This is exactly why people buy the multi-platforms on the PS4. Nintendo need better online infrastructure. I think if Nintendo stepped up their game on this, more people would choose Nintendo as their multi-platform game console of choice.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Nintendo Switch Console Thread
- Thread starter gkarris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll say it as many times as I have to for it to sink in, sir. Read the text I've bolded. You're using appealing to the Nintendo fanbase as a justification for why the port is a good idea and will sell. If the goal of Nintendo is just to appeal to its present base, then they might just as well save the time and go the way of SEGA. They have to grow the base and they can't do it with a handful of ports that have been round for years and clearly don't have the draw to move hardware, which is the point, from a business perspective, of software. As for the idea that XCX has name recognition, I mean that in the sense of having a brand equity, of possessing a value proposition, not that prospective customers know what it is, and the brand doesn't have that. Look at XC for the 3DS; it was new 3DS exclusive, one of around ten such titles. Despite that, it has a laughable 8% attachment rate, despite being a handful of titles to justify the purchase of such hardware. You seem to be a fan of the franchise, and I sympathise, but it's not a system seller. It just isn't.
In one of your recent posts, you mentioned a roughly 4.3Ah battery; this is right in the middle of the scuttlebutt I'd been hearing: 4 - 4.5Ah, which is materially smaller than even an iPad mini (no suprise, given what the standard unit cost of this will be). If that is eventually confirmed, and I have little reason to believe that it will not, you'll be looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3.5 - 4.5 hrs of mixed use, and around 3hrs for heavy gaming, which is where I've been operating when speaking in regards to the device.
Does iPad being good battery life whilst gaming? Eh, apples and oranges, given how varied the type of games played is on the platform. Part of the draw that all of the supporters of the Switch have been trumpeting is that this is a device that will provide the true triple-A experience not granted by existing mobile devices. If that's true, then the overhead for that, given the probable price, is decreased operation time in portable mode. That's physics.
Pokemon is an RPG insofar as it involves turn-based combat and progression of party members, i.e. the Pokemon themselves. However, Pokemon decidedly lacks the 'in-depth' modifier that you previously used when arguing for the genres viability on a mobile platform. In-depth, by definition, requires immersion, which is very difficult if not impossible to accomplish on a small screen, and time investment for concerted exploration, talking to NPCs, levelling, and consuming plot via in-game cutscenes. While there is an audience for that amongst mobile gamers, and a vocal one, the numbers aren't there in the software attachment rates for the 3DS to argue that that is a primary, or even, major segment of the space.
This makes it clear that you're not in the business. Selling a console at a loss isn't the measure of a failure, having a low adoption rate is the mark of failure, and having one that consistently falls short of your quarterly guidance is the mark of death. Prospective software partners don't give a toss about whether you make $10 per console or lose $10, they care about whether you have a 10m or 100m install base, as they will have to share a portion of the royalties with the hardware maker. Software is always where manufacturers make their profit, and have done since time immemorial. It's also the barometer that investors use when assessing company performance on a forward basis; it's not a coincidence that Nintendo dramatically slashed its sales forecast for the Switch versus the Wii U. When you sell 2m and forecast 2m, you call it room to grow. When you sell 2m and forecast 6m, you call it stillborn.
The new consoles have backward compatibility of physical media of the hardware that it's replacing (Scorpio will play XBONE games and PS4Pro will play PS4 Games). Also, there is strong evidence that Scorpio will have full 360 BC and there's some reports that it will have OG compatibility as well. Switch does not have this, not for either of the devices that it is supposed to supplant (Wii U and 3DS). The best that a prospective buyer could expect is the handful of 'enhanced' ports that are forthcoming (and which they'll have to purchase again if already owned), and perhaps some eShop support (given the abysmal state of store, I shan't hold my breath). This dramatically decreases the value proposition of the hardware; I brought up the exact same situation in a previous thread regarding the fourth-gen Cold War between Nintendo and SEGA, in which the latter absolutely ate Nintendo's lunch because it had backwards compatibility. It was only through deep price cuts and a world-class software library that allowed it to crawl to victory, and one that was ultimately Pyrrhic given the results of the subsequent generation.
