Support NeoGAF

[Waji]

Is it a generation ahead of Vita in specs? Yes. Then the specs are good enough. It really is that simple. It's a handheld. Set your expectations accordingly.

This.
People think going biggest + third party is the only solution, but that's clearly not one for Nintendo. I'm sure it wouldn't work well, especially in the middle of the PS4/X1 life, with pro/scorpio.

A strong hybrid that can play recent games well is a far better idea in my opinion.
It's actually the only system that gives me hype since a long while.

 

[BY2K]

I'm getting flashbacks of that Wii U video with all the devs talking about how awesome it is and then cut to years later where half those devs haven't done shit for the system.

 

[LordKano]

Nintendo has good momentum?

Of course. Pokémon GO was an insanely huge success, it helped Pokémon Sun/Moon to achieve its highest numbers since a decade. Then they had the Switch reveal trailer, which was unanimously well seen. Then the NES Mini launched, a success that brought in first place the Nintendo nostalgia. And finally, Super Mario Run launched, breaking records and bringing premium experience to mobile.

Right now they have a great momentum that could help a lot the Switch, especially if the January 13th event is a success.

FFXV, KH2.8, KH3, FF7R. FF DIssidia looks pretty intense as well

KH2.8 is a PS3 game. FF Dissidia doesn't even have a console version yet.
Besides Final Fantasy, there's no "high-end" japanese games.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

This initial console version is not small enough to be as ubiquitously portable as a handheld. You'll need a backpack or messenger bag to carry this system around.

 

[Mick Swagger]

With these specs why is it not a handheld? It's rumored to have a 5-8 hour battery life, cost $250 or less, and be above Wii U in power... That sounds like a phenomenal handheld!

I agree, but we're not the creators. Nintendo is.

Nintendo has consistently stated a clear message. It's a home console first. It's a hybrid console. Don't think of it as a handheld.

Now I do agree this is pretty much PR speak for the West but as a publicly traded company, they do not want us to think of the Switch as a handheld console. So if that's the message they wish to portray, that's the criteria they're going to be judged on / compared to by the masses / media.

 

[Phife Dawg]

This initial console version is not small enough to be as ubiquitously portable as a handheld. You'll need a backpack or messenger bag to carry this system around.

Just like any tablet though and people don't have problems carrying those around (or even take pictures with them, lol). Your personal preference may vary ofc.

 

[Bring back the classics]

It's going to be cheap. Plus my nintendo support! Plus no software droughts! Plus AAA ninty games.

 

[Metal B]

Nintendo has consistently stated a clear message. It's a home console first. It's a hybrid console. Don't think of it as a handheld.

There main marketing campaign will start in January, they have enough time to change a few words. Let's hope, they took the outcomr of the first trailer and this reaction in how to sell there device.

 

[Cuningas de Häme]

Keep the spec talk out of here, PLEASE! Only decent thread about Switch left and now you are determined to ruin it too.

You have multiple topics to vomit your hatred, please leave this one for sane discussion. It would be SO nice to have a place to discuss the Switch without the million posts of Nintendoomed.

EDIT. These Nintendo critics sound an awfully lot like the "immigration critics" here in Finland...

 

[oti]

I agree, but we're not the creators. Nintendo is.

Nintendo has consistently stated a clear message. It's a home console first. It's a hybrid console. Don't think of it as a handheld.

Now I do agree this is pretty much PR speak for the West but as a publicly traded company, they do not want us to think of the Switch as a handheld console. So if that's the message they wish to portray, that's the criteria they're going to be judged on / compared to by the masses / media.

I don't think it's as complicated as we make it out to be.
Let's play Head of Marketing. Which story would you choose for Switch?

A: It's a console that you can take on the go!
B: It's a handheld with HDMI output!



Yeah.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I agree, but we're not the creators. Nintendo is.

Nintendo has consistently stated a clear message. It's a home console first. It's a hybrid console. Don't think of it as a handheld.

Now I do agree this is pretty much PR speak for the West but as a publicly traded company, they do not want us to think of the Switch as a handheld console. So if that's the message they wish to portray, that's the criteria they're going to be judged on / compared to by the masses / media.

Nintendo of America has been calling it a home console you can take on the go, which is what it is. That's their marketing message to the west, as you said. That doesn't actually define what it physically is.

And anyway as long as ports are much easier than for the Wii U as most people are saying, I'll be very happy with it as a home console. If it takes off early due to Nintendo software it'll see much improved third party support.

