The Nintendo Switch Console Thread

[the8thark]

Theranos has massive recognition as a company. It also when from $9b market cap down to functionally zero because they were a scam cooked up by a CEO with more social justice narrative cred than brains. The point is that recognition is not helpful if that recognition has a indifferent or negative aspect.

That is totally correct and I agree with you.

We've gone back and forth on the nature of the portable gamer and I have shown you the numbers, repeatedly, why they will not, as a whole, have any value prop added with the Switch over existing hardware. The sales numbers and attachments rates for the 3DS do not support that triple-A gaming in a portable setting as a positive attribute from a sales perspective. The serious gamer (hardcore) and the portable gamer, while each moniker can apply to the same individual at different times, is only a tiny section of the gaming population to which both apply simultaneously where the actual gaming experience is concerned.

The Switch is catering to the portable gamer. Also we need to realise that portable gamers are serious gamers too. Well the 3DS ones are. The 5 minutes at the bus stop iOS ones are not though. There are many serious games no the 3DS. The TV aspect of the Switch is just the bonus. The added extra Nintendo is putting in to ensure the WiiU fans will also migrate over to the Switch. The 3DS uers do like their serious games and games that are more than a quick 5 minutes at the bus stop.

Lastly is the abject lunacy that the portable market represents Nintendo's area for growth. Dismissing the hardware sustainability issue, i.e. that portable gamers, especially in Japan, are dumping dedicated gaming hardware in favour of mobiles, the attachment rates for dedicated mobile platforms is dreadful in comparison to home consoles; the 3DS, as you say the only name in the game for portables, has an attachment rate in the low 4%, whilst the Wii U managed to eek out a 6% despite being Nintendo's worst selling console of all time. When you take the overall attachment rate, and factor in which titles actually sold on the platform, the image is not of a gamer that wants a plethora of deep, immersive multi-hour titles with rich story media like pre-rendered cutscenes. It's of someone that buys a handful of cheap, grindy titles that allow for 5 - 10 minute gaming chunks. That is not what is on offer with the Switch, at least not whilst providing anything that will make a portable gamer of that stripe go with it over the 3DS, which is again cheaper, with proven technical performance and reliability numbers, and a massive library from which to choose their small handful of titles.

The portable market is not really one for growth because the 3DS is already popular. Many of those will move to the Switch. If Nintendo can get a few new PS4/Xbox or previously non gamers intot he Switch then along with the WiiU/3DS switchers it'll be a win for Nintendo.

Also what were the top selling games on the 3DS? Based on total copies sold.
Pokemon X&Y
Mario Kart 7
Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire
Super Mario 3D Land
NSMB2
AC: New Leaf
Pokemon Sun and Moon
Smash Bros
Tamodachi Life
Luigi's Mansion : Dark Moon

The top 10, all sold over 5 million copies. Only two of those are casual. Animal Crossing and Tamodachi Life. Add in games that sold well over 1 million like the Monster Hunter games, Zelda games, Fire Emblem games etc etc, you'll see that the 3DS gamers are quite the serious gamer.

What you say about the image of the typical 3DS gamer is correct. That's the image they have. That image however does not at all represent the average 3DS gamer. They do want more immersive games, the sales figures prove this. The downside of the Switch is it is only tablet portable. It's not as portable as the 3DS. I am sure you know exactly what this means in terms of how the devices are used. Will 3DS users adapt to the kind of portable that the Switch is? Only time will tell.

There is nothing revolutionary about the Switch. Nothing. It is the continuation of the false triple-A on the go narrative that doomed the Vita. When you view the Vita in the context of the numbers in which the 3DS sold, and what software sold on it, its sales are perfectly understandable and imminently predicatable. In the end, in fact, the Switch is just a Shield 2 tablet with a Nintendo coat of paint on it, and it will fare about as well as the first iteration of that device did. It's chasing a market that isn't interested.

History shows the most powerful console of a generation does not get the most sales. SInce the NES days it's only happened once, with the PS4 outselling the WiiU and XB1. That is because Nintendo and MS screwed up their console launches. Sony did nothing wrong with the PS4, nothing really great either apart from avoid the dumb mistakes the other two did. That put the confidence in the PS4 and the sales came.

The Vita didn't fail because of it's power or it's form factor. People simply didn't have the same attachment to the IP in the Vita as the IP on the DS and 3DS. In the 90's there was no market for Pokemon. Nintendo created the demand and made sure you wanted it and needed it. No different to Apple advertising a product to make you feel like you need it. And years later (bith with Apple and Pokemon) you never knew how you lived previously without them. The Switch is the same. There is a market out there for it, but Nintendo will push it and advertise it so people think they need it. Also the concept is pretty cool. Not unique but it is the future of gaming. In 30 years or so you'll be playing all your big console games on consoles that have a portable mode.

People bought the iPhone because Apple was cool. It had the cachet of a rebel company that didn't play like the stodgy suits. It built that cachet on traditional products that did provide a better experience than its competitors and was able to leverage those products to sustain the original iPhone because Apple knew that the experience there would shore up any shortfall that the iPhone provided in the immediate term. Try to imagine if Apple had immediately divested itself of its desktop and notebook operations when it released the iPhone. I can say with near certainly that this conversation would be taking place on NintendoLife, as there would be no rumors for Apple to spawn.

Nintendo's products are it's IP. Nintendo has the cachet of a rebel company that didn't play like the stodgy suits. It's totally not run along the same lines as Sega before and Sony/MS now. Iwata famously tried to sell console games to everyone, not just gamers. Sure that did not work out so well in the long term but he had the guts to try something different. Also the experience when playing Nintendo games is teally second to none. Sure Nintendo is not perfect. neither is Apple. Ping was a thing. As is the macbook battery issues now. But the core things both companies do have stayed and are still strong. Apple's hardware is strong. Nintendo's IPs are still strong.

"Try to imagine if Apple had immediately divested itself of its desktop and notebook operations when it released the iPhone."
The Nintendo equivelant would be if Nintendo divested itself of it's Mario and Zelda IPs when it announced the Switch. That didn't happen.

Well, Nintendo has taken that leap. They have pinned their entire hopes on the Switch and have done so because there is not sufficient brand equity to soften whatever compromises are in the Switch and their install base has nowhere to go but down doing what they've been doing. So they've targeted their most profitable segment, given it some ability to perform as a home console in the hopes of not alienating their entire Western audience, and crossed their fingers. This is not revolution, it's a drowning man grabbing whatever he can find in the hopes that it will float.

Nintendo as a brand is just fine. This is not a drowming man. It's a smart man learning from the mistakes and failures made with the WiiU and using the strengths Nintendo does have. The Western Audience is not home console users only, many many westerm people love their 3DS as well. It's the vast minority of Nintendo fans that own a WiiU and not a 3DS. I am in this minority. The majority own both or only a 3DS. The Switch was the obvious path for Nintendo to go down. Realising that the most powerful consoles do not sell the most (The PS4 was the first to buck the trend). I've done the research. In all casesm from the NES era till now, it's been decisions by the relevant companies: Nintendo, Sega, MS and Sony that have led the the success or failure of their consoles. Marketing/advertising, 3rd party royalty fees, bad console launches and similar issues that caused the sales figures we have had. The power of the consoles has had almost nothing to decide who sold the most.

