I doubt Xenoblade 2 will actually release in 2017 given how many delays Xenoblade chronicles went through ...
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
So, the Switch mobile app is actually required to play multiplayer? If true, I am beside myself with incredulity.
Wikipedia has a fairly up to date list of games comming for the Switch. Currently at 86 games and rising. Of course, given the Wii U history, not all of them will likely make it. 
Really? Got a source on that? If true, that would mean Nintendo is still completely clueless as to what the Internet is... D:
Don't have the link on hand, but it's the RFA interview with GameSpot. All of your lobby creation, matchmaking and voice chat can only be handled by mobile app on a smartphone. So, on top of having no browser and no streaming services, you have to have a smartphone for online multiplayer. I only wish I was making this up.
It's not for 'general' drop in drop out online play, it's for online chat and setup that the mobile app is required. Given the state the Nintendo ID unified accounts and subscription service are launching in (or not as Europe will find out) it still comes as a baffling decision to essentially require users to use another mobile device to utilise online fully.
I'm sure Nintendo PR will spin the decision as some form of protectionism for the kiddies ..
If this was Sony or Microsoft the move would send the interweb into nuclear meltdown. As it's Nintendo, the reaction wipe be a flash in the pan. Which is indicative of two things, 1) how much Nintendo fans will overlook the glaringly obvious flaws and 2) how sadly irrelevant Nintendo has actually become in the home console space ...
Last edited:
Was thinking what would make a great switch game would be Dragons Quest Builders ... It's not too taxing graphically, but looks great nether the less and would be great on Switch if they ported ... Given it has been pretty much ignored on PS4 it could make a great Switch title ....
Good news ... Switch will have Mii's but they are optional.
Bad news ... Switch will not launch with any video streaming services support such as Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video.
Nintendo statement reads they are focussed on making the Switch the best 'videogame platform' and that's why it won't support streaming services.
Shame that effort at making the best videogame platform includes not having their online account system ready to go at launch or even in 2017 for Europe, or a having a plethora of video game titles ready ....
Bad news ... Switch will not launch with any video streaming services support such as Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video.
Nintendo statement reads they are focussed on making the Switch the best 'videogame platform' and that's why it won't support streaming services.
Shame that effort at making the best videogame platform includes not having their online account system ready to go at launch or even in 2017 for Europe, or a having a plethora of video game titles ready ....
Last edited:
And what if you are using it as a handheld and wanted to watch in bed or externally on wifi ... ??
These are basic things nowadays and not including them on a system designed for TV and Handheld experience just shows how 'underbaked' the Switch is at launch.
This is the hypocrisy of the device integration crowd. They crow that the Switch will be a huge success because it provides multiple experiences in one piece of hardware, then dismisses experiences that are considered boilerplate for modern consoles as unimportant because they represent a loss to the Switch's value proposition. Make of your bloody minds.
So, what's the tab up to now? $300 for the Switch, $60 for a game, $70 pro controller, the mobile phone of your choice if you don't own one and want structured multiplayer, and the cost of a tablet if you want to stream off TV. Such value!
Last edited:
The language I quoted is generally dismissive of the Switch's negatives, with respect to lost or delegated functionality that would, for most any other console, being met with outright derision. That said, I was not referring to you specifically, despite quoting you; I can't recall, to my knowledge, ever seeing you comment on the Switch in this thread, at least since the reveal. The point was more that I had seen similar language from those that I have encountered from individuals that are decidedly pro-Switch, and I found it to be hypocritical given that hardware consolidation (home console + handheld => hybrid) despite the Switch not being particularly good at either is accounted a plus while the lost of streaming and other web services is ignored. It was convenient to launch my evaluation of that point quoting your language rather than repeating what was just said. That's why the first part of my message deliberately uses 'they' rather than 'you' If it applies to you, then I mean what was said; if it does not, then I certainly apologise for seeming to lump you in with them even though that was not my intention.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I miss the simplicity of the early console where I insert a cartridge and turn it on and the game is up and running. With the advent of the internet, game publishers can release buggy and incomplete games, often requiring multi gigabytes first day patch. Just did a quick count in my head. I have between 25-30 devices (computers, phones, tablets, game consoles, smart tvs, etc) that can play Netflix/YouTube/Amazon. The best is currently right on my lap, my iPad ProGood news ... Switch will have Mii's but they are optional.
Bad news ... Switch will not launch with any video streaming services support such as Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Video.
Nintendo statement reads they are focussed on making the Switch the best 'videogame platform' and that's why it won't support streaming services.
Shame that effort at making the best videogame platform includes not having their online account system ready to go at launch or even in 2017 for Europe, or a having a plethora of video game titles ready ....
I don't need it on my Switch
Yeah all games seem to mandate a patch day 1 these days, and heck even console hardware. As you say some are soooo broken or released with features missing on disc that require the patch to reinstate, that you wonder how they ever went to QA ...
Its more frustrating when that game you bought on disc to save the toil of downloading massive gigs of data, turns out to require a patch of similar full install size ....
