they were shoved into). The cost for processing power is always falling, typically quite rapidly. There's not much need to overshoot a low price point, when it's the software that you really need to worry about selling at a premium.
2) It sounds like Switch is launching with a bunch of Wii U software. Breath of the Wild and Mario will probably be big sellers, but we've already tested the Wii U games' hardware-selling power in the market, and it wasn't that great (relative to past Nintendo systems). Hopefully the total lineup is convincing, but I'm skeptical until I see it.
3) I'm moderately concerned that the experience they're selling (seamless switching between home and on-the-go play) is going to fall short in some way. Bad battery life, noticeable latency when switching, other UX flaws, that sort of thing.
1) They're unifying their architecture, so no back-and-forth between platforms for various franchises. In the past, that back-and-forth inevitably meant we only get 1-2 true new entries per franchise, per system. Now, they'll theoretically be able to achieve the same pace they were across both platforms on one platform.
2) No back-and-forth between platforms also means the cost of entry to play all Nintendo games is lower. No $300-350 console + $130-200 handheld anymore; just one device, ideally priced at $200-300.
3) They've engineered this thing specifically for long-term support by embracing an architecture that already supports major game middleware and that's being actively developed by their hardware partner. In particular, you can tell they're planning to capitalize on the shift away from traditional TV entertainment toward mobility. They're ahead of a curve in that sense; the question is whether they'll be able to convince their software partners that this future is worth investing in now and on Nintendo hardware.
Bonus reason: Going with a mobile architecture means they get to take advantage of rapid technology improvements and software scalability in future system models. That likely means more frequent model refreshes, which means problems with first-gen devices will be ironed out. This was not a problem they were able or willing to fix with Wii U.
That said, there are three reasons why I'm skeptical of Switch after learning from Wii U:
1) Nintendo hardware doesn't get to justify high costs of entry. So if Switch has a more-than-expected price tag (more than $250), it needs to go majorly above and beyond with software to justify that price tag. Remember that Wii, the only Nintendo system to be sold at $250 and do well, had fuckin' Wii Sports to drive sales. If a Nintendo platform doesn't have something with the selling power of Wii Sports (plus the Wii lineup in aggregate, which did phenomenally well across the board), it doesn't get to succeed at $250. Full stop.
And before you say "but inflation!", Nintendo's typically very deliberate about implementing cost controls for their hardware. 3DS and Wii U were exceptions, where they tried to push pet project ideas using successful brands from the previous gens (brands that really had nothing to do with the pet projects they were shoved into). The cost for processing power is always falling, typically quite rapidly. There's not much need to overshoot a low price point, when it's the software that you really need to worry about selling at a premium.
2) It sounds like Switch is launching with a bunch of Wii U software. Breath of the Wild and Mario will probably be big sellers, but we've already tested the Wii U games' hardware-selling power in the market, and it wasn't that great (relative to past Nintendo systems). Hopefully the total lineup is convincing, but I'm skeptical until I see it.
3) I'm moderately concerned that the experience they're selling (seamless switching between home and on-the-go play) is going to fall short in some way. Bad battery life, noticeable latency when switching, other UX flaws, that sort of thing.
James Scott
Banned
Why would there be? They're also bringing Pokémon to it which would indicate that it's the new handheld. What else can they do anyways?
dragonyeuw
Member
Great post.
Haven't read the other answers in this thread, but mine is: you can't, and it almost certainly won't. The Wii U got a good number of third party ports early in its life (two CODs, one FIFA, two Ass Creeds, Rayman) until they sold abysmally and all support withered and died, justifiably. Nintendo aren't going to start doing the things they need to do to build a serious audience for third party games on their console by using those games as part of their console's marketing (even though being able to play a full FIFA/COD etc on the go would likely be a big selling point for many floating customers) or even diversifying their own lineup, so the situation will almost certainly be the same or worse. It's always been about how highly you value Nintendo games, which it will be again.
DrROBschiz
Member
You sum it up quite nicely here!