The problem is that Nintendo is only interested in evolving the inteface aspect of gaming whilst ignoring the technical advances in the ingestion attribute of the media. You and several others in this thread have a real hard-on for novel input schemes; I use novel because there's nothing innovative about it. That was the problem with the Wii and why it appeal to casuals whilst alienating gamers. The motion controls were contrary to the establishing and efficient input scheme that dedicated gamers expect. Keyboards have been with computers since their inception and they shall be for at least another generation. Why? Because keyboards represent the most efficient means of translating thought to execution, with the least learning overhead and the lowest failure rate. That's just how it is.

Nintendo is not ignoring the tech. They are using the best mobile tech they can within the price limits they will set on the customers. Sure this is less powerful than stationary consoles. I am sure the Switch will be good value for money. Nintendo have stressed at many quarterly conferences now. They want the Switch to be affordable and not be a loss per console sold. Sure the tech inside is a compromise. That's a given as the tech available in the price ranges we are talking about is still evolving. Give it 10 years or so and the mobile tech will be much better and cheaper. But it has to start somewhere. Early adopters are always needed. That's what the Switch customers are. Early adopters for this kind of portable console.

Building on the theme of efficiency and reliability, the slab gained prominence because it simplified the input paradigm (no styluses, click-wheels or hard buttons), decreased failure over the life of the device (unlike mechanical keyboards that could fail at individual letters, whatever would cause a VKB to fail would cause the device as a whole to fail) and they maximized real estate for the consumption of the content that it was displaying.

Also you are not stuck with a keyboard or whatever, since that's all virtual you can add it and remove it on the screen whenever you want. That's a huge part of the success of tablets too. I do agree with you here totally.

Which you can do if you increase your value prop by doing something better than your competitor or through consolidating product categories. And before you argue that Nintendo has done that in making a device that is both a home console and a portable gaming device, that's a false syllogism. What sells a home console is different, and often diametrically opposed, to what sells a portable console. The same is not true of someone that, in 2007, was in the market for a new mobile phone and a new PDA and a new MP3 player. Each of those is a portable device, and consolidation of their categories was synergistic; the situational aspect of their function was identical. That is fundamentally at odds with a home console/portable hybrid. The essential language of such devices, and the sort of gamer that each attract, is often inherently contradictory.

The sales of 3DS games show that good games sell a porable console. The PS4 game sales also show that good games sell the console. Was no different to any of the high selling consoles in history. Good games along with a good not screwed up console launch goes a long way to a successful console. Both portable and TV consoles share this in common.

People were not looking for one device to do everything in 2007. They just accepted having the different devices. Apple merging them all in the iPhone was pretty revolutionary. Just like the what the Switch is doing. Neither did anything new, but both are taking things invented by others and merging them in innovative ways. Jobs in 2007 told us all that we needed one divce that did everything. We need to have it. He seeded that need into our heads. Nintendo need to do similar with the Switch.

The Switch is not a WiiU replacement. As much as Nintendo want to call it a home console. What is happening is the WiiU is dead. Nintendo is exiting the stationary only console market and is making the next 3DS. Bigger and better and can be played on the TV as well.

The industry is changing because it has become unsustainable. The amount of overhead and fat that has been added to business is absurd; couple that with an industry whose quality of content has declined dramatically (and that includes Nintendo) in the past two software generations, and the past few years especially, and you have an industry in crisis. I agree that the Switch and VR are a symptom of the same phenomenon, but I disagree that it's about innovation. It's about trying various sorts of novelty to court a hostile audience with decreasing discretionary income. Need proof? Look at the VR sales rates versus its projections. More to the point, look at the low-ball projections from Nintendo concerning Switch sales. Whatever else Nintendo does incorrectly, you're absolutely correct that they understand dollars and cents better than any other game company, and they know the score with the industry at the present time.

Innovation is always good though. It does not always succed, but when it does, then entire industy benefits. The Switch projections are lowballed because they don't want to over estimate it like they did for the WiiU. Better to lowball it and exceed your expectations.

I never said Nintendo understands money better than any other company. You have misunderstood me there. I just said they are all in to make a profit. Just like Sony is with the VR. VR is really at the super early adopter stage now. It'll take years for the tech to get to a stage where it's viable for the average gamer to afford it and play it with a decent user experience. But they have to start somewhere with it.

And we saw how much those input methods helped sell the consoles to their present target market. Gamers, as a whole, don't want novel input schemes. I understand that you're charmed by them but, given that you view the Switch as a net positive value prop, that doesn't surprise me. You fall into that statistically tiny segment of the gaming population for which it ticks the boxes, but you don't represent some silent majority that will vault the Switch to the successes of the Wii or the 3DS. The numbers aren't there.

Gamers want fun games. With control methods that are easy to pick up and learn without a steep learning curve. The silent majority as you mentioned don't care either way. As long as they can play their games easily they don't care what the cotrol method is (provided it's easy to learn). Most gamers don't love their controllers. They love their games and just accept whatever is the best available to them controller to play it with.
We disagree on this point about what gamers want.

The iPhone succeeded because it consolidated product categories. All the Switch, like any console does, is play video games. It doesn't play music, doesn't let you check your bank balance, doesn't give you realtime navigation whilst driving, doesn't let you call a taxi when you're pissed, doesn't let you find a date or share the kids' latest escapade with the grandparents. It plays video games.

The Switch sonsolidates the portable and TV console markets into one console.

Yeah, it means that rather than simply downscaling the resolution to 720p on in handheld mode, the Switch is going to hobble the 'triple-A experience' by decreasing texture resolutions, anti-aliasing, dynamic lighting effects and draw-distance. Means loads of muddled textures and pop-in, and it would be consistent with the recent rumours of significant underclocking whilst out of the dock. Yay for triple-A on the go.

None of that was on BotW on Jimmy Fallon. It looked rather good actually. Also many of the 3rd party developers are quite happy with what they've seen on the switch. The Switch will not look terrible as you put it. Sure it might only be 720p on the console and 1080p on the TV. It's not UHD like the PS4 Pro has. The games will be fun. PS4 games are fun. The Switch games will be fun. That's what most gamers want. Fun. Both consoles will provide this fun.

 

[Taustin Powers]

No way am I reading posts that long...

 

[gkarris]

No way am I reading posts that long...

Same....

Crazy sales going into from last week going into this week.

The PS4 Slim was $249 and a $50 store gift card.

The XBox One 500Gig was $249 and a free 2nd controller, or a $30 gift card.

By the time the $300 core console Switch is out ($400 with extras), these consoles will be $249 with lots of extras.

The local Gamestops are all out of the $49 used Wii's and low on games - might as well get one with the money you saved on a current gen console.

I can't see the Switch going beyond hard-core Nintendo/Console Gamers...

 

[the8thark]

No way am I reading posts that long...

Same....

I'm sorry if my essay offended you both

The TLDR is the Switch should do well. And the power of it is not an issue at all.

***************************************

This video I linked here is pretty huge. It's all about rumours for the Switch keynote. It's by the usual suspects, Emily, Laura kate Dale and co. I'll summarise the rumorus here.
The event is on Jan 13 in Japan (just so everyone knows. A lot of people are ignoring this fact).