 

[oti]

To me after the hardware revelation it has beome pretty clear what Nintendo's goals are.

Don't think of the Switch as another PS4. That's physically impossible but also not the plan. Go ahead and play your epic Mass Effect Andromeda in 4K on your PS4. That's fine. But why not get this Nintendo machine for (fairly) cheap as well? It has got a ton of great exclusives, some weird/interestring 3rd party games and maybe even that mobile port of Dark Souls you always dreamed of. It doesn't look like a Fisher Price toy and it will have enough games to make it worth it for pretty much everyone.

That makes way more sense than trying to directly compete with PS4. It's supposed to be your second console & your only handheld.

 

[BGBW]

The funny thing is, the majority of the Switch reveal was showing it being played out of the house.

 

[Taker666]

Because this is not what Nintendo is marketing it as. What you choose to perceive it as is not what they have consistently and clearly stated / marketed it as.

It's not a handheld, it's a hybrid console. It'll be the jack of all trades and master of absolutely none.

I think that'll come down to pricing. My main fear was that it would be too underpowered and overpriced for a console and too expensive for a handheld.


The issue comes if they sell it above the $200 mark...as then you're venturing into the overpriced for a handheld market and underpowered for home console market territory.

If they can knock it out at a handheld price ($199 in an ideal world) then it's a powerful and well priced handheld..as well as a fairly priced home console. At that price it will appeal to both markets as opposed to alienating both.

 

[LordKano]

Concerning the price, I expect that by Black Friday 2017 we'll see 200$ Switch. PS4 and One will likely be at that price too, so there shouldn't be too much problem. Under 200$ the price competition don't really matter.

For my part, I'm planning to pick a Switch at launch, and likely a PS4 early 2018, at 200€ (or even maybe 150 !).

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I think that'll come down to pricing. My main fear was that it would be too underpowered and overpriced for a console and too expensive for a handheld.


The issue comes if they sell it above the $200 mark...as then you're venturing into the overpriced for a handheld market and underpowered for home console market territory.

If they can knock it out at a handheld price ($199 in an ideal world) then it's a powerful and well priced handheld..as well as a fairly priced home console. At that price it will appeal to both markets as opposed to alienating both.

100% this. They can fuck off if this is more than $200. Even then I'd probably wait for a bundle or retailer sale as $200 is pushing it for an underpowered console since I'd rarely ever use the portable function. Add in my waning interest in many Nintendo franchises and this needs to be cheap and show more diverse software for my tastes than what I got in Wii U and 3DS to get me to bite.

 

[Voke]

Give me a good price, ideally $250 max. And give me great Nintendo games. I don't really care I'm about the third-party games, unless it's exclusive. I'm really happy that it's a hybrid, since I'm only a console gamer I finally get to have the full Nintendo experience all in one console. Let's hope they impress us at the event!

 

[AtomicShroom]

Because this is not what Nintendo is marketing it as. What you choose to perceive it as is not what they have consistently and clearly stated / marketed it as.

It's not a handheld, it's a hybrid console. It'll be the jack of all trades and master of absolutely none.

Actually at the time of its release, it's going to be the most powerful portable console on the market. So there's at least that.

 

[KingSnake]

Switch has to be cheap. With the rumoured specs $250 for the base model is really the max cap for Switch. It's a cool looking device, it has cool features and it just needs a price that will push the instant buy limit. A price that will question the value provided for money could hurt it.

 

[Father_Brain]

This thread is a bit sad now, honestly. Specs matter for a lot of things even if you don't care about the numbers. But the revolt against specs is admirable.

The people most upset about the Eurogamer report seem to be the people who convinced themselves that a Nintendo platform getting most/all third-party AAA support was a realistic possibility, which it never was regardless of the specs.

I never expected Switch to replace PC as my primary gaming platform, or to buy any multiplatform games for it, so... *shrug*

 

[FloweryMarston]

Man I can't wait to see the new mario and more zelda. Just hoped that more rumours about these would come out.

 

[Galang]

I'm glad the real specs leaked this early.. Imagine the negative shit storm had the specs been revealed a day before the conference. At least some of the doom and gloom will fizzle out by January and most of the discussion will focus on the games. Hopefully..

 

[MoonFrog]

This thread is a bit sad now, honestly. Specs matter for a lot of things even if you don't care about the numbers. But the revolt against specs is admirable.

A hero will appear! A hero will appear!

...