And as I said, I fully admit to the positive press that the game has received. Conversely, you have to admit that a game reviewed in vacuum of a game conference, a software title no one reviewing it had to purchase, that no one had to have purchased hardware to play it, and was playable for only 20 minute chunks, is a review that is meaningless as a tool of prognostication. I've been to Baselworld twice, and I've seen people fawn consistently over ultra-high end makers' offerings, like those of Vacheron Constantin; despite that, the company's sales are in the low thousands annually. And before you argue that that comparison doesn't apply because Nintendo hardware is cheap comparatively, it is for the initial outlay but in terms of a value proposition its a loss versus its competitors, in terms of brand equity, hardware longevity (as the most underpowered of the three, it will have the shortest forward support for third party titles if it even manifests) and the smallest library upon launch.
I know very well why the Wii U failed and it's what I've been saying the entire time about the Switch: lack of compelling software. There is isn't a must-have title, available at launch, that appeals beyond the Nintendo userbase and is exclusive. It's just more of the same.
Last edited:
You need to realise that a lot of the Nintendo fanbase did not buy a WiiU. Nintendo do need to grow but they will do this using their currently vertically integrated system. I do agree what ports alone is not the answer. You need new good games as well. Ports as you correctly said will not sustain a console on their own forever.
XCX is different to XC on the 3DS. At the time people had to buy a N3DS specifically for XC and because of that few people did. There is no new hardware to buy to use XCX if you already owned the WiiU.
I think you might be right there. Which is a shame. I was hoping for 4-5 hours with 4 hours of heavy gaming. We shall see come January 13 but I will not be surprised if you are correct.
Nintendo are also (in my opinion) looking at a lot lower profit margins than Apple. I do think the Switch will come very close to break even. Even with that, I do think you have a point here. Say it is break even, how many parts can you get for $250 to $300 US? Using bulk discounts and the pull you have as a large company, quite a bit. Enough to not need a lower battery life to compensate? That's a tough one. I'm leaning on the side of you being correct, but soon we shall see.
I have not read the software attachment rate data for the 3DS to comment. I will agree that the 3DS is not so suited to biger games that require lots of immersion from the player. Ocarina of Time 3D sold well and it's a bigger 3D game. I will agree with you and say there are some things you can do on a larger screen that you can not do on a smaller screen. Also the feel when you play on the different screens is totally there too as you know.
You make it clear you don't know what the shareholders want. The shareholders do want to see a clear path to profits from the company. Business are all about profit. That's just how it is. By profits I do mean games and consoles combined. I didn't mention console profits specifically above. I just said the WiiU needed to make profits. WiiU games are included in this. Also Nintendo's insistance on not selling the Switch at a loss is wirth mentioning also. I do agree for Nintendo, the games is where their profits will come from. But avoiding having the console as a loss leader (where possible) is a smart idea as well. I think the Switch will be break even and the profits will come from the games.
The adoption rates ate very important as you said. Just as much as making an overall profit is. All your points about prospective partners I agree with. It's all fact. This does not take away at all the need for a profit though. Both need to exist, for totally different reasons, so the shareholders/upper management and prospective partners are both happy.
For the people into into backwards compatability as a thing, I agree with you. Not having physical BC on the Switch does make the console less attractive. I agree with you there. We both know it had to happen. But that does not change the facts. The best Nintendo can do is totally revamp the eShop and make sure most of the games everyone wants are there. Based no what dolphin can do, the Switch can easily emulate the GC, the Wii? Possibly emulate the Wii. Can't do WiiU but that's ok. With the WiiU's greatest hits coming to the Switch all the fans that skipped the WiiU will be happy and the WiiU owners can just play the games on the WiiU.
I said totally different things about BotW above. Still what you say is very interesting and I agree. For games like BotW 20 minutes of game play (or even 20 hours) is not enough to fully review the game. I agree with you that show floor interest does not always equal instore purchasing interest.
You get it totally here. You're not one of those who incorrectly claim the WiiU's power was an issue. We both know it was the marketing and launch lineup not the power that was the issue.
The problem was the Nintendo fans and others wanted their good Nintendo fix. But nothing was out at launch to give them their fix. No Mario Kart. No SSB. No 3D Mario game. No Zelda game. No Metriod game. No Star Fox game. Etc etc.
The WiiU launch didn't even have something for the fans to get their fix.
In the instance of the switch it would be performance vs battery life. As a portable device it will likely be top notch, but as a home console it'll lack in power. At least from what I'm seeing and is rumored, grain of salt stuff.