• There are still surprises instore for the keynote. Things we don't know about.
• More 3rd party details will be said.
• Hardware and deeper tech specs like UI and the OS and similar will be talked about.
• There will be a new IP unveiled at the keynote. (makes sense as each new console has it's own new IP).
• Marketing suggests BotW will be released on Switch launch day.
• Battery life rumours conflict with each other. Some say 3 hours max at full power. Some say a lot more. Will have to wait till January 13 to know.
• Mario X Rabbids RPG is a thing.
• Rumoured to be 3x third party exclusives - The Mario X Rabbids RPG being one.
• Virtual Console content will be slowly drip fed to us over time, just like on the Wii and WiiU.
• Enhanced ports will come. Mario Kart 8 has a lot of new content added, SSB4 has little new content.
• Beyond Good and Evil 2 might have a teaser trailer ready for the January 13th keynote.
• Lots of Mother 3 rumours but is sceptical if it will actually happen or not.
• Monolithsoft's new project is not the XCX remake (another company is handling that). However Monolithsoft's new project is in the same vain as XC and XCX with the same combat style. (I think it's XC3 personally).
• Nothing from Platinum Games in January.
• Achievements will come. Are they more MyNintendo achievements or Xbox Live style achievements you can earn in each game? No one knows but the achievement rumour has come up.
• Released same week in NA and Japan. No word about EU and Australia but I would assume the same week as well.
• The region free rumour is still there.

 

[blesscheese]

Crazy sales going into from last week going into this week.

By the time the $300 core console Switch is out ($400 with extras), these consoles will be $249 with lots of extras.

I think that March is a little bit of a weird time to release the Switch, but by Xmas 2017 the supply chain should be all ironed out and there should be a decent number of games out for it.

At that point (Xmas 2017), the Switch will really be competing against the PS 4 Pro and XBone Scorpio, which will be selling at a premium. I don't see these selling for less than $350 next year, even with incentives.

 

[JohnGrey]

Sorry for the delay, but the last two weeks of the year are the busiest in market research; everyone is trying to burn through what’s left of their research budget so that the bean counters don’t reduce it in the next fiscal year.

The Switch is catering to the portable gamer. Also we need to realise that portable gamers are serious gamers too. Well the 3DS ones are. The 5 minutes at the bus stop iOS ones are not though. There are many serious games no the 3DS. The TV aspect of the Switch is just the bonus. The added extra Nintendo is putting in to ensure the WiiU fans will also migrate over to the Switch. The 3DS uers do like their serious games and games that are more than a quick 5 minutes at the bus stop.

The portable market is not really one for growth because the 3DS is already popular. Many of those will move to the Switch. If Nintendo can get a few new PS4/Xbox or previously non gamers intot he Switch then along with the WiiU/3DS switchers it'll be a win for Nintendo.

Also what were the top selling games on the 3DS? Based on total copies sold.
Pokemon X&Y
Mario Kart 7
Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire
Super Mario 3D Land
NSMB2
AC: New Leaf
Pokemon Sun and Moon
Smash Bros
Tamodachi Life
Luigi's Mansion : Dark Moon

The top 10, all sold over 5 million copies. Only two of those are casual. Animal Crossing and Tamodachi Life. Add in games that sold well over 1 million like the Monster Hunter games, Zelda games, Fire Emblem games etc etc, you'll see that the 3DS gamers are quite the serious gamer.

What you say about the image of the typical 3DS gamer is correct. That's the image they have. That image however does not at all represent the average 3DS gamer. They do want more immersive games, the sales figures prove this. The downside of the Switch is it is only tablet portable. It's not as portable as the 3DS. I am sure you know exactly what this means in terms of how the devices are used. Will 3DS users adapt to the kind of portable that the Switch is? Only time will tell.

I’ve already addressed the attachment rates and types of games that succeeded on the 3DS numerous times and you keep dodging my numbers and asserting the opposite blindly to support your case. None of the games that are in that list are in-depth games, true narrative-driven RPGs, not a one. The closest thing to an RPG is Pokemon, and that’s a grind-driven scavenger hunt with RPG mechanics; there’s virtual no narrative thrust to speak of, no urgency or grand purpose beyond collecting all of the critters. It’s a social game, Pokemon Go made that obvious, and social games are not in-depth by definition because the focus is the competition and interaction with one’s real world opponents. The actions are screen are just one more war proxy, like any other competition. The remainder are either sedate simulators or level-based adventure/platformers, gameplay that can be paused without breaking mood, where no narrative information will be lost or lose contextual meaning because of that pause.

You keep bringing up OoT as proof that such games are strong draws on mobile hardware and that’s not the case. When taking into account install base, the 3DS version sold one-quarter as well as the original release. The game sold less that Tomadachi Life and half as well as Animal Crossing, the games that even you point to as being casual, despite being an optimised version of one of the most beloved games in history, with updated models and gameplay improvements.

Ultimately, the sales figures do not support you. Where does the much-lauded Fire Emblem fall? 3% attachment. Dragon Quest? 2.5%. Bravely Default? 2.3% Xenoblade? Sub-1%. SMT? Sub-1%. FF Explorers? Sub-1%. Etrian Odyssey? Sub-1%. But the average 3DS player, according to you, wants immersive games.

The issue with your conception of portal gamers, I believe, is false consensus bias, which happens in research more than you might think. The fact is that the numbers do not support your contention in terms of success, which in turn relates to what is popular amongst the target audience. If you would continue to assert that I’m wrong, please show me narrative-driven, long-digestion games that have succeeded on the 3DS.

History shows the most powerful console of a generation does not get the most sales. SInce the NES days it's only happened once, with the PS4 outselling the WiiU and XB1. That is because Nintendo and MS screwed up their console launches. Sony did nothing wrong with the PS4, nothing really great either apart from avoid the dumb mistakes the other two did. That put the confidence in the PS4 and the sales came.

The Vita didn't fail because of it's power or it's form factor. People simply didn't have the same attachment to the IP in the Vita as the IP on the DS and 3DS. In the 90's there was no market for Pokemon. Nintendo created the demand and made sure you wanted it and needed it. No different to Apple advertising a product to make you feel like you need it. And years later (bith with Apple and Pokemon) you never knew how you lived previously without them. The Switch is the same. There is a market out there for it, but Nintendo will push it and advertise it so people think they need it. Also the concept is pretty cool. Not unique but it is the future of gaming. In 30 years or so you'll be playing all your big console games on consoles that have a portable mode.

Nintendo's products are it's IP. Nintendo has the cachet of a rebel company that didn't play like the stodgy suits. It's totally not run along the same lines as Sega before and Sony/MS now. Iwata famously tried to sell console games to everyone, not just gamers. Sure that did not work out so well in the long term but he had the guts to try something different. Also the experience when playing Nintendo games is teally second to none. Sure Nintendo is not perfect. neither is Apple. Ping was a thing. As is the macbook battery issues now. But the core things both companies do have stayed and are still strong. Apple's hardware is strong. Nintendo's IPs are still strong.

