GhaudePhaede010 said:
Nuvendil said:
I suppose I can make my argument here for why I consider this to fall more into the console space with only some bleed over into the handheld space. Something of an 80% home console and 20% handheld.
1) First off, size. The Switch unit is a bit large for a handheld traditionally. The biggest and most distinct feature of a handheld obviously is the high convenience of portability due to being able to slip right into a pocket or a pouch in a handbag, satchel, or purse. The Switch really can't in most cases. There are extremes: the Game Gear was oversized (also failed btw) and some people could fit the Switch into those things. But for most, the Switch unit is large. And that's before you factor in the Joy-Cons, which are mandatory to use it at all. Not only do those make it even larger, they also have full analogue sticks that would give you a real issue trying to pocket this or put it in a standard satchel. This is something you will need a more substantial case or to just carry. Cause it is mostly meant to be portable for short contextual periods or taken to a specific place and setup (airline tray, party table, etc). Not be available at a moments notice at any time anywhere like handheld.
2) Second, it is (apparently) actively cooled. This also ties into number one cause this seriously changes the convenience of portability. It means this thing will run at a higher temperature that will make pocketing it unwise for comfort's sake if nothing else, not to mention you would want it to cool and breath. Again, need a carrying case. Also, the vents and empty(ish) space around the fan area to facilitate cooling compromises the structure. It will still be plenty strong, but you would definitely not want to subject it to the pressures of a pocket or overly full purse/satchel. Unlike a handheld which is traditionally pretty dang dense and thus, again, convenient to pocket since it can take those stresses exceptionally well.
3) Third, handhelds have physical inputs integrated into the device and are not reliant on any peripherals. It's simple: handhelds have controls built in, consoles rely on controllers. The Switch unit is not capable of any use as a system to our knowledge without a controller, either a Joy-Con or the Pro. This runs directly contrary to handhelds which are built to have literally everything needed to game integrated into a single piece of hardware with no need for aditional physical addons. Consoles need controllers, handhelds do not. And the Switch needs controllers.
4) Fourth, a major distinguishing feature of home consoles is integrated same-system local multiplayer capability. In short, since handhelds have physical inputs entirely puilt into the device, they cannot support true same-system local multiplayer. That is, any multiplayer that require simultaneous inputs. This is the whole reason why golf games found a big audience on handhelds for quite a while, it's one of only a few ways to have any true local multiplayer because of this inherent design limitation of handhelds. The Switch, obviously, relies on controllers. And so we see already, it has support for true same-system local multiplayer. That is, splitscreen. That's a major distinguishing feature of consoles vs handhelds.
For those reasons, I regard this as primarily a home console with mild overlap of handhelds. People look at this and say "oh it's a handheld that has evolved to somewhat overlap with consoles" when in reality, it is the evolution of this:
That is, it is aiming to be - from launch - a home console that is easily and conveniently portable with the option to play on the go. And I would say *that* is the word Nintendo is really latching on to: convenience. It's literally in every aspect of the design. The Joy-Cons allowing for local multiplayer with no new controllers, the use of cartridges to allow playing off the physical media for modern games to avoid dealing with installs and get back to plug and play, the size allowing for portability, the battery and integrated screen allowing for playing if there is no TV. All centered on the original console selling point of convenience. Will it bridge handheld and consoles for them? Probably, once they can get a smaller and cheaper version out, it's a bit big and pricey now. But from a design philosophy perspective, I see a lot of home console design elements here that run contrary to handheld design philosophy. Basically, just cause you can pick up the core unit and it has a screen doesn't mean it is a handheld, there's more to it than that.
Edit: Oh, and using mobile tech has nothing to do with a console being handheld or not. Some mobile tech is used in the Xbone and PS4 as well. Where the tech comes from doesn't matter, it is the design that matters.
|
I like this post a lot. I agree with none of it, however. I will start with your last point first which is about mobile technology. Aside from the fact that Playstation 4 and Xbox One use technology closer to PC's and about as far from mobile technology as they can afford, there is the fact that the use of mobile technology in this console leads to a culture and pattern of philosophical practices. On its own, you can make that argument, but when combined with numerous other facts about the console, it becomes a very strong talking point.
Now, I will go back to the top and work my way down. Again, this is a great post as you did your homework and you showed you really believe in your words. I am not here to say you are incorrect, just express why I, and people like me disagree.
1) You killed yourself with the size point when you mentioned other hand helds not being size friendly (even though the culture has evolved since then). Because companies are pushing the boundaries of size of a hand held, that does not mean it is somehow less of a hand held. Obviously, they are showing that you can take this thing publicly and hedging a great deal on that as a selling point so to say it leans MORE towards console based on this point (even when combined) is silly.
2) I do not understand this point at all and I am not going to pretend like I do. This may not be a mistake on your part, but no matter how many times I read it, I do not understand it. If your argument is that as a hand held, this console is not convenient, that argument does not work because convenience phones are not always convenient and neither are tablets, but that does not make them any less phones or tablets.
3) Now, you are citing traditional hand helds and this is why I both like your argument and disagree with it. My daughter has an ipad and an iphone, your philosophical thinking would tell my daughter that those devices are not tablets and phones, but home consoles. No, no no. There is no simple way to explain this to you except to say, you are incorrect here. I do like the argument, however, this is outright incorrect and when put to scrutiny, you will see it as such.