But seriously I was saying early on with Switch, or rather NX, that I don't, in the first instance, give a rat's ass if the thing ends up being a Wii U graphics-wise or slightly better. I meant it. We're getting more than that in a portable console, no less.

Now, in the second instance I do care, because I have a Switch dream--a dream of a console that plays Nintendo games, 3DS successor games, and medium-ambition PS ecosystem Japanese games; a dream of a console that bridges the gap that has developed between PS and the Japanese core gaming audience and that proves there is yet room for a console in Japan; a dream that this fosters a new healthy audience for Japanese games and that I reap the benefits as I did on SNES and PSX--and power is somewhat important for this dream. Power and timing and marketing and third party relations and...

The thing is, a) I don't see too much cause to doubt that Switch could still be this device and b) I'll be there even if it fails to be. It always would to some extent, hopefully a small extent, but I'll be there in the worst case scenario, where 3DS support largely goes mobile and other Japanese support keeps riding PS off into the sunset, and/or where Switch fails to sell, and/or where Nintendo shrinks its vision and ambition even more than on Wii U. I'll be different shades of bitter in any of these eventualities, but...

Even still there will be the next generation of Nintendo games and even in the case Nintendo themselves isn't where I'd like them to be, there'd still be diamonds in the rough. Of that I am sure, and I need Switch for that, even in the worst case.

 

[Vic]

I'm glad the real specs leaked this early.. Imagine the negative shit storm had the specs been revealed a day before the conference. At least some of the doom and gloom will fizzle out by January and most of the discussion will focus on the games. Hopefully..

Indeed.

 

[KingSnake]

The people most upset about the Eurogamer report seem to be the people who convinced themselves that a Nintendo platform getting most/all third-party AAA support was a realistic possibility, which it never was regardless of the specs.

I never expected Switch to replace PC as my primary gaming platform, or to buy any multiplatform games for it, so... *shrug*

I mean sure, if you don't care how successful Switch is, fair point.

Having a Wii U since launch and seeing its support dropped practically after less than 3 years make me want not to repeat this experience again and makes me want Switch to be as successful as it can be.

And I'm so fed up with absolutist statements. Who said anything about replacing the PC with Switch?

 

[Skittzo0413]

The people most upset about the Eurogamer report seem to be the people who convinced themselves that a Nintendo platform getting most/all third-party AAA support was a realistic possibility, which it never was regardless of the specs.

I never expected Switch to replace PC as my primary gaming platform, or to buy any multiplatform games for it, so... *shrug*

You keep saying this but none of us really know what goes on behind the scenes at Nintendo. The only way for them to actually get multiplat parity is to actually start trying- trying to cultivate the correct audience by releasing games in the same genre, trying to entice third parties with new concepts (portability), trying to promote those third party games (Skyrim)...

I'm remaining hopeful that this gets far better support than the Wii U because I truly want to have all the multiplats I'm interested in on this device, specifically because of the form factor. It's a pain in the ass to set up for a gaming session on the TV sometimes, and it's a pain in the ass to play on PC sometimes when I'd rather be lying down in bed.

The portability the Switch offers is a huge deal to me when it comes to multiplats, and while I'm not expecting multiplat parity overnight (or anytime soon really) I'm very hopeful that there will be gains made in that area. Because honestly the only way to rebuild those relationships is to do it one step at a time.

 

[Joelstinton14]

I'm glad the real specs leaked this early.. Imagine the negative shit storm had the specs been revealed a day before the conference. At least some of the doom and gloom will fizzle out by January and most of the discussion will focus on the games. Hopefully..

For sure. Hopefully.

This part was always going to be the difficult part of the systems reveal. It's now over and done with.

Anything below PS4 level and it people would jump into have their fun. It just goes to show you how little people know what they talk about if they seriously considered that this was a possible outcome of the portable side of the machine. We known for a month now that the dock would have no extra processing power and it would probably run the switch unlocked.

And here we are. Roll on January.

 

[Father_Brain]

I mean sure, if you don't care how successful Switch is, fair point.

I honestly don't, as long as it gets a few years of great first-party support.

But if Nintendo needs AAA support to be successful, they were already doomed, unless they've made some massive investment in exclusive software/content aimed at the Sony/MS demographic and have just done an amazingly good job of keeping that secret over the past few years.

