Quantcast
Is Switch's processing power important to you?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is Switch's processing power important to you?

Is it?

Very, I won't buy it if it's weak 171 25.26%
 
Moderately so 281 41.51%
 
Not really 127 18.76%
 
No, power doesn't matter to me 63 9.31%
 
No, cos I'm not buying one 35 5.17%
 
Total:677
GhaudePhaede010 said:
Zappykins said:

...

This seems like it is aimed exclusively  at the Japanese gaming market.

So we agree, you are not NIntendo's market demographic. I believe this is aimed at a slightly different market but at least we both agree it is not aimed at you.

But I also don't see why anyone would really get it, other than super hard core gamers.  Which is a rather small market.

I like Nintendo, but this seems like WiiU2.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

Around the Network
Zappykins said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

So we agree, you are not NIntendo's market demographic. I believe this is aimed at a slightly different market but at least we both agree it is not aimed at you.

But I also don't see why anyone would really get it, other than super hard core gamers.  Which is a rather small market.

I like Nintendo, but this seems like WiiU2.

Thats not true at all, I saw plenty of casuals and people who are not in gaming at all, saying that Switch looks very interesting, even some XB1/PS4 owners.

Reality is that Wii U had so many problems that wasn't even appealing for some Nintendo fans, for now with Switch is totally different situation, it looks like much more appealing and much better product than Wii U. Definaly it will be much more popular than Wii U was.

Dont forget that system does not aiming for home console owners only, its aiming handhelds owners (Vita and 3DS owners) also, and you can bet that plenty of 3DS owners (there are 60m 3DS systems sold out there) will buy Switch also.



Zappykins said:

If I wanted a portable gaming system I would get an Ipad, Android Tablet or a Surface Pro.  I can't think think of a compelling reason to walk around with something that is just a gaming system.  When for just a bit more, I could get something I could use in many other ways.

Plus, I think most of the kids I know that have tablets just use them for gaming, mostly.  But that is not the excuse why parent buy them.

This seems like it is aimed exclusively  at the Japanese gaming market.

So I'm just doing to end up stating a lot of obvious points, but there's a lot wrong with this post.

I get the sentiment that tablets offer a satisfying portable gaming experience, but they do not offer a parity of software or control with dedicated systems, which the Switch offers. Again, I get the sentiment, but for "a bit more," you'd be buying something completely different from a traditional console, not just in hardware, but in software.

The thing that's compelling about the Switch is that it's a PS4 that isn't tethered to your TV. It's an XBO that isn't tethered to your TV. It's a gaming rig that isn't tethered to your TV. Tablets are not that. They are big smartphones without a sim card, and while that is very cool, that is not what the Switch is. If you wanted a portable piece of tech that could play games, you absolutely could buy a traditional tablet and be satisfied, but if you wanted portable tech that could play the same games you can play on other dedicated gaming devices, you absolutely would not.

That being said, I am hopeful that the Switch will have an abundance of multimedia features and functionality. It's strong enough and has the right form factor beat out traditional tablets. No reason to think it'll only do games.

The biggest thing I don't agree with though is that this thing is being aimed at the Japanese market. I think you're misunderstanding the mass market a little bit. People like portability. Most people use their phones for computing tasks. If they don't, they're using a tablet or at most a laptop. Only professionals and enthusiasts use desktops because only enthusiasts and professionals care about power and performance more than convenience and flexability. It cannot be understated that no one has ever successfully implemented what Nintendo is doing.

A lot of people are still calling this a handheld, but it is not. Switch is much more akin to a laptop functionally, if you look at consoles as desktops. It is a weaker, more portable version of the same thing. It can not fit in your pocket, nor is it meant to. The expectations placed on it are that of a home console, and that is what it will be compared to because there are no other products like it on the market. It will not have a separate library of handheld games, it will have a shared library of home console games alongside other home consoles because that's what it is meant to be. A little home console. I'd call it a "portable" console, but that name is associated with handhelds. Most people call it a hybrid, but even though I don't like that name because it is not a hybrid of home and handheld, it at least communicates what it really is better than anything else.

There are home consoles and PC on the higher end. Those are your "desktops."

There are handhelds on you lower end. Those are yout "smartphones."

The Switch lies in between these two, which is why I compare it to a laptop.

It is not a mix between a desktop and a smartphone. It is not a like a handheld and it is not like a home console. It is something different that sits in the middle. In this climate, that has a lot of mass market appeal because, contrary to popular belief, most people don't care about performance. They don't even notice it. Most people can't tell the difference between the 360 version of Tomb Raider 2 and the PC version on ultra. Most people can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Most people don't know what screen tearing or shimmering. But everyone can tell the difference between playing a game on the TV while sitting formally in a chair and playing on your bed in your covers with the screen 16 inches away from your face because that how most people interact with every other piece of tech that they own. And they do that because they prefer the flexibility. That's not a Japanese thing, that's a mass market thing, and it's happening world wide. Especially in the west. Especially in the US.