4) This point would be excellent if and only if that multiplayer was an added benefit of connecting the console to the television. However, because it is tied to the hand held unit just as much, you can get a 50/50 split at best on this point which does not lend well to the 80/20 split you are looking to prove. If the hand held unit can do all the things the home console unit can do (allegedly), then at best you can argue hybrid... at best.
Your last picture... isn't that a console that is 80/20 home console to hand held? Like, you literally slayed yourself posting that. You just showed us all what a portable console (in theory) would look like. This is about as far from what Nintendo is doing as possible.
Again, this is a well developed argument. I like what you contributed.
|
I will go down the list here. But first, let me kick it off with the mobile tech, the PS4 and Xbone both use mobile CPU tech, it's a documented fact. That's all I was saying. And given the Switch is apparently actively cooled, that's not mobile tech designed around mobile tech philosophy which is almost universally passively cooled for maximum space saving. But moving on.
1) First off, my points were listed weakest to strongest. The point on size is not a line in the sand, it is a general principle of handheld design philosophy: they are usually pocketable. That the Switch is inherenty not, it begins to move away from conventional handheld design from the off. It's not a definite no, but it's an unusual deviation. Especially when you factor in those full analogue sticks.
2) Second, basically the Switch looks to have a fan and vents that cool the internal components while Handhelds have passive cooling that involves no fans. This passive cooling restrict the ammount of power that can go into the various components and the clock speed of processors (too much juice would make them over heat), handheld disadvantages the Switch does not have. But the vents and such means there's empty space in the Switch for the air to vent. It's not a deal breaker, but that's definitely not something you would put in a handheld or even a tablet or smartphone. It makes it thick and also compromises the structure since it isn't large enough to be reinforced like a laptop. This will by no means make it brittle, just not as strong as a smartphone, tablet, or handheld. Basically, if you were playing Breath of the Wild and turned off the Swith and then immediately pocketed it like you would a 3DS, 1) what size pants do you wear because those are some big pockets, 2) the system could be damaged by the stresses of being in your pocket while going through daily life (a major design fail for a handheld or any traditional mobile device), and 3) it would be very uncomfortable because it would continue to vent excess hot air and feel like you took a bag of hot sand and stuck it in your pocket (and would also not be ideal for the system, it should ideally be allowed to breath and vent that heat). Basically, active cooling is just not a part of conventional handheld or mobile design, for the obvious reason it compromises that mobile aspect.
3) No, that's not the case. Tablets are not handhelds or home consoles because they have their own distinctions not tied at all to the need or lack of a need for aditional input devices. A tablet is a handheld computer that has a touch screen as its primary (and usually only) integrated input method that incorporates all the core functions of a personal computer while designing those functions to work with the touch screen. A smartphone is any phone that integrates the features of a handheld computer into a phone. Meanwhile, a handheld is a handheld dedicated gaming device that has all needed gaming inputs integrated into the hardware itself. Home consoles are dedicated gaming devices in which the main unit and the physical inputs are separate with the main unit usually stationary and traditionally (though not necessarily, I'll get to that) require a TV or other monitor to function. Tablets are *not* a dedicated gaming devices to begin with and have their own distinct characteristics that mark them as their own thing. Just because they can simulate handheld and console functions doesn't mean they are either one, just as plugging your desktop tower into your TV and pulling out a controller doesn't make a PC a home console.
4) It doesn't matter the number of splits (again, I'll get to that in just a second), that it can do a split is something that is completely outside the realm of handheld design because handhelds by definition have their inputs integrated into the system itself, not as peripherals, and thus limit 1) the number of inputs and 2) the direction the screen can face and distance it can be used, making splitscreen of any kind essentially impossible. Home consoles, do not. And again, TV is not really needed, I will get to that...right about now.
So, about those two caveats about TV and number of splits. Well that brings us back to this:
The PS One Screen Combo, a real early attempt at what I consider the Switch to be: a home console that is easily and conveniently portable. First, as you can see, this has a maximum of 2 player split screen. So if your arbitrary number of split screens metric is to be used, then this is moving quite towards that 50/50 split. Of course, worth pointing out that the number of possible players has fluctuated up and down, the SNES could only support 2. So it's an entirely arbitrary jab that the Switch can't do x number. Second of all, the TV aspect. This does not need a TV. There's a screen built in. Yet virtually anyone would look at this and say it is a console that is portable, not a "handheld console hybrid". And it really just comes down to form factor. I would actually say this is a 90/10 split at best. It's easily carried around and can be played on the go if you have a table or flat surface, that's it. The NX is 80/20, maybe 75/25 because 1) it can be played and held simultaneously if you wish but that is not required (as it is in a handheld) and 2) it does have a battery. I lean harder on home console because it has a lot of design elements that are either traditionally console-exclusive or benefit consoles while running directly contrary to handheld design philsophies. Active cooling, full analogue sticks, the size of the main unit, the lack fo any integrated input methods for using the core unit, all of these benefit the console side considerably at the expense of conventional handheld design principles.
Edit: Another point I should have pointed out in the active cooling section: the design of the switch doesn't seem to follow the battery-conscious design principles found in traditionally designed handhelds. If the system is using active cooling to cool it's tech, that means it is running the chips full steam (unlike other mobile devices) and likely means the tech is beefed up to some level or at least augmented. So you have the Switch powering strong chips and also a spinning motor, which is going to hurt battery life more than you would ever want to do with a handheld or even a tablet or phone. Again, beneficial for getting that console-esque experience at all times, detrimental to the handheld aspect.
