Mr Puggsly said:
Some certainly sell better on Switch but its not an equal library, the X1 audience has more major titles to choose from. For example the average X1 may not enjoy the same type of games as the average Switch users and more importantly the Switch isn't getting the same major releases. For example, Crash and Dark Souls did better on Switch but how did RDR2, CoD, BFV, AC:Odyssey and Soul Calibur VI do on Switch?
Probably about as good as Octopath Traveller and Mario Plus Rabbids sell on the PS4 and X1. All platforms have games that you will miss out on, but yes the Switch will get less 3rd party games. We know this, but it still gets healthy support, especially from Japan. There are more than enough quality 3rd party titles in conjunction with 1st party titles to keep gamers busy of Switch is their primary. You're correct about saying forum doesn't reflect the general public. But I do know the PS4/X1/PC will move many of the same games we don't see on Switch. So I could argue Switch is less reflective of the general public.
Well they have been on the market for 5 years, so I would certainly hope those games would still sell with the current install base. I'm not arguing Switch couldn't be viable as an only console. But I highly doubt people who just use a Switch are avid gamers or just enjoy few IPs. I bet people were content with the Wii as their single platform for a period, but I suspect many of them eventually upgraded to 360 and PS3. Which would explain why games like Call of Duty declined on Wii while growing on other platforms.
I would have a hard time making this argument for the Wii. The game changer from my perspective is the portability. |
Munn75 said:
Well PC will always be the best, as laptops can offer portability as well. However prices are much higher than that of a console, though not as bad as in the past. Any advantage a console has over PC is consistent with all three really as price for a sizable upgrade from current gen would be the main deterrent. The X1 and PS4 have a 3rd party advantage and a performance advantage, but that is about it. They have more apps, but most TVs being sold these days are smart TVs, rendering them usless. Those that have not upgraded would be able to take advantage of it though, so again it is subjective to the situation. Compared to the 1st party games of Nintendo and the portability of the console, I would say it close to evens out when it comes to those who value the time gained from being able to play on the go.
That is the trade off for portability. If you have the time to spend it tied to a TV and value those things, by all means an X1 or PS4 is the better primary. But to those that will not even have time to play many games without the portability, 720p at 30 fps is perfectly fine. Again, it depends on your needs.
Agree with everything you say here.
Or platformers, local multiplayer, and metroidvanias.
If those are the only games you want to play and you have the time to play them, then the Switch would be a bad choice. However those that would value what the Switch has to offer instead should not have to deal with bias trolls acting like "they are not real gamers". Not everyone even buys every big AAA title that comes out. They normally just get one or two and move on, or sales on PS4 would be 50mil minimum, and many that buy them also do not complete them. That is a topic for another discussion though. Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with only playing those games nor primarily playing games that come to Switch. |
0D0 said:
I couldn't agree more. The average gamer just can't find games on Nintendo since the last years of Wii at least. So many genres, so many basic 3rd party games that Nintendo lacks, plus the prices and the technology. You can get a full entertainment machine from PS4/Xb1 and dozens of great games in a reasonable price, while many average gamers out there would only get Zelda on Switch. For most gamers out there, 2d platforms, indies, FE, Animal Crossing, Pokemon, octopath, don't mean anything.
Sales data says otherwise. You are embarrassing yourself. I guess that's why many say "Nintendo doesn't have games". It's not as if it really doesn't, but it just lacks too much of the games that the average gamer looking for a console expects from a modern current generation console.
I thought that the question of this thread was exactly that: is Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution? I agree, not equally so. All the third party games and franchises that one can think of you can find on both current generation consoles. Not on Switch, plus all other benefits that current gen consoles offer and switch doesn't.
To those that need the extra playtime to actually beat nost of the games they have to choose from, the bigger library is irrelevant as long as they still have other games they would like to play. You are ignoring the point entirely. Also those other advantages you speak of in my house are irrelevant, as pretty much all new TVs these days are smart TVs and offer the same thing natively. Current gen consoles (ps4,x1) are like your regular grocery store. They're Walmart of sorts. Switch is just that vegan, organic shop with a few of the items you can find on Walmart, but with its own quality stuff for its own public. Others can go there to buy posh 95% cacau chocolate once in a while, but when they need to feed, they go to Walmart.
Again, sales data says otherwise. Just as many people prefer Nintendo games than those who prefer Sony or MS. You are spouting nonsense on a site that has the sales data right in front of you. |