Nintendo won't have the volume or existing OEM relationships to pull off the economy of scale discounts that Apple can command. Even Samsung can't do that; the only way that they're able to compete is because their OEMs are in-house. Remember, this is a very custom device, likely 70 - 80% bespoke factoring in the accessorial hardware.
I specifically mentioned OoT previously and, in terms of pure sales it did reasonably well. However, when you look at the attachment rate for the title and in relation to sales of the original title's attachment rate on the console, it literally sold a quarter as well (half the total sales on an install base twice the size). When you look at the general consumer sentiment toward the title, as well as the fixes to the glaring gameplay problems of the original, that's a lacklustre performance.
Having traded for the entirety of my adult life, I can assure that I understand what shareholders want. The loss leader approach has been a standard for a very long time because it works, and both of Nintendo's competitors used it this past generation to far greater successes. You establish your install base to be as large as possible so that you have the largest captive audience (multi-system adopters are a vocal and small minority) and the strongest third-party draw. This paradigm also significantly decreases the power constraints on the hardware because your first concern in design isn't profitability. Nintendo, somewhat foolishly and destructively, has gone the opposite direction, making hardware a profit centre. When you do that you have two options:1.) Make cheap underpowered hardware and hope that software draw overbalances the value prop loss versus your competition
2.) Make premium hardware that matches your competitors and risk pricing yourself out of the market.
Obviously, they went with option one and have done for the last two generations. You said in your last response that I got why the Wii U failed: lack of software rather than a lack of power. In reality, the former is at least partially a symptom of the latter. One of the primary problems with making underpowered hardware-for-profit is that you shift the cost of meeting the value prop shortfall over to your third-party developers; they have to expend the energy and resources to customise support for your console. This works when you have strong, symbiotic relationships with them. It decidedly does not work when you spent over a decade scalping devs and locking them into draconian anti-competitive exclusivity agreements, which is where Nintendo finds itself, and it's why third party support has been laughable over the past four generations. So that requires Nintendo first-party content to carry the console entirely and it can't do that, not only because the release rate is dramatically lower (hence the drought) but because the lack of IP variety means franchise fatigue. The last console was as perfect a theoretical model to test that assertion as could have been arranged.
Last edited:
Another factor to this, and one that I'd not mentioned previously, the publishing price difference that will exist when developing for the Switch. Currently, optical disc pressing in the sort of bulk volume is incredibly cost effective, usually a few cents per disc. I should not be surprised if a switch game might be two orders of magnitude higher, around $1 - 2. This is have a dramatic impact on profitability of triple-A devs. And before you say that it doesn't seem to hurt the 3DS, that devices uses much smaller memory modules, usually an 8GB. The Switch will be using carts that, minimum, 4 times larger.
I agree with you. Nintendo are using every trick in the book they can to lower their hardware costs.
Depends on how you look at it. In the way you said it I agree. But do we know if the 3DS remake made a profit? I don't knbow how much the 3DS remake cost to make. I would assume cause it's a remake, it cost a lot less (inflation factored in) than the original. But I'm only guessing here.
Loss leading only works if you have another product to take up the slack and make the extra profits that the loss leader is losing for you. If Nintendo used the Switch hardware as a loss leader (which they don't want to do). Could the first party games take up the slack of a loss leading console? I don't know what volume of game sales would be required for that.
Many of the 3rd parties are saying the Switch is powerful enough. I think they all agree the Switch is powerful. But what we don't have is context. Is it more powerful than a PS4? Or is it just more powerful than the WiiU? I'm sure we'll find out at the January keynote. But right know we just don't know. The custom chip and optimised OS does help in this regard but this is a question I really want the answer too.
Also what you are saying about 3rd parties is totally correct. But if the 3rd parties sell well on the Switch, how does that increase Nintendo's bottom line? I'm not sure what the cost Nintendo charges to develop for the Switch. Is it a per same royalty or a one time fee? It's well known that the 3rd party fees Nintendo charged in the GC and N64 days turned 3rd parties away from Nintendo. From what I have read Nintendo tried to address this issue with the Wii and WiiU 3rd party games. I think Nintendo only had moderate success there.
The WiiU failed because the 3rd party games at launch didn't sell and the 3rd Party devs were burnt and with the low WiiU install base they didn't want to make games for it. If the WiiU had a 100m install base, the 3rd party games would have come. They came for the 3DS. The launch screw up and the low install base really hurt the WiiU. This is why the Switch needs to get off to a good start.