The benefits of patches are clear, but I do miss the simplicity of buy a game in day 1 and for most part it works rather than a day 1 patch being a part of its release plan ...
Its more frustrating when that game you bought on disc to save the toil of downloading massive gigs of data, turns out to require a patch of similar full install size ....
The benefits of patches are clear, but I do miss the simplicity of buy a game in day 1 and for most part it works rather than a day 1 patch being a part of its release plan ...
Personally all I want from a console is simplicity, fun and games that aren't plagued by RMT and other useless stuff.
For me the Switch seems like my next console as I don't need many games...give me Zelda, Mario Kart und a Mario Plattformer and I'll have more than a enough fun for months.
Plug catridge in - play...what a novel concept these days.
For me the Switch seems like my next console as I don't need many games...give me Zelda, Mario Kart und a Mario Plattformer and I'll have more than a enough fun for months.
Plug catridge in - play...what a novel concept these days.
You're definitely not alone in that and in fact, but the simplicity of earlier generations meant that bug testing was a far less costly process than it is presently. I had held out some hope, however misplaced, that part of Nintendo's use of carts on the Switch when involve a selectively-writable encryption scheme that would allow the console to write updates and DLC directly to the cart, so as to preserve that information for a time when they are no longer available for download. Sadly, I don't believe that to be the case.
I have between 25-30 devices (computers, phones, tablets, game consoles, smart tvs, etc) that can play Netflix/YouTube/Amazon. The best is currently right on my lap, my iPad Pro
I don't think the issue is necessarily that people want or expect it on the go, so much as the Switch is being positioned, at least by Nintendo, as a home console first. Home consoles have, should have and are expected to have, streaming services. In my debate with the8thark, I mentioned that every product category, at any given time, has a notional standard that represents the basic value proposition attributes that should be present for a given product to be marketable. Part of the pessimism that I have for the Switch is that, in trying to consolidate two product categories, it must meet a sufficient number of value prop attributes from each product category, that those attributes may be contradictory and that it is impossible to be known beforehand which attributes from each must be weaved into the consolidated standard and which can be discarded safely. Consequently, the problem with it not having digital multimedia services on the Switch, at launch, if not outright, is that it represents a contradiction of notional language: one the one hand, the Switch is trying to tell a prospective customer that it can have best of both home console and handheld experiences, but in reality it will provide only the most rudimentary experience of either. Both home console competitors are able to play optical disc media, allow for the purchase of digital media and streaming from digital media services. These have become basic services for home consoles and, by not appearing on the Switch, it represents a value prop loss. Are these services available on other devices? Certainly, but then that's also a contradiction of the Switch's notional language. It's marketed as hardware integration product (instead of separate home console and handheld hardware, the Switch represents both), yet it's telling you to rely on another device to do something that both of its competitors do and have always done. It's a huge loss in and of itself? No, probably not, but you only have to read through the thread to see that this isn't the only value prop loss masquerading as a half-baked feature. Death of 1,000 cuts.
My concern is not even so much the initial launch but what will come afterward. The utter piecemeal and obfuscatory way in which Nintendo is releasing info about the Switch, especially its 'unique features' like no streaming services, limited battery life, requirement of a mobile app for structure multiplayer and voice chat, is troubling in its connotations. It was utterly mum on all of these issues when it launched Western preorders and it's only now, as Japan's preorders are commencing, that it's being the bearer of bad news and only as off-hand remarks in interviews. My concern is that more than a few buyers and prospective buyers will consider these limitations, and the manner in which they were divulged, unacceptable and that it will hurt sales. Remember gamer reaction to No Man's Sky when they paid full price for a half-baked experience; it's since become one of the most reviled games of all time. Nintendo does not need any further ill will.
Very very true. The value add proposition is very important for marketing it as a two-in-one device. I do remember the much touted TV functionality of the Wii U which was quite unique, but didn't add enough to overcome the major weaknesses on the Wii U, although the service was never live before Nintendo abandoned it.
Most two-in-one's are full of compromises. As most agree the Switch is a kickass portable, and pretty weak as a home console. Perhaps if Nintendo marketed as a portable first and sell a version without the dock for $199 then it may be better received.. That would also mean killing sales on the 3DS though, but isn't that Nintendo's ultimate goal, to sell just one device and have a single development team?
Nintendo is definitely in a tricky position with the Switch, more so than the Wii U. I've said it when the Wii U first launched, and it definitely applies again. Do away with the gimmicks and just make a plain old box with comparable horsepower and price it at $199. If they want it to make use of smart devices to do some of the dirty work, do remote play like the other two boxes can, maybe then they would've had a good justification to make you use your smartphone for some of its functionality.
If only Nintendo had made a home console for $199 which kept up with Xbox One power wise at least and included a single pro-controller only, released with Zelda and all other Nintendo games running at 1080p/60 or 1080p/30 with AA, and had enough comparable grunt power to attract multiplatform developers so the library of games would grow quickly so there was a ready supply of great games during those sustained drought periods of Nintendo's own launch schedule. It would have been amazing.