Look, I totally get why people want Mario and Zelda and Mass Effect and CoD all on one platform, just for the price/convenience factor. I just sincerely don't understand why people who've followed Nintendo for the past decade and a half would think that's a realistic outcome.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Not quoting a particular person because this sort of thing has been said by many. I think it's kind of a silly way to look at things. There's never a master, everything is a matter of compromise. PS4 Pro is the most advanced dedicated home console right now, but it's still not the master of stationary gaming machines. Versus a high end gaming PC it suffers because it has to allow for compatibility with the original model and coming in at a reasonable price. A 3DS is the portable standard right now, but it's also true it's nowhere near as portable as Game Boy Micro. Small phones and giant tablets have their purposes, but 7" tablets being a master of neither category doesn't mean they have no reason to exist.

Look, I totally get why people want Mario and Zelda and Mass Effect and CoD all on one platform, just for the price/convenience factor. I just sincerely don't understand why people who've followed Nintendo for the past decade and a half would think that's a realistic outcome.

Wii U had all of that, it just sucked at it.

 

[Father_Brain]

Wii U had all of that, it just sucked at it.

I don't literally just mean ME and CoD; I'm just using those two as shorthand for AAA release parity, which Wii U fell far short of even in its first year.

In any case, the target demographic for those franchises simply wasn't there on Wii U, and unless the January showing is drastically different from what I currently expect (i.e. multiple exclusive games announced aimed squarely at Western males aged ~17-35), I see no reason to think it'll be there on Switch, either.

 

[LordKano]

I mean sure, if you don't care how successful Switch is, fair point.

Having a Wii U since launch and seeing its support dropped practically after less than 3 years make me want not to repeat this experience again and makes me want Switch to be as successful as it can be.

And I'm so fed up with absolutist statements. Who said anything about replacing the PC with Switch?

Thankfully, the fate of a Nintendo console is not solely based on its western third-party library. History proved that enough times.

 

[KingSnake]

Thankfully, the fate of a Nintendo console is not solely based on its western third-party library. History proved that enough times.

Consoles? If you ignore the recent history, maybe. Even PS4 is basing most of its sales on multiplats not on 1st parties.

Handhelds? Yes, the question being only how sustainable.

Even so, I don't get this mentality "Nintendo doesn't need new customers everything is just fine". But whatever.

 

[LordKano]

Consoles? If you ignore the recent history, maybe. Even PS4 is basing most of its sales on multiplats not on 1st parties.

Handhelds? Yes, the question being only how sustainable.

Even so, I don't get this mentality "Nintendo doesn't need new customers everything is just fine". But whatever.

I said "Nintendo console", I was referring to the Wii, specifically.

I'm not saying that Nintendo doesn't need new customers, at all. They absolutely need new customers. But they won't attract them with western third-parties. That wouldn't work in any scenario.

They will (or at least they will try) to attract them with constant flow of first-party releases and partnerships with western studios on cross-games with their IPs. Also, synergy between mobile and smartphone, and stuff like that.

 

[EDarkness]

I said "Nintendo console", I was referring to the Wii, specifically.

I'm not saying that Nintendo doesn't need new customers, at all. They absolutely need new customers. But they won't attract them with western third-parties. That wouldn't work in any scenario.

They will (or at least they will try) to attract them with constant flow of first-party releases and partnerships with western studios on cross-games with their IPs. Also, synergy between mobile and smartphone, and stuff like that.

I honestly think 3rd Parties matter, too. What games get announced and the potential. See, the thing is, players don't want to be left out. Xbox gamers really don't have to wonder whether or not they're going to get the next new multiplatform games (for the most part). Playstation owners don't either. So they're "future proofed", so to speak. Even the Wii always had this air of "will they or won't they" announce a Wii version of a new game being announced. This was especially true for the Wii U. That kind of negativity really drags a system down and this was the case for the Wii in it's later years and the Wii U throughout it's whole life. If players KNOW they're going to get the latest multiplatform game, then that helps to drive confidence in that purchase.

Basically, NS owners don't want to have to worry about whether or not the next Red Dead is coming to their system.

 

[Father_Brain]

I'm not saying that Nintendo doesn't need new customers, at all. They absolutely need new customers. But they won't attract them with western third-parties. That wouldn't work in any scenario.

Really, what's the logic here? That there's some vast, untapped audience of core gamers who prioritize AAA third-party games but don't already own a platform that can play them? Or that there's a vast, untapped audience of core gamers who *do* own one or more of those platforms, but will nonetheless buy Switch to play portable versions of games they don't actually need new hardware to play?

Basically, NS owners don't want to have to worry about whether or not the next Red Dead is coming to their system.