YuriLowell
Member
Nintendo already combined the console and handheld dev divisions.
This thing is replacing both consoles.
This thing is replacing both consoles.
DrROBschiz
Member
I would argue that the current architecture choice makes it cheap and easy to move scalable mutliplats to the system
Cheap and Easy is what you want in todays ecosystem. One Click porting to all platforms? Couldnt do that with WiiU
Its pretty commonplace in todays market with everyone using similar chipsets, engines and tools
Alot of 3ds titles already have really good assets, much better than the shit screens can output. Rendering at a higher resolution, adding more shaders and effects and such would be pretty easy.
Donniewahlberg
Banned
If the OP doesn't look at the Wii U's output from Nintendo first party and the sparse third party offerings, and the 3ds with its first party and pretty amazing third party support and have it appeal to him, he absolutely should not trust in the switch and should wait.
For me, I love my 3ds, I love the stuff ninty put out and the stuff third parties like level 5, square Enix and atlus put on it. That's enough for me honestly to buy a followup device. With a higher first party output because of the Wii U resources being folded in, I literally know I will enjoy the device. I really enjoyed my Wii U as a compliment to my 3ds though and played almost everything by gamepad so the switch really is a perfect device for me. Even if it pans out solely as a successor to the Wii U I would be happy to buy a followup device to the Wii U, I love mine.
But definitely, do not buy the thing if you don't think they've done a good job with previous consoles and anticipate the same again. Wait and see. There's no law against buying it a month after launch, six months, 2 years and so on.
For me, I love my 3ds, I love the stuff ninty put out and the stuff third parties like level 5, square Enix and atlus put on it. That's enough for me honestly to buy a followup device. With a higher first party output because of the Wii U resources being folded in, I literally know I will enjoy the device. I really enjoyed my Wii U as a compliment to my 3ds though and played almost everything by gamepad so the switch really is a perfect device for me. Even if it pans out solely as a successor to the Wii U I would be happy to buy a followup device to the Wii U, I love mine.
But definitely, do not buy the thing if you don't think they've done a good job with previous consoles and anticipate the same again. Wait and see. There's no law against buying it a month after launch, six months, 2 years and so on.
The only negative thing we heard so far is that porting is too easy lol.
At the same timeline developers already laughed about Wii U and returned dev kits.
Nintendo developed for 3DS and WiiU, while getting used to HD development.
Now its just Switch. And they are used to HD development.
Its entirely different.(
At the same timeline developers already laughed about Wii U and returned dev kits.
Nintendo developed for 3DS and WiiU, while getting used to HD development.
Now its just Switch. And they are used to HD development.
Its entirely different.(
This fascinates me.By enrolling in the Rocket Surgery Institute of course....
Did you make this thing just to reply to that guy,
Or did you use that phrase so that you will be prompted to post this here?!
Or am I missing something here?
Petrae
Member
Trust Nintendo? Nope. Between the 3DS launch disaster at $250 and the spectacular failure of the WiiU, I have very little faith in a Nintendo product-- at launch, anyway.
Nintendo has to win me back, and that's going to take time. Questions need answering. Will third-party support last longer than a year? Will Nintendo manage to land more sports games other than FIFA and NBA 2K (which are my least favorite annual games)? Will there be another game drought, leaving the Switch to collect dust? Will the price point hold up, or will it collapse within a year?
I have no plans to buy a Switch at all, because I'm not convinced that Nintendo really knows what it's doing. Perhaps, 12-18 months after launch, Nintendo can change my mind... I doubt it, but there's always a chance.
Nintendo has to win me back, and that's going to take time. Questions need answering. Will third-party support last longer than a year? Will Nintendo manage to land more sports games other than FIFA and NBA 2K (which are my least favorite annual games)? Will there be another game drought, leaving the Switch to collect dust? Will the price point hold up, or will it collapse within a year?
I have no plans to buy a Switch at all, because I'm not convinced that Nintendo really knows what it's doing. Perhaps, 12-18 months after launch, Nintendo can change my mind... I doubt it, but there's always a chance.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
The time between U and Switch is longer than Xbox > 360.