No, it can't, and that's why Nintendo's profitability during the entire Wii U generation went into the toilet.
As I mentioned before, they were congratulatory with Dolphin until its limitations became apparent. You see, there's this factor in business messaging wherein statements about future products can have a profound and negative impact on current sales. Generally, this refers to statements made by the seller of those goods, but in reality it can also apply to sellers of related goods as well. Third-party sellers have been neutral to positive regarding the Switch because there is no upside in being negative. In the immediate term, it can hurt software sales on other platforms if multi-system adopters that are also fans of Nintendo might not wish to give patronage to them. In the longer-term, either the Switch would be successful in which case you would have to eat crow when offering support, or you would be assigned some degree of blame in the failure of the console, whether deserved or not.
All hardware makers charge platform royalties; that and first (and to a degree second) party sales are what makes or breaks front-end and rev-A profitability. Makers generally only begin making some money on hardware when the revision/slim/mini hardware is released, both because per-unit cost decreases as the onboard technology matures and because luxury features are removed in favour of purely vanilla functionality. The platform fee is usually assessed on a per unit basis (whether physical or digital) and from what I've been told tends to run in the $5-7 range for a $60 title; perhaps Dagless can provide us some idea of what he's been charged in the past.
I've said repeatedly that lack of compelling software was the reason for its failure, but you seem to think that third-party support is predicated entirely on install base. It's not. It's an important factor but that the upside of the large install base must not be mitigated by increased development and QA costs. How do I know this? First, contrary to popular belief, Wii third-party support was terrible compared to the libraries present on its competitors at the time, and compared to its overall install base. Let's take a look at the numbers. There were around 150 - 175 titles that broke 1% attachment on the Wii, depending on the source of your numbers, out of approximately 1700 titles. Of those, around 35, or a minimum of 20%, are first-party. When you remove Nintendo titles, attachment maxes out at 10%, and, moreover, if you remove party titles like dancing, casual sports and rhythm music games, attachment plummets to below 4%. Where were the platinum titles, the event games? Where was Mass Effect? Dishonored? Street Fighter IV? CoD4, Portal, Half Life 2, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy XIII trilogy? They were nowhere to be seen, because Nintendo released a game system that was behind the times. This shortfall can be mitigated by lowering the platform fees as incentive but we know Nintendo, and they don't give up a dollar not even to keep from cutting their own throats; after all, how many price decreases did we see for the the Wii U? Secondly, the 3DS got the games because there was no other dedicated handheld hardware in the space. That's the issue with the Switch. A product's downside is defined by the category in which is performs the weakest. If an antibiotic formula is changed and suddenly it treats acne but not a staph infection, people won't be cheering that there is a new effective acne treatment, they'll pray that they don't end up with MRSA. Likewise, with the Switch, advanced mobile hardware isn't invading the console space, underpowered console hardware is attempting to invade the mobile space, and to do so with a significantly higher cost without the draw of backwards compatibility (which the 3DS had for the DS) to shore up the value prop by overshadowing the cost increase[/QUOTE]
That's not true. Nintendo returned to profit a year or so ago. The Switch hopefully will keep Nintendo in profit for this financial year (ending 31/3/2017)
I can agree with this. But it's not hard to work out whose who are interested in the Switch and those who really like the Switch.
I was never sure how this worked. But thanks to you I'm getting a better understanding. Thanks for sharing this information.
While what you say is true the developers have said this outright. They've said the Wii had enough console sales to justify making games for it butthe WiiU did not. I do agree that the Wii had a lot of crapware on it. About as much as the NES did. The percentage of good games out of the total number for the Wii made was low. The 3rd party Wii game sales (as you have mentioned) prove this. The WiiU had a much higher ratio of good games to crap. But the low install base affected it.
I do agree that development and QA costs and other things are important as well. It's a multi piece pizzle and all of the parts need to exist.
Where were games like Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros and Breath of the Wild on the PS4 or Xbox? Each console has their own games and games made to fit the consoles. That's all this is.
Nintendo don't have to be so militant about it I agree. But in Nintendo's defence Nintendo is all about games. Sony and MS have non gaming divisions they can fall back on to keep in overall profit.