How big do you think the Venn diagram overlap is between "people who see RDR2 as a major selling point" and "people who don't already own PS4 or XB1?"

 

[LordKano]

I honestly think 3rd Parties matter, too. What games get announced and the potential. See, the thing is, players don't want to be left out. Xbox gamers really don't have to wonder whether or not they're going to get the next new multiplatform games (for the most part). Playstation owners don't either. So they're "future proofed", so to speak. Even the Wii always had this air of "will they or won't they" announce a Wii version of a new game being announced. This was especially true for the Wii U. That kind of negativity really drags a system down and this was the case for the Wii in it's later years and the Wii U throughout it's whole life. If players KNOW they're going to get the latest multiplatform game, then that helps to drive confidence in that purchase.

Basically, NS owners don't want to have to worry about whether or not the next Red Dead is coming to their system.

The thing is, few people will own a Switch as their only console. I think Nintendo has come to that realization. It will be a secondary console to most people (well, except to the people who accepts to play only with Nintendo games) and their job is to make in an unavoidable console with its library.

I don't expect zero third party though. As I said, if it takes of well in Japan (and that's not an easy task), all the japanese third-parties will jump on it, as they have no other choices. For Western games, that will be a case-by-case situation, and heavily depending on the sales.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

The people most upset about the Eurogamer report seem to be the people who convinced themselves that a Nintendo platform getting most/all third-party AAA support was a realistic possibility, which it never was regardless of the specs.

I never expected Switch to replace PC as my primary gaming platform, or to buy any multiplatform games for it, so... *shrug*

Father Brain speaks the truth. Anyone expecting Nintendo to get all/most AAA third party support is crAAAzy. If you want those so much, buy another system: PS4/XBO/PC.

 

[EDarkness]

Really, what's the logic here? That there's some vast, untapped audience of core gamers who prioritize AAA third-party games but don't already own a platform that can play them? Or that there's a vast, untapped audience of core gamers who *do* own one or more of those platforms, but will nonetheless buy Switch to play portable versions of games they don't actually need new hardware to play?



How big do you think the Venn diagram overlap is between "people who see RDR2 as a major selling point" and "people who don't already own PS4 or XB1?"

It doesn't really matter. It's all about perception. You think those images of the Wii U looking out the window people kept posting in announcement threads didn't mean anything? Try reading through Miiverse where players were asking for those new games like Dark Souls on the Wii U. There are tons of gamers out there who want different things, but that narrative where their system isn't going to get those games (for whatever reasons) is a drag. Sure, a lot of them could pick up the game on another system, but that doesn't mean they don't want the game on their "system of choice".

If none of this mattered, then we wouldn't be talking about it and it wouldn't be such a hot topic after all of these years. It's almost always about whether or not Nintendo's system will get 3rd party games. This is an important thing to many people and they want the option to get those games on the system.

*EDIT* I remember EA not jumping on the Dreamcast and them basically saying the system would fail without their support. This ended up being true...and ended up being true for the Wii U as well. I don't think it was ONLY about them, but a lot of people thought that was a lot of crap back then....

Father Brain speaks the truth. Anyone expecting Nintendo to get all/most AAA third party support is crAAAzy. If you want those so much, buy another system: PS4/XBO/PC.

If that's the case, then the system is doomed. It'll be a haven for Nintendo only games and I don't think that's enough to get anywhere in this market. We all should want all the systems to get third party games. Players can then choose to play them on whatever system they want, for whatever reason they want.

 

[GAMETA]

My expectations are LOW. I hope they deliver better.

 

[Okami Haundo]

Really, what's the logic here? That there's some vast, untapped audience of core gamers who prioritize AAA third-party games but don't already own a platform that can play them? Or that there's a vast, untapped audience of core gamers who *do* own one or more of those platforms, but will nonetheless buy Switch to play portable versions of games they don't actually need new hardware to play?



How big do you think the Venn diagram overlap is between "people who see RDR2 as a major selling point" and "people who don't already own PS4 or XB1?"

This guy/gal gets it! I really don't understand why some people think that third-party parity = sales. It's nice to have those titles to fill out a library, but having them doesn't mean that people will flock to your system. Sony is thriving off of third-party support right now because they have the marketing partnerships to make it look like PS4 is the only place to play these titles.