Again, a lot of this is just stating the obvious. The trends away from desktops is well known, and the only reason that hasn't effected consoles is because there hasn't been a portable system that can play home console games yet. With the Switch, there is. If the GTA6 is released on the Switch, PS4, XBO, and PC, people aren't going to care that PC/PS4/Scorpio has the prettiest version. As long as the Switch version isn't this garbage version, and as long as Switch has modern online funtionality, the Switch version has little reason not to sell competitively, because it's GTA that you can take anywhere, but still play on the TV if you want. Even if you only undock GTA6 once, that is one more time than you can on the competing platforms, and that's huge. It's huge that Nintendo is the first to seemingly implement something like this successfully, because this is where the mass market is at. The "best" version of anything isn't the one with this highest quality, but with the easiest accessibility. That's what the Switch get's right.



Well, this is new.

Read.

Nintendo's not reinventing the wheel here. Switch is a fairly straight forward product.

If they can hold the 3DS audience, that would be a success on that basis alone IMO. To go beyond that, likely you're going to need a new breakout IP that drives hardware sales to an extreme level (like a Pokemon, Super Mario, Halo, etc.). Maybe Splatoon can blow up in Japan, but this aspect is always based some what on luck. 

That said, I think they should look at allowing Android apps. I don't know if that's possible, maybe it could be done through emulation, and through their own store front (so they control the licensing fees). Nikkei did report that NX would support Android, even though Nintendo denied this, Nintendo has denied multiple stories from Nikkei (we're not making a 3DS XL, we're not developing smartphone games, we're not stopping Wii U production this year) and they've all come out to be mostly true.

So I would wait to see on that. Maybe Switch does not run Android OS per se, but has a way of emulating/running Android apps, which Nintendo would control and be able to filter out (so there's not too many apps).



CreativeAlternative said:
Too much power can lead to dangerous things. Sony is the Trump of the gaming industry. Too powerful and morally despicable to uneducated white males. I want a gaming company to behave morally above others like the Pope and Mormons. With switch they do so by creating a family friendly environment where power comes from superior belief systems and not power that divides people like Mr. Trump. Nintendo is the true one that can make America great again.

"Family friendly?"

If you look at the adverts for the Nintendo Switch you won't see a single child in sight nor will you see any family togetherness.



Around the Network
Zappykins said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

So we agree, you are not NIntendo's market demographic. I believe this is aimed at a slightly different market but at least we both agree it is not aimed at you.

But I also don't see why anyone would really get it, other than super hard core gamers.  Which is a rather small market.

I like Nintendo, but this seems like WiiU2.

Why would anybody want a PS4 or XBO other than hardcore gamers? The same reason people will buy Switch, because they have the software & features that people want.

I fail to see in any way how this is a WiiU2, care to elaborate?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

spemanig said:
Zappykins said:

If I wanted a portable gaming system I would get an Ipad, Android Tablet or a Surface Pro.  I can't think think of a compelling reason to walk around with something that is just a gaming system.  When for just a bit more, I could get something I could use in many other ways.

Plus, I think most of the kids I know that have tablets just use them for gaming, mostly.  But that is not the excuse why parent buy them.

This seems like it is aimed exclusively  at the Japanese gaming market.

So I'm just doing to end up stating a lot of obvious points, but there's a lot wrong with this post.

I get the sentiment that tablets offer a satisfying portable gaming experience, but they do not offer a parity of software or control with dedicated systems, which the Switch offers. Again, I get the sentiment, but for "a bit more," you'd be buying something completely different from a traditional console, not just in hardware, but in software.

The thing that's compelling about the Switch is that it's a PS4 that isn't tethered to your TV. It's an XBO that isn't tethered to your TV. It's a gaming rig that isn't tethered to your TV. Tablets are not that. They are big smartphones without a sim card, and while that is very cool, that is not what the Switch is. If you wanted a portable piece of tech that could play games, you absolutely could buy a traditional tablet and be satisfied, but if you wanted portable tech that could play the same games you can play on other dedicated gaming devices, you absolutely would not.

That being said, I am hopeful that the Switch will have an abundance of multimedia features and functionality. It's strong enough and has the right form factor beat out traditional tablets. No reason to think it'll only do games.

The biggest thing I don't agree with though is that this thing is being aimed at the Japanese market. I think you're misunderstanding the mass market a little bit. People like portability. Most people use their phones for computing tasks. If they don't, they're using a tablet or at most a laptop. Only professionals and enthusiasts use desktops because only enthusiasts and professionals care about power and performance more than convenience and flexability. It cannot be understated that no one has ever successfully implemented what Nintendo is doing.

A lot of people are still calling this a handheld, but it is not. Switch is much more akin to a laptop functionally, if you look at consoles as desktops. It is a weaker, more portable version of the same thing. It can not fit in your pocket, nor is it meant to. The expectations placed on it