Sometime you need to cut your losses for progress.
Sometime you need to cut your losses for progress.
Joeshabadoo
Member
lol okay
yea apart from the merged software output and the modern components ditching antiquated AMD and IBM stuff it just isnt trying to aggressively push a constant two screen experience that few people really wanted (and very few games genuinely took advantage of)
good thing you're on a platform built for discussion and have plenty to add to it
JB2448
Member
See if there are enough games that interest you to buy the console during the January 12th presentation.
If there are, buy it.
If there aren't, hold off until there are.
It's an inanimate object made by a massive company that doesn't know you as a person exists, just like all of the others.
It isn't a matter of trust. It's a matter of personal satisfaction yielded from what it offers. The same goes for any video game console.
If there are, buy it.
If there aren't, hold off until there are.
It's an inanimate object made by a massive company that doesn't know you as a person exists, just like all of the others.
It isn't a matter of trust. It's a matter of personal satisfaction yielded from what it offers. The same goes for any video game console.
Based on the scenario OP proposes, no chance in hell.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
They say a lot of things at different times and places, like that GBA and DS are different pillars. Why does a disparity imply either of two states is the "default"?
As one of those guys who prefers Nintendo machines due to the first party, I disagree. They put the Wii Remote to the side, gave us another dual analog controller extremely similar to their competitors', and got a bunch of X360 ports. That was their move back to the center, they just didn't do it well enough for it to be worth what they'd lost.Remeard said:
Pretty much. "Hey, try our new system! It doesn't play the same games, but has 70% of the power at 70% of the cost. And folds. You in?"Vital Tundra said:
Doesn't mean Switch can't get those games too, just like PS4 still gets the games from developers who don't want to push beyond PS3 or even Vita.KAL2006 said:
you shouldn't, at all. When Wii U came out for a fraction of a moment in some ways it was the most powerful console. It certainly had more RAM than 360 or PS3.
When the Switch comes out it'll be an ancient relic of a happily forgotten past (anyone remember PS Vita? Didn't think so).
When the Switch comes out it'll be an ancient relic of a happily forgotten past (anyone remember PS Vita? Didn't think so).
You have no clue about plattforms, don't you?
Jaded Alyx
Member
Why are some people so convinced it will be 'another Wii U' and not 'another 3DS' situation?
Leafhopper
Banned
You really shouldn't. This site is too swayed by marketing. I say just wait. After the Wii and WiiU I came to the conclusion most of my gameplaying over the years has primarily been third party games on consoles. So that's why I am a little eh on this.
This is a portable console, not a handheld imo.
2 different things.
This is a portable console, not a handheld imo.
2 different things.
The Cartographer
Member
Then buy it in 5 years, problem solved.
ViolentP
Member
Switch seems more like a portable console than it does a dockable handheld. That's my guess at least.
Actually I'm an expert. you?
AfterTheFall
Member
Well it's certainly going to have more first party games than the Wii U as it is both a handheld (replacing Nintendo 3DS) and home console (replacing Wii U) so first party output should hopefully be grand. Third party is another matter entirely...
I'm rather 100 percent sure that Alyx is referring to games support.
Lol, nice reference.
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
Think of it as the successor to the DS and the Wii. Instead of having to buy two platforms you just buy a Switch and you get all the games that would have otherwise been split between both of them. That in itself is a huge selling point.
I like to think of it more of a handheld so therefore the next in line after the likes of the Gameboy and DS. It just so happens that it can be docked to your TV and act like a traditional console such as the N64, Gamecube, Wii.
3rd party games would be fantastic but if I get the same amount of games that the Wii/DS got then I'll be over the moon.
I like to think of it more of a handheld so therefore the next in line after the likes of the Gameboy and DS. It just so happens that it can be docked to your TV and act like a traditional console such as the N64, Gamecube, Wii.
3rd party games would be fantastic but if I get the same amount of games that the Wii/DS got then I'll be over the moon.