Only one console can pretend like it's the "definitive place" to play a third party game. Unless Nintendo wants to spend millions on major marketing partnerships, third party games would just be a buffer for them between 1st and 2nd party titles. The Switch will not live or die based on being able to play RDR2, it just needs good software and a solid message to consumers.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

It doesn't really matter. It's all about perception. You think those images of the Wii U looking out the window people kept posting in announcement threads didn't mean anything? Try reading through Miiverse where players were asking for those new games like Dark Souls on the Wii U. There are tons of gamers out there who want different things, but that narrative where their system isn't going to get those games (for whatever reasons) is a drag. Sure, a lot of them could pick up the game on another system, but that doesn't mean they don't want the game on their "system of choice".

If none of this mattered, then we wouldn't be talking about it and it wouldn't be such a hot topic after all of these years. It's almost always about whether or not Nintendo's system will get 3rd party games. This is an important thing to many people and they want the option to get those games on the system.

*EDIT* I remember EA not jumping on the Dreamcast and them basically saying the system would fail without their support. This ended up being true...and ended up being true for the Wii U as well. I don't think it was ONLY about them, but a lot of people thought that was a lot of crap back then....



If that's the case, then the system is doomed. It'll be a haven for Nintendo only games and I don't think that's enough to get anywhere in this market. We all should want all the systems to get third party games. Players can then choose to play them on whatever system they want, for whatever reason they want.

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

 

[EDarkness]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

No one knows this, though. If all versions were equal, would people on a Nintendo platform buy the game? I think they would. But that would also mean it would have to be on par with the others at least in features and support. I'm not saying it has to be the number one selling version, but it should get enough sales to make the investment worth it. The fact that From is even exploring this now is a good thing. I really hate the idea that owners of Nintendo systems don't buy 3rd party games. If that was the case then Capcom would have never sold over a million copies of Resident Evil 4 on the Wii.

 

[Seik]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

Personally I'd buy it, just having Dark Souls on a cartridge on the go makes me all giddy.

 

[Skittzo0413]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

There's no possible way to know this because it's never been done. I would actually argue that your Dark Souls example is one of the few third party franchises which align quite well with Nintendo's audience.

But I do get your overall point. The idea is though, stuff like improved architecture and APIs like Vulkan will hopefully help reduce the "I" portion of the RoI.

 

[BY2K]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

I have all Dark Souls games on PC and I would gladly double dip on Switch to have them on the go.

Especially if they all come in the same package.

 

[psaman17]

100% this. They can fuck off if this is more than $200. Even then I'd probably wait for a bundle or retailer sale as $200 is pushing it for an underpowered console since I'd rarely ever use the portable function. Add in my waning interest in many Nintendo franchises and this needs to be cheap and show more diverse software for my tastes than what I got in Wii U and 3DS to get me to bite.

Are we really expecting this to sell at $200 when the freaking 3ds xl is at $199. Are we being realistic?

 

[Pancakes R Us]

No one knows this, though. If all versions were equal, would people on a Nintendo platform buy the game? I think they would. But that would also mean it would have to be on par with the others at least in features and support. I'm not saying it has to be the number one selling version, but it should get enough sales to make the investment worth it. The fact that From is even exploring this now is a good thing. I really hate the idea that owners of Nintendo systems don't buy 3rd party games. If that was the case then Capcom would have never sold over a million copies of Resident Evil 4 on the Wii.

I don't buy anecdotal evidence like RE4 Wii. It was a $30 budget port of one of the biggest games of last gen (franchise/hype/review) on one of the fastest selling platforms ever. Nintendo has cultivated an audience - through their own releases, console features, online infrastructure etc. that isn't conducive to stuff like CoD, FIFA, Witcher etc. Yes, there is a small number of core fans that wants everything on a Nintendo platform, but that's exactly it - they're tiny in number. Even if the games had feature parity, I don't think they'd do anywhere near as well as the other systems. Software feature parity isn't the same as online infrastructure parity. They'll be lacking in some way or other. Even if everything was on par, it just doesn't make financial sense because of the audience. Sorry, but it just doesn't. These devs would be better off making a game that might appeal to the Nintendo crowd. It'd be money better spent.

 

[Milly Osworth]

Depression has set in this previously happy thread eh?

 

[LordKano]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

Dark Souls might not be the best exemple. I can see it doing decent numbers, as it's quite popular and its philosophy doesn't clash with Nintendo.

 

[oti]

The people that would buy stuff like Dark Souls on a Nintendo platform is a tiny number - not worth it for devs. If I was a developer of this type of game, I'd prioritise other platforms where I'd be likely to get a decent ROI.

You picked the worst example for your point. Go back and read the thread about the Dark Souls Switch Trilogy rumours.