It's not about having the most power, it’s about having power near to the baseline of your competitors. You can’t look at the earlier generations for guidance on this. Their SDKs were exclusive to their consoles and were based around broadly dissimilar architectures and performance levels; that’s no longer the case. Just as normalised APIs decrease the individual learning curve for producing multi-plats because the underlying code is the same, the reverse of that is that without relative parity with one’s competitors, it’s difficult to keep up with competitors in terms of software library because devs are much less willing to step outside normal profiles for customisation.

As for the Vita, it failed because it was launched hobbled versus the normal experience of its content (decreased resolution/performance and short battery life, like the Switch), with little in the way of compelling software (like the Switch) and expensive (at the same price point as the Switch). It’s one of the reasons I’m bearish on the Switch; it’s a paradigm that has already been attempted and failed

You keeping banging on about the Nintendo’s IPs. Their IPs don’t move hardware unless there are no competitors and don't convert to sales; look at the download to purchase conversion rate of Super Mario Run, even the rosiest estimates of it. I don’t know how else to say it. The IPs didn't carry the GC, it didn’t with the Wii (Wii Sports and dance games did), it didn’t with the Wii U and it won’t with the Switch, except for those that are already part of the install base. The last generation was very important because it gave Nintendo a read on where they were with their install base ex third-party support and it was abysmal. That’s precisely why they made so much of that fancy graphic with all of those dev logos on it. Of course, they didn’t mention games in development (and won’t likely won’t mentioned more than 2 -3 during the Switch event) because 95% of those devs are in the wings, waiting to see if Nintendo pulls off a miracle.

Nintendo does not have a rebel cachet. Ask your typical MS/Sony gamer that doesn’t also own a Wii U as to when the last time they owned a Nintendo system was and you can be reasonably certain it’s when they were a kid. What was the majority of Wii’s third-party software titles? Kid’s games. Kids fall into the casual market and they game on their parents’ mobile devices.

You can’t market to just anyone. Gaming is a lifestyle, not an activity. Nintendo learnt that very difficult lesson when their hardware transition fell 87% this last generation. It’s a wonderful idea when you can keep you strong base and build on it by converting casuals to gamers, but that’s not what Nintendo did, and they haven’t ever done that. They have consistently lost the dedicated gamers from their platforms every generation without exception.

One big issue is that the profile of Eastern versus Western gamers, the trendlines for portable gaming are in fact, reversed versus what the Switch needs for success. In the DS generation, Western gamers accounted for 121m of the total 154m, some 78% of the market. In the 3DS generation, that dropped to 64% (39.4m out of 61.57m), and more that’s with Japan having flat-to-negative population growth, demographics that skew away from the typical gaming age (50+), and a much worse economic outlook that most Western nations. For an added concern, the 36% of the 3DS sales that Japan represents accounts for only 31% of the total portable gaming market in that country, a defection rate away from dedicated gaming hardware that is increasing, not decreasing. So, what Nintendo has, in their portable market, are two geographical regions: the Eastern one where portable gaming is going up overall, but they are losing overall market share to other mobile devices, and the Western one where portable gaming is going down. That is not a market in which to have any great measure of success.

You’re wrong about what drove success, basically for the entirety of modern gaming. For the first two generations, it was predicated entirely on Nintendo’s ability to use uncontested and draconian legal agreements to constrain compelling software to its platforms. When those constraints were ruled illegal, what predicated success is what gave the greatest technical overhead for devs. In the fifth generation, it was the PS with its CD-ROMs, not the limited solid-state consoles of the N64 or the Byzantine development requirements for the Saturn, despite its disc-based media. In the sixth, it was the PS2 because its use of DVDs allowed for larger and better games, unlike the Mini-DVDs of the GC or GD-Rs of the Dreamcast. In the seventh, it was the Wii had the best hardware sales, but the worst software attachment rate and software library of the three because it had novel input and decreased technical performance versus its competitors. Nintendo’s reliance on input and ‘user experience gimmicks’ coupled with its refusal to even approach parity Is why it continued to haemorrhage its core gamer install base and created the negative feedback loop that killed the Wii U.

Nintendo as a brand is just fine. This is not a drowming man. It's a smart man learning from the mistakes and failures made with the WiiU and using the strengths Nintendo does have. The Western Audience is not home console users only, many many westerm people love their 3DS as well. It's the vast minority of Nintendo fans that own a WiiU and not a 3DS. I am in this minority. The majority own both or only a 3DS. The Switch was the obvious path for Nintendo to go down. Realising that the most powerful consoles do not sell the most (The PS4 was the first to buck the trend). I've done the research. In all casesm from the NES era till now, it's been decisions by the relevant companies: Nintendo, Sega, MS and Sony that have led the the success or failure of their consoles. Marketing/advertising, 3rd party royalty fees, bad console launches and similar issues that caused the sales figures we have had. The power of the consoles has had almost nothing to decide who sold the most.

Nintendo is fine monetarily, for now. They have an enormous war chest that has come from massive hardware success of the Wii coupled with low overhead on the hardware. Yet they have haemorrhaged their install base with their hardware antics and third party situation. The same thing happened during the 2007 - 2010 period with BlackBerry. What happened to it? It announced this last quarter, apart from anyone that makes 'BlackBerry' hardware on their own dime, the company was now software-only. That's what happens with the value proposition of hardware goes down the toilet, as it has with Nintendo for the past two generations. You alienate your base to the point of becoming irrelevant, beyond nostalgia.

Nintendo is not ignoring the tech. They are using the best mobile tech they can within the price limits they will set on the customers. Sure this is less powerful than stationary consoles. I am sure the Switch will be good value for money. Nintendo have stressed at many quarterly conferences now. They want the Switch to be affordable and not be a loss per console sold. Sure the tech inside is a compromise. That's a given as the tech available in the price ranges we are talking about is still evolving. Give it 10 years or so and the mobile tech will be much better and cheaper. But it has to start somewhere. Early adopters are always needed. That's what the Switch customers are. Early adopters for this kind of portable console.

Even assuming that the gaming population is where you believe them to be philosophically, and they're definitely not, Nintendo doesn't have ten years to continue to languish in the hardware. It's been half that time already since their last successful piece of hardware, and that success wasn't even driven by the audience that they're trying to capture now. Their core audience will dip below the 10m mark this generation unless the Switch captures a huge segment of the Western portable population. This is their last chance to reverse their install base trend amongst committed, non-casual gamers.

The sales of 3DS games show that good games sell a porable console. The PS4 game sales also show that good games sell the console. Was no different to any of the high selling consoles in history. Good games along with a good not screwed up console launch goes a long way to a successful console. Both portable and TV consoles share this in common.

They do show that. They also show that what constitutes a good game, in terms of what will be financially successful, are vastly different on the two. That's the problem with consolidating product categories with different audiences.

People were not looking for one device to do everything in 2007. They just accepted having the different devices. Apple merging them all in the iPhone was pretty revolutionary. Just like the what the Switch is doing. Neither did anything new, but both are taking things invented by others and merging them in innovative ways. Jobs in 2007 told us all that we needed one divce that did everything. We need to have it. He seeded that need into our heads. Nintendo need to do similar with the Switch.

He did nothing of the sort, what he did was instil a value proposition into our heads. He said, here’s a device for $499. Expensive yeah? But wait! Say you bought a BlackBerry, subsidised at $250 with a two year contract. Then you buy an iPod. $150. PDA? $300. That’s $700! Or you could have all three of those in one device, for $200 less, only have to carry one device and the experience will be richer that what you’re used to. Unified email inboxes, full web browsing, access to all of your iTunes purchases natively with no need to sync and access to thousands (and ultimately millions) of the finest third-party apps.

And, no, the Switch does not do this. Does it combined the two product categories? Ostensibly. Does it provide a richer experience? No, of course not. You’re playing games on unwieldy mobile hardware that will have mediocre performance and presentation to meet even the barest necessities of battery life and thermal profiles. Oh boy!

Innovation is always good though. It does not always succed, but when it does, then entire industy benefits. The Switch projections are lowballed because they don't want to over estimate it like they did for the WiiU. Better to lowball it and exceed your expectations.

There is nothing innovative about the Switch, it's a Nintendo-branded Vita. As for the projections, you're absolutely correct about why they're low-balled.

Gamers want fun games. With control methods that are easy to pick up and learn without a steep learning curve. The silent majority as you mentioned don't care either way. As long as they can play their games easily they don't care what the cotrol method is (provided it's easy to learn). Most gamers don't love their controllers. They love their games and just accept whatever is the best available to them controller to play it with. We disagree on this point about what gamers want.

We disagree on most things, it seems. Control methods are a benefit or a hindrance. If they're a benefit, people don't think about them and thus 'don't care'.

The Switch sonsolidates the portable and TV console markets into one console.

No, it consolidates the hardware for those two activities. The portable and home console markets, the people that make up those groups, are not being consolidated philosophically, and I argue that that will ultimately be the failure of the Switch.

None of that was on BotW on Jimmy Fallon. It looked rather good actually. Also many of the 3rd party developers are quite happy with what they've seen on the switch. The Switch will not look terrible as you put it. Sure it might only be 720p on the console and 1080p on the TV. It's not UHD like the PS4 Pro has. The games will be fun. PS4 games are fun. The Switch games will be fun. That's what most gamers want. Fun. Both consoles will provide this fun.

A five minute optimised segment of a cell-shaded game probably did run fairly well, but that's not the only performance target that it has to meet.

 

[the8thark]

Sorry for the delay, but the last two weeks of the year are the busiest in market research; everyone is trying to burn through what’s left of their research budget so that the bean counters don’t reduce it in the next fiscal year.

Hope it was all worth it and soon you can take a wenn deserved rest.

I’ve already addressed the attachment rates and types of games that succeeded on the 3DS numerous times and you keep dodging my numbers and asserting the opposite blindly to support your case. None of the games that are in that list are in-depth games, true narrative-driven RPGs, not a one. The closest thing to an RPG is Pokemon, and that’s a grind-driven scavenger hunt with RPG mechanics; there’s virtual no narrative thrust to speak of, no urgency or grand purpose beyond collecting all of the critters. It’s a social game, Pokemon Go made that obvious, and social games are not in-depth by definition because the focus is the competition and interaction with one’s real world opponents. The actions are screen are just one more war proxy, like any other competition. The remainder are either sedate simulators or level-based adventure/platformers, gameplay that can be paused without breaking mood, where no narrative information will be lost or lose contextual meaning because of that pause.

You keep bringing up OoT as proof that such games are strong draws on mobile hardware and that’s not the case. When taking into account install base, the 3DS version sold one-quarter as well as the original release. The game sold less that Tomadachi Life and half as well as Animal Crossing, the games that even you point to as being casual, despite being an optimised version of one of the most beloved games in history, with updated models and gameplay improvements.

Ultimately, the sales figures do not support you. Where does the much-lauded Fire Emblem fall? 3% attachment. Dragon Quest? 2.5%. Bravely Default? 2.3% Xenoblade? Sub-1%. SMT? Sub-1%. FF Explorers? Sub-1%. Etrian Odyssey? Sub-1%. But the average 3DS player, according to you, wants immersive games.

The issue with your conception of portal gamers, I believe, is false consensus bias, which happens in research more than you might think. The fact is that the numbers do not support your contention in terms of success, which in turn relates to what is popular amongst the target audience. If you would continue to assert that I’m wrong, please show me narrative-driven, long-digestion games that have succeeded on the 3DS.

Most of the top 10 selling 3DS games are immersive games that take a while to finish. You are ignoring the fact they are immersive games. Also selling more than one million of a game is a great achievement. So what if that is a low percentage of 3DS sales. It's not Nintendo's fault the 3DS sold so well. Games selling over a million should be plaised for the good sales, not complained about because not enough 3DS owners bought them. Not every immersive game has to be an RPG.

The sales figures do support me. Every one of the games I listed sold more than one million. I think we just agree to disagree here.
You think only hardcore RPGs can be immersive games. I think a wider range of games can be immersive.
You think attach rates have to be huge even if that is unreasonable based in the 3DS's high hardware sales. I think games that well a million or more have sold well.

The 3DS fans want immersive games. Not always hardcore RPGs. They can be from many genres. The top 10 sellers proved it. Quite a few games there that players could seriously sink their teeth into. Add in every one million plus seller and you have a great library of games that are not casual and that 3DS users can sink their teeth into.

It's not about having the most power, it’s about having power near to the baseline of your competitors. You can’t look at the earlier generations for guidance on this. Their SDKs were exclusive to their consoles and were based around broadly dissimilar architectures and performance levels; that’s no longer the case. Just as normalised APIs decrease the individual learning curve for producing multi-plats because the underlying code is the same, the reverse of that is that without relative parity with one’s competitors, it’s difficult to keep up with competitors in terms of software library because devs are much less willing to step outside normal profiles for customisation.

Of cause you can use past generations as examples. The 3rd party developers chose which hardware they would support. The compute power of each console did factor into their decision. As did many other factors. It's just easier these days to go multiplatform because most of the big 3 (Sony Nintendo and MS) are trying to make their consoles easier to port games to.

As for the Vita, it failed because it was launched hobbled versus the normal experience of its content (decreased resolution/performance and short battery life, like the Switch), with little in the way of compelling software (like the Switch) and expensive (at the same price point as the Switch). It’s one of the reasons I’m bearish on the Switch; it’s a paradigm that has already been attempted and failed

The Vita is more powerful than the 3DS. So power didn't play a factor if why the Vita didn't do so well.
The Vita didn't have such a great line up of games though. But line ups of games are so subjective. That's why I don't disagree with you. I think the Vita didn't have a great line up but the Switch potentially does (we will find out at the 13th January keynote). But that's all subjective. A good line up is all about what each person invidivial likes. One of the only ways to qualtify this is to take a hindsight look at this using the sales of the games. More sales would equal a better line up.

You keeping banging on about the Nintendo’s IPs. Their IPs don’t move hardware unless there are no competitors and don't convert to sales; look at the download to purchase conversion rate of Super Mario Run, even the rosiest estimates of it. I don’t know how else to say it. The IPs didn't carry the GC, it didn’t with the Wii (Wii Sports and dance games did), it didn’t with the Wii U and it won’t with the Switch, except for those that are already part of the install base. The last generation was very important because it gave Nintendo a read on where they were with their install base ex third-party support and it was abysmal. That’s precisely why they made so much of that fancy graphic with all of those dev logos on it. Of course, they didn’t mention games in development (and won’t likely won’t mentioned more than 2 -3 during the Switch event) because 95% of those devs are in the wings, waiting to see if Nintendo pulls off a miracle.

Super Mario Run didn't exist to get sales. Just like Pokemon Go didn't. Pokemon Go existed to get people on the Pokemon hype train in time for Sun/Moon. That totally worked based on the Sun/Moon sales. Super Mario Run is doing the same thing and along with the Switch event is getting people syped for Nintendo all over again. Roughly 3 millon out of the 50million who downloaded Super Mario Run bought it. At $10 a piece, that's 30 million revenue. Not earth shattering but also not too shabby.

Nintendo does not have a rebel cachet. Ask your typical MS/Sony gamer that doesn’t also own a Wii U as to when the last time they owned a Nintendo system was and you can be reasonably certain it’s when they were a kid. What was the majority of Wii’s third-party software titles? Kid’s games. Kids fall into the casual market and they game on their parents’ mobile devices.

This is exactly why the Switch reveal trailer had no children in it. Nintendo realise this and are working for an older target audience for the Switch. Will it work in Nintendo's favour? Only time will tell. I don't know if it will work out well but I do think it's the right move / risk to be taking.

You can’t market to just anyone. Gaming is a lifestyle, not an activity. Nintendo learnt that very difficult lesson when their hardware transition fell 87% this last generation. It’s a wonderful idea when you can keep you strong base and build on it by converting casuals to gamers, but that’s not what Nintendo did, and they haven’t ever done that. They have consistently lost the dedicated gamers from their platforms every generation without exception.

Nintendo focused on getting children into gaming and keeping them for the long haul. It worked relatively well till recently when it went all pearshaped. The demographics of who want and can afford consoles has changed. It used to be children's parents buying them. Not it's older teens and adultsa buying the consoles for themselves. Took Nintendo a little too long to realise this and Nintendo suffered for it. But they realise now. Is it too lottle too late or will the Switch be a hit? I guess the sales fugures wll answer that. But the Switch marketing is spot on though.

One big issue is that the profile of Eastern versus Western gamers, the trendlines for portable gaming are in fact, reversed versus what the Switch needs for success. In the DS generation, Western gamers accounted for 121m of the total 154m, some 78% of the market. In the 3DS generation, that dropped to 64% (39.4m out of 61.57m), and more that’s with Japan having flat-to-negative population growth, demographics that skew away from the typical gaming age (50+), and a much worse economic outlook that most Western nations. For an added concern, the 36% of the 3DS sales that Japan represents accounts for only 31% of the total portable gaming market in that country, a defection rate away from dedicated gaming hardware that is increasing, not decreasing. So, what Nintendo has, in their portable market, are two geographical regions: the Eastern one where portable gaming is going up overall, but they are losing overall market share to other mobile devices, and the Western one where portable gaming is going down. That is not a market in which to have any great measure of success.

You also need to consider the alternative. That is the Switch being a stationary TV only console. If Nintendo tried that, people would just not bother and either move to the Playstation or stay on the Playstation and not even think about moving to the Switch. Nintendo is basically dead in the stationary always at home console market. (I think MS is too but that's another story). Sony has that market all wrapped up. Nintendo needed to do something that is not directly competing with Sony with the Switch. Going portable was the only option. Portable is Nintendo's strong suit. Sure the move in portable galing is to the casual gamer.

Somee random stats
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Essential-Facts-2016.pdf
This is based on research done in the US for 2016.

• The average of gamers was 35. Looks like we need to market to adults now. It'd nice to see all of the big 3 realising this. Nintendo was a little slow to realise this but I am glad they have.
• it's 59% male and 41% female. I do think Sony and MS need to address this fact more and advertise to both genders more effectively. Nintendo's reveal reailer for the Switch had a decent share of both genders in it.
• Top devices most frequent gamers use: PC (56%), dedicated game console (53%), smartphone (36%), wireless device (31%), dedicated handheld system (17%). Going by that it's the dedicated handhelds that are slowly dying. Ie the 3DS and Vita. As you said the numbers for the DS and 3DS are on a downward trend. I agree with you. The Switch is not really entering that market though. It's trying to merge the "dedicated game console" and the "dedicated handheld system" into the one device. Nintendo literally has no choice. It can either try to revolutionise the "dedicated game console" space by merging it with hand held or it can just fade away into irrelevancy with Sony taking over as the clear winner. This is frequent gamers though, not the people that play 1 hour a week at the bus stop on their iPhone. That is quite a few million there. I'm not sure if your statistic differentiated them out of the statistics or left them in. These very casual gamers are not in the market for a console and never will be unless their gaming habits change.

Here is the 2015 stats to compare if you are interested.http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf

You’re wrong about what drove success, basically for the entirety of modern gaming. For the first two generations, it was predicated entirely on Nintendo’s ability to use uncontested and draconian legal agreements to constrain compelling software to its platforms. When those constraints were ruled illegal, what predicated success is what gave the greatest technical overhead for devs. In the fifth generation, it was the PS with its CD-ROMs, not the limited solid-state consoles of the N64 or the Byzantine development requirements for the Saturn, despite its disc-based media. In the sixth, it was the PS2 because its use of DVDs allowed for larger and better games, unlike the Mini-DVDs of the GC or GD-Rs of the Dreamcast. In the seventh, it was the Wii had the best hardware sales, but the worst software attachment rate and software library of the three because it had novel input and decreased technical performance versus its competitors. Nintendo’s reliance on input and ‘user experience gimmicks’ coupled with its refusal to even approach parity Is why it continued to haemorrhage its core gamer install base and created the negative feedback loop that killed the Wii U.

Gaming in the 70's and 80's was going along fine till the crash of 1983 (approx). Nintendo singlehandly brought the industry out of the crash with the NES. I have not read about any draconian legal issues to 3rd parties in the NES and SNES days. Nintendo just had the better user experience and were mroe willing to work with the 3rd party developers. Rare have said this many times. (As in Playtonic, not the shell of Rare that is still in MS hands). The N64 and GC era had Nintendo being mean to the 3rd party developers and demanding hoo high royalties and other not so good demands. This pushed away most of the 3rd party developers. Sony took advantage of this ans wooed those 3rd parties to it's playstation.

Nintendo's recent push of innovation in game play did not kill the WiiU at all. Not even close. The WiiU failed at launch because:

• The gamepad was not advertised well enough (I understood it but so many claimed they didn't. True or not that was a PR disaster)
• Too many terrible ports of old games people already played years ago and already owned on other consoles.
• No decent first party games
• Little Virtual Console support
• No clear roadmap of where Nintendo wanted to take the WiiU and this was not told to the public.

Because of that the 3rd parties left the WiiU and it never recovered as a console. Sure the WiiU ended up having some very good games but it was too little much too late. The innovation however was the best part of the WiiU and is the best part of the Switch. Without it, the console would just be a Playstation with a Nintendo sticker on it or another more powerful Gamecube or heck even a NES. Sitting down on the couch with a controler in your hand not moving just watching the TV as you use the controller has been done since the days of the NES and arguable even before with Atari and such. It's about time this method of gameplay was modernised. Sony is slowly doing it with VR but it's years and years off becoming mainstream. Nintendo is doing it now with the Switch. I thank both Nintendo and Sony for taking the risk to do this.

Nintendo is fine monetarily, for now. They have an enormous war chest that has come from massive hardware success of the Wii coupled with low overhead on the hardware. Yet they have haemorrhaged their install base with their hardware antics and third party situation. The same thing happened during the 2007 - 2010 period with BlackBerry. What happened to it? It announced this last quarter, apart from anyone that makes 'BlackBerry' hardware on their own dime, the company was now software-only. That's what happens with the value proposition of hardware goes down the toilet, as it has with Nintendo for the past two generations. You alienate your base to the point of becoming irrelevant, beyond nostalgia.

The difference was the Blackberry hardware didn't offer anythnig different to the users. When the iPhone was released, Blackberry stayed in it's shell and kept making the same style of phones. That was it's downfall. Now it's software only. Nintendo on the other hand is not staying in it's shell hardware wise. It's taking the risks to try and bring people over to Nintendo and the Switch. Nintendo is taking the risks with hardware that Blackberry did not. Innovate or die. Blackberry chose die. Nintendo is not choosing to roll over and die. Nintendo chose to take the risk. A big risk it certainly is.

Even assuming that the gaming population is where you believe them to be philosophically, and they're definitely not, Nintendo doesn't have ten years to continue to languish in the hardware. It's been half that time already since their last successful piece of hardware, and that success wasn't even driven by the audience that they're trying to capture now. Their core audience will dip below the 10m mark this generation unless the Switch captures a huge segment of the Western portable population. This is their last chance to reverse their install base trend amongst committed, non-casual gamers.

Nintendo has had one failed console of recent, the WiiU. Also Nintendo's last successful piece of hardware was the 3DS. Nintendo ran a successful piece of hardware and an unsuccessful one at the same time. It's not like Nintendo have had years since a successful console. That's just not true because of the 3DS. However I do agree that if the Switch bombs, it will not be good for Nintendo. It's not their last chance forever. But if the Switch does indeed bomb, things will be a lot more bleak for Nintendo.

They do show that. They also show that what constitutes a good game, in terms of what will be financially successful, are vastly different on the two. That's the problem with consolidating product categories with different audiences.

I agree with you there are many issues that come with the territory of consolidation different product categories. It's a huge risk.

He did nothing of the sort, what he did was instil a value proposition into our heads. He said, here’s a device for $499. Expensive yeah? But wait! Say you bought a BlackBerry, subsidised at $250 with a two year contract. Then you buy an iPod. $150. PDA? $300. That’s $700! Or you could have all three of those in one device, for $200 less, only have to carry one device and the experience will be richer that what you’re used to. Unified email inboxes, full web browsing, access to all of your iTunes purchases natively with no need to sync and access to thousands (and ultimately millions) of the finest third-party apps.

Currect . . . until people refused to pay the high outright prices for the iPhones and Apple forked out the plans so you could pay a little now and pay the rest over 24 months as little additions to your monthly contracts. It's this pay the majority of the cost later that really helped the iPhone sell well.

And, no, the Switch does not do this. Does it combined the two product categories? Ostensibly. Does it provide a richer experience? No, of course not. You’re playing games on unwieldy mobile hardware that will have mediocre performance and presentation to meet even the barest necessities of battery life and thermal profiles. Oh boy!

I think it's best to wait and see about the performance. Sure a segment of the gaming market want their UHD gaming at high fps. But many just want a game that plays relatively well, look relatively nive and is fun. Hopefully the Switch will deliver this. I do think Nintendo need to explain to us how the methods to play the Switch actually work. It's up to Nintendo to sell it's methods of playing the Switch. There is also a pro controller if people want a more traditional experience.

Of cause the Switch is a compromise console. The tech is not there yet at this proce point for perfect mobile experiences of huge 3D games. Nintendo need to start somewhere. Personally if the Switch games look as good as the better WiiU games I'll be happy. The better WiiU games looked great. They need to play well though. Games like BotW we know tank on the WiiU, plays well rnough but too many frame dips and pop in. XCX also suffered with this. It all needs to be fixed on the Switch. If not then it'll hurt sales.

There is nothing innovative about the Switch, it's a Nintendo-branded Vita. As for the projections, you're absolutely correct about why they're low-balled.

It's a lot more than just a Vita in terms of how you interact with it. But as a tablet playing games, it is simialr to the Vita. I'd call it a Vita but better in every way. Improving on the old can be innovative if it's done the right way. I agree that the Vita base feel is there with the Switch though. The tablet with joycons attached is just a 2016 Vita. But the pro controller, removing the joycons etc etc improves on it.

Agreed, better to lowball the projections at the moment. Over projecting sales and failing to meet them could seriously turn the investors away.

We disagree on most things, it seems. Control methods are a benefit or a hindrance. If they're a benefit, people don't think about them and thus 'don't care'.

I actually agree with you. It's the same with an OS. The best OS (for the user, not the programmer) is the invisible one. Just get into your apps and you're ready to go. The same is with controllers. No learning curve. You jsut pick it up, and use it. Invisible in a way. Nintendo however is trying to get people excited by control methods. This is kind of contrary to the invsible controllers that most people want. It's another risk Nintendo is taking here.

No, it consolidates the hardware for those two activities. The portable and home console markets, the people that make up those groups, are not being consolidated philosophically, and I argue that that will ultimately be the failure of the Switch.

If the Switch has people who insist on portable games and others who insist on the perfect docked experience, that might end up in a conflict. I don't think both can be done at the same time as the Switch is a compromise console. Nintendo might still have to make portable games and TV games inline with with you've said here.
Do people want portable games on the go with the Switch or do they want to play their TV games on the go with the Switch. You seem to think it is the former. I honestly do not know. It's a complex issue to tackle and I'm not sure how one can tackle it. If Nintendo is making portable and TV games not just games for both, that's no difference than having 2 consoles. I hope at the Switch event Nintendo seriously addresses this issue.

A five minute optimised segment of a cell-shaded game probably did run fairly well, but that's not the only performance target that it has to meet.

I agree. it's a start but sertainly not the only target it has to meet.

Thank you for your reply. I do respect your opinions and the facts you share. You do bring up some legitimate concerns here. Issues that need to be dealt with. I think on the little thing we disagree but in the core points we are in agreeance.

If the Switch fails Nintendo is not doomed. But it's well on the way to being doomed (baring a miracle or a great follow up). We totally agree there.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Loads of accessories comming. It appears we will also get Zelda from the start after all.

But oh well, we'll know more in 48 hours anyway.

 

[0098386]

My excit-o-metre is leaping right now. I haven't been this interested in a console since the Wii itself.

