| nuckles87 said: I would certainly like to see a Switch-compatible dedicated handheld platform, preferably one with dual screens and 3DS/DS backwards compatibility. The Switch is already built on mobile technology. There’s no reason they couldn’t fit that technology into a more pocket-friendly form factor, and make it the latest in their DS line along with that. A cheaper, portable-only Switch would also fill in the more budget-minded gamer niche currently occupied by 3DS systems rather nicely. I think the mobile market, including the portable gaming market, has certainly proved that there is a demand for different screen sizes and form factors. This way, Nintendo continues their successful DS line, without needing to significantly split their software support between two platforms, since the majority of titles could be cross-compatible. |
DS concept and screen would mean games made specifically for that concept and screen and that means those games couldn't run on other versions of Switch hardware, so DS concept and screen dont make any sense for some Switch revision. DS line is dead after 3DS, people need to accept that.
| HintHRO said: If Switch is supposed to cover both the handheld and console market then where are all the games? First and second party Nintendo developers could've have worked on Switch exclusives for perhaps 3 years now and still the Switch is suffering from a serious lack of original high quality games. What have they been doing all these years? If this is the best they can offer with one console with last generation hardware, I'd rather have both a handheld and a console like 3DS/Wii U and DS/Wii and Gameboy/Gamecube |
Switch killed with 1st year lineup and quality of games, second year is not hot but its OK if you didnt had Wii U, and third year (2019.) even now look it will be great even if we only count currently confirmed games. So you would again have 3DS/WiiU situation where you didnt have all IPs on one platfrom and when we had huge drought of games and generally less support for each separate platform, than having all IPs on one single platform without any drought and platform that generally has much better support!?
HintHRO said:
Five Nintendo exclusives in a whole year (of which most are mediocre) and a few lazy ports and a horrible online service. That's not what I call an impressive output for a company as big as Nintendo with dozens of internal and 2nd party studios that had the opportunity to make great games for Switch since way back before Switch was even announced. Nintendo made more games when it was supporting two systems at the same time. So why would you want one system with less original games than even Wii U? |
Kirby, Labo, Mario Tennis, Sushi Striker, Octopath Traveler, Xenoblade 2:Torna, Mario Party, Pokémon Let's Go and Smash Ultimate is much more than 5 exclusive games, add to that ports/remaster like Bayonetta 1+2, DKC Tropical Freeze, Hyrule Warriors, Captain Toad, The World Ends with You and you have definitely not best but solid year especially if you didn't had Wii U. Dont act like 2017. didnt exist, like 2019. also dont exist (2019. even now look it will be great even if we only count currently confirmed games), or that every person in world had Wii U when fact is there is only 13.5m sold Wii U consoles number that Switch passed at end of last year.
| benji232 said: Yes. Nintendo's output so far on switch in 2018 is a testament to why they need a budget handheld device. Their game releases has been laughable in 2018. I am a huge Nintendo fan and I purchased 1 first party switch game in 2018 (LOL, I don't even think that ever happened even for wiiU) and it's Mario tennis which is a third tier franchise (LOL again). They're trying to camouflage their poor output of games with a bunch of full-priced ports which is inexcusable and are essentially punishing people who supported them through and through in the wiiU days. So why does all of this matters? Because a budget handheld would allow them to release games on a more frequent basis due to the need for smaller teams and cheaper budgets. This would allow Nintendo fans like myself to not have to wait 4-6months (or more, we haven't had a AAA Nintendo release since October 2017 which is ridiculous) between each major Nintendo first party releases. In the wiiU and 3ds days, it was almost always the case of when there was nothing to play on wiiU, something would release on 3DS and vice-versa which in the end means more money for Nintendo. Not to mention, a budget handheld device would almost certainly sell very well for them. /end of rant |
Yeah, this rant all right. :D
benji232 said:
Omg this exactly. Everyone was defending Nintendo for unifying both of their businesses by saying that we would get more games then before. But we are actually getting the same amount of content as the wiiU was getting or EVEN LESS which is absolutely insane. And no, I don't count full priced ports as "first party releases". Especially when they aren't even trying with those ports. I mean come on, you can't even try to add an extra world of 2 in donkey kong tropical freeze to entice us who already bought the game. Or how about an extra world in NSMBU deluxe. I can't believe people are defending these ports when Nintendo is basically putting bare minimum effort. Now I understand the old saying "Desperate Nintendo is best Nintendo". |
Saying that Switch is getting some amount of content like Wii U was getting for same time period even less is a pure nonsense.
But fact is that ports are first party releases. I realise that this year is not existing for ex Wii U owners, but people need to realise that Switch at end of last year already passed LT Wii U install base. Saying that, Switch already has plenty of new games confirmed for next year.
When you already have good/great game you cant need do much when you porting it, higher resolution is good enugh espacily when those game are not aimed to ex Wii U owners on first place.
| nemo37 said: If Nintendo and Nvidia come to an agreement that results in a die shrink for the Tegra X1 then I would love to see a pocketble version of the Switch (which will run the same software as Switch, just in a smaller form factor). Outside of that I would much rather they just focus on the Switch platform as opposed to split their development efforts again. |
Or they can just use Tegra X2.
| omarct said: Yes, I think the switch it too big and clunky for a handheld, not to mention the short battery life. They definitely need a handheld only system compatible with switch games but also having smaller games made specifically for it. I specially feel this way for younger gamers 6-12 year olds who are likely to drop the switch, lose accessories, all day playing on and off without having to charge it, simpler more kid friendly games etc... |
Why would make smaller games specifically for it when point is to play all games on every Switch device, not to mentioned they would cut sales of those games big time in that way.
zorg1000 said:
Here is the current Nintendo hardware lineup NES Classic-$69.99 SNES Classic-$79.99 2DS-$79.99 New 2DS XL-$149.99 New 3DS XL-$199.99 Switch-$299.99 I could see something like this a few years from now GB Classic-$69.99 GBA Classic-$79.99 N64 Classic-$99.99 Switch TV-$169.99 Switch Mini-$199.99 Switch Pro-$299.99 I think Nintendo wants to keep a wide variety of price points and hardware lines without necessarily having to split up resources like they have in the past. |
You missing regular Switch in current form, you have huge gap in price point between Mini and Pro. IMO something like this:
-Switch TV-$150-200
-Switch Mini/Pocket-$150-200
-Switch revision in current form - around $250
-Switch Pro-$300
But that really depends about what year we talking, how much prices will go down until than.
Last edited by Miyamotoo - on 02 October 2018