Ok so no gimmicks, but no compromise. It may seem vanilla - but there is a reason vanilla is the most popular flavour of ice cream.
There is a reason Sony has sold nearly 60 million PS4's despite launching a year later than Nintendo Wii U.
Innovation is wonderful but the last 10 years of Nintendo innovation hasn't led to any meaningful gaming experiences ... If anything the reliance on hardware that's different for the sake of difference has led to a rapid decline of interest and less and less support from third party developers and far more compromises the end user has to endure with the systems. When their focus seems to be less on the gaming experience and more on the peripherallia required or forced on the user to game it most often only serves to detract from the experience.
Last edited:
Oh yes would've been amazing. Given that Nintendo, like Apple, typically can do more with less with their hardware, XB1 specs would definitely have been amazing on a Nintendo console. $199 with XB1 specs is not impossible at this point given that XB1S and PS4 slim could be had for around $200 during the holiday with a bundled game. But of course the argument would then be the total lack of innovation from Nintendo. Can't win lol.
Two-in-ones are based on compromise, absolutely, which is why the most well-known two-in-one, the hybrid personal computer, still hasn't hit its stride. Recall the failure of the first Surface generation; it takes numerous generations, and the subsequent value prop conversation with consumers, to iron out that value prop attribute set that must appear for it to be commercially viable. The problem, and the very one that makes the Switch so ill-advised, is that Nintendo does not have the time for that conversation to play out.
And it's more than evident to me that Nintendo has very little faith in the Switch as a value proposition, and the evidence for that is clear in the imaging narrative being pushed, especially by RFA: 'the Switch is a home console first'. The reasoning is quite simple, from an economic perspective. Nintendo's only proven platform of success in the past half-decade is the 3DS, which is a build off of the previous DS generation. The Wii U, an unmitigated failure, was quite unceremoniously killed off, but until Nintendo can establish the hybrid as a viable product category in the minds of their target audience, they have at least keep the semblance of their traditional categories. First, they don't want to kill the golden goose (the 3DS). Second, they don't want their home console offering to lose relevance. By that, they don't want people to think, by default, that they are no longer in the market; the same thing happened to BlackBerry during their decline. Whenever someone would see my work-issued BB, they would invariably say 'Wow, a BlackBerry! I didn't even know they made those any more!' Because of these factors, they try to market the Switch as a home console with portable elements to achieve those ends.
The desire to consolidate product categories is not an organic one for Nintendo, why would it be? Why would any hardware manufacturer, especially one that is famous for never taking a loss on hardware, want to sell only one device when the sale of two is a reasonable possibility? The reason that Nintendo is charting its present course is that it understands the numbers as well, and probably better than I do because they have access to data that I don't. They understand that their domestic audience is defecting to alternative mobile devices at an alarming rate while home consoles are cratering; they also know that the handheld market as a whole has decline dramatically. Keep in mind that the DS generation sold 154m units, while the 3DS sold only 61.6m, an install base loss of 60% (not the 87% loss that the Wii U had but still shockingly bad especially with no real dedicated competitor). They know that the brand equity that they built during the NES through N64 era has been spent, and that the most hype they've had in the past ten years is for an cheap emulator.
I'm not bullish on the Switch, obviously, but not just for the hardware itself, rather for what the hardware represents in terms of the state of the company overall. I hope I'm wrong, truly. I've been right there, with Nintendo, since Christmas of 1987 and they're likely the largest part of gaming history. I want them to be successful, but with the way they're operating, it's probably ultimately for the best that they aren't. Perhaps one day, Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild will show up on Steam. We'll see.
I think the Switch should have come bundled with 1-2 Switch, kind of like the Wii was bundled with Wii Sports. That game is not worth almost as much as a Zelda game.
Something that worries me is whether it is using the Nvidia chip from 2015 or the one from 2016. Huge difference considering how much more powerful and power-efficient the newer one is. It would suck buying obsolete technology right off the bat.
Also, I think $249 would have been a better target, $299 is too close to the competition.
Finally, the voice-chat through a smartphone app does not excite me at all. Why couldn't they just do the same as the PS4 and Xbox One?
Something that worries me is whether it is using the Nvidia chip from 2015 or the one from 2016. Huge difference considering how much more powerful and power-efficient the newer one is. It would suck buying obsolete technology right off the bat.
Also, I think $249 would have been a better target, $299 is too close to the competition.
Finally, the voice-chat through a smartphone app does not excite me at all. Why couldn't they just do the same as the PS4 and Xbox One?
2015...
Remember Nintendo are under-clocking the machines CPU heavily to 1ghz whereas Nvidia Shield maxes at 2ghz .... They are also under-clocking the GPU in both docked and un-docked state compared to the standard Shield TV too.
Heat shouldn't be an issue with such underclocking in place ...