For me it's the idea of taking my games and saves anywhere I go, something the Vita had right with cross-save games using their cloud service to sync them. I like the idea of dropping the second screen - something I never really got on board with. I just want VC to be focussed on, as it provides a cheap, palate cleansing experience. I expect a big push for more screen-sharing, or room-sharing multiplayer games (online is good but no substitute for local play - my fave gaming moment was hooking up Xbox 1's in 2004 via a cheap lan router at my house and having each bedroom as a base with 4 TV's in 4 player splitscreen playing Halo. And 8 player Smash 4 on a giant projector). That's all really.

 

[Fozzybadfeet]

Looking forward to the keynote...May have to put in a pre-order on Friday.

 

[MRU]

I will watch the keynote but with trepidation ....

I have concerns over the switch's power and the repercussions such a difference between competing devices has on third party support and more-over multi-platform development.

I have concerns over the switch's decision to be both mobile and home based system with repercussions that decision has on performance and titles having to be developed with an already outdated GPU that drops performance levels dramatically in mobile mode.

I have concerns that Nintendo will follow its own history of the Wii & Wii U in the fact that given the generally mediocre third party support (lots of casual bloat or very poor ports due to the difference of having weaker hardware had on development and multi-platform games) that we will see a lot of Nintendo franchises announced and then see nothing of these games except delays and extended release dates, making the gap between great Nintendo IP games (and even these are dwindling in quality over the generations, From the once excellent StarFox to its most recent incarnations like gamecube's Starfox Assault to Wii U's StarFox... Or IP's left to rot like F-Zero and Pilotwings) just as bad as ever with months and months empty, without any quality AAA games.

I have concerns still over Nintendo's ability to embrace online accounts as even with the slow progress they have made, their system is so far beyond the competition it is embarrassing.

Nintendo have a lot to prove to me and address ..... and so far from what I have read and seen, they look unlikely to address any of my concerns ....

 

[gkarris]

I will watch the keynote but with trepidation ....

I have concerns over the switch's power and the repercussions such a difference between competing devices has on third party support and more-over multi-platform development.

I have concerns over the switch's decision to be both mobile and home based system with repercussions that decision has on performance and titles having to be developed with an already outdated GPU that drops performance levels dramatically in mobile mode.

...

Gotta remember that in mobile mode, game performance has to just get to 720p/medium. The GPU can easily handle this...

I really don't believe people (especially this one guy where I used to work) who can "tell the difference" when watching anything less than 4K video with Dolby 7.1 on their 6" Samsung phones...

Yeah, right...

It's about Pixel Density and view-ability with the human retina.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Personally i am in for a home console, and the portable part is just a nice addition. So if it is only on par with Wii U, then I will skip it unless the games are amazing or the VC will spill over with older games.

Otherwise i will likely just pick up a used Wii U in a couple of years.

 

[MRU]

So many Wii U ports ? Surely most Nintendo fans are in the minority that bought the Wii U ....

With the newly announced port of Lego City Undercover

To,

Breath of the wild (Whilst new is essentially a Wii u port)

Added to the other Wii u ports ..

Mario Kart 8
Smash Bros
Splatoon. Etc...


And not forgetting ...

Skyrim not a Wii u port but a port nether-the-less.


Oh and then Just Dance 2017, a port of an already existing game ...

So outside possibility of the Mario title we got a sneak at in the trailer ages ago, will there be any new Switch exclusives unveiled later ?


If Nintendo can address my concerns posted earlier, I want games for this machine. I want NEW games for this machine. I do not want to have so little choice but to re-buy games I already own because there is nothing on the radar ....

 

[MRU]

So not ALL are wii u ports but sequels .. good

A punch out for 2017 in arms but with more 'motion controls' ... which to be frank feel so 2007 ....

MARIO looks fab as always but ...

massive gaps and vague release dates - let's be real, Mario will be 2018 ..

Third party support - we don't have games to show so we will show developers taking vaguely about them in the most vague way ????


Honestly, most my concerns are not addressed ...

 

[JohnGrey]

$299, not $249, for precisely what I thought it was and a hardware gimmick that lets you feel how many ice cubes are in a bloody virtual glass. Mario Minish Cap, Zelda anime, a game that isn't a video game, and Inspector Gadget boxing. I feel totally justified in my opinion.

 

[blesscheese]

Woo-hoo! Only $299 (I was afraid it might be $350) and BoTW a release game!

Looks like I'll be buying Skyrim again!

 

[Sensamic]

Didn't saw the whole presentation.

Mario and Zelda don't have release dates? I thought they were going to be available on day one.

 

[JohnGrey]

Didn't saw the whole presentation.

Mario and Zelda don't have release dates? I thought they were going to be available on day one.

Only two games available on 3 March are BotW and 1, 2 Switch. Have fun, fellas!

EDIT: Just Dance 2017 and Bomberman now showing for launch.

 

[MRU]

$299, not $249, for precisely what I thought it was and a hardware gimmick that lets you feel how many ice cubes are in a bloody virtual glass. Mario Minish Cap, Zelda anime, a game that isn't a video game, and Inspector Gadget boxing. I feel totally justified in my opinion.

Which sadly will be €349 and possibly €369 here no doubt with taxes.

With only Breath of the Wild at launch (and we don't have confirmation yet that this includes European launch) I see no reason to splash out €420+ on a switch for BOTW, I'll just pay the €50-60 for the Wii U version ....

Maybe when in mid 2018 (Sorry 25 + years of Nintendo gaming mean I do not believe the Holidays 2017 release for a second.) Super Mario Odyssey launches I may pick one up then ... Maybe ...

And still no sign of other Nintendo franchises we have been crying out for, for years ....

 

[JohnGrey]

Yeah...

 

[MRU]

Didn't saw the whole presentation.

Mario and Zelda don't have release dates? I thought they were going to be available on day one.

Mario tentative release of Holiday 2017, you know like how Zelda (before we knew it as BOTW) had a tentative 2015 release date

 

[MRU]

Holy cow .. GameStop.ie pre-order price €499 !!!

They are taking the pee right ?

 

[JohnGrey]

The definition of hardware fetishism: devoting half of a product reveal to a controller.

 

[Taustin Powers]

Accessory pricing is outrageous.

And a new console launching in 2017 with one of the launch titles being a port of a PS3 game? (Is Skyrim even a launch title?)

According to Nintendo of America, a Switch-compatible Pro Controller will cost you $70.

A pair of the Switch’s unique JoyCon controllers goes for $80, but you can also buy just a left or right JoyCon for $50.

For $30 you can join your JoyCons together with the Charging Grip, which also charges them up – surprise surprise – without having to be tethered to the console, which would interrupt play when the battery goes flat.

If you intend to use your Switch with a TV in more than one location, you might want to buy an extra Switch Charging Dock kit, which goes for $90. You get one of these in the Switch box.

Finally, for $15 you can be the proud owner of a pair of Joy-Con Wheel add-ons, presumably in case Project Cars 2 comes to Switch or something, and you need a realistic, simulation experience. Just kidding, it’s obviously for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, falling over in the broom closet and eternal consumer regret.

There you have it. Since Switch supports up to eight players and comes with a pair of JoyCon, the cheapest way to fill our a party game roster would be to pick up three more pairs of JoyCons at $50 each for a total of $240, which is getting relatively close to the cost of the whole console.

http://www.vg247.com/2017/01/13/nin...t-you-70-joycon-and-other-peripherals-priced/