This is true. But marketing can overcome this. If you make the most fun games ever and get people to want them, then you'll buy them. Many people fail to understand that not all TV based consoles need to be bleeding edge in terms of their internal hardware. The console can be moderately good, but have very innovative ways to play the games and put the focus totally on how much fun you have when you play the games. This is one of the reason why we're seeing the retro comeback, in the newer retro styled games, MiniNES selling well and similar things. Games don't have to be at the bleeding edge of technology to be popular or fun.
I just hope they actually make enough of them that people can buy them. This classic nes BS can only lose sales for the company. Waiting months for this console, people are going to get bitter and decide against an impulse buy eventually. Plus, with the switch coming out, why buy the classic in February when your Nintendo craving can be satisfied with a new system in a few weeks?
I think Nintendo will be cautious with the launch Switch numbers, because of the WiiU launch. I do think within the first few months everyone who wants one will be able to get it.
If you're Australian, and you want a Switch, you should pre-order at your local EB games now. I pre-ordered at my local EB games right after E3 this year.
I'm almost certain that the same will happen with the Switch. Artificial scarcity is to Nintendo what Ace of Spades was to Motörhead: in it's freshman appearance, it's a licence to print money but it takes about one touring season (or hardware generation in the other case) before it turns into a cynical, perfunctory press-to-incite-fans red button. Unfortunately, it's a tactic that I honestly believe will bite Nintendo in their collective posterior. The NES classic edition had the perfect messaging: here's a chibi version the most iconic console in history, containing thirty games that are, nearly to a title, legendary, (and whose combined cost on the eShop is far more expensive), for just a bit more than the cost of an average triple-A game. That is a hugely compelling value prop and, combined with the artificial scarcity, it's why the toy is in some cases selling for what the supposed MSRP of the Switch will be. The NES, and all of the nostalgia that it generates, can command that sort of price. I have very real doubts about whether Switch can generate the same sort of excitement, even with artificial scarcity.
I honestly think BigN was completely surprised by the enormous interest. I was for sure, as most (All?) games are already available on VC.
Most people went for the console because i think the 30 games were a lot cheaper than buying them all individually on VC
Exactly .. €5 each here for the Virtual games or €65 for the mini console + joypad with 30 games. It's clear which offers better value. Factor in Nostalgia (80's and early 90's nostalgia is back big time) and it's clear why the mini nes is a success.
That doesn't mean that success however will automatically translate to the Switch as some folks seem to suggest . From a product / market perspective has a far greater challenge ahead.
Looking at that late-night show demo Nintendo put on, it looks like a great unit.
I'm still not convinced that it appeals to the general public at $300, especially when the XBox One S and PS4 Slim will be at $250 by that time.
They should have done some cost cutting measures like include instead a chomecast like device for tv hookup instead of a fancy dock.
Nintendo decided to include the fancy TouchPad controller instead of just the Pro Controller on the Wii U and look where that got them...
I'm still not convinced that it appeals to the general public at $300, especially when the XBox One S and PS4 Slim will be at $250 by that time.
They should have done some cost cutting measures like include instead a chomecast like device for tv hookup instead of a fancy dock.
Nintendo decided to include the fancy TouchPad controller instead of just the Pro Controller on the Wii U and look where that got them...
no not at all.
The Wii U is a console with a full touchscreen controller, not a handheld unit with a wireless dongle to a tv screen...
I don't think you can judge the future success of the Switch from the NES Mini. I think it will be a success and difficult to get hold of one during the launch period, but that'll be because it's a Nintendo system.
Hey I wonder if there will be games that don't use the side controllers at all? That could be a way to get into the tablet side of things.
Hey I wonder if there will be games that don't use the side controllers at all? That could be a way to get into the tablet side of things.
Actually, the gamepad *is* a handheld unit that is a wireless dongle to the Wii U (And not the TV screen as you wrote) - Which is exactly what you asked for. The only difference between it and the modified Switch you asked for, is basically the range for portability.
Not correct. The WiiU's processing hardware is in the stationary console. The gamepad is just an external screen for it. The games run on the console and are streamed to the gamepad. The gamepad cannot operate on its own, it's just a controller with a screen.
There is an issue with that. Rumours say the console has a touch screen. But we already know that you can't use both screens (console and TV) at the same time like the WiiU. The issue is touch screen games on the Switch will have to be console only. There is currently no way to interact with the console screen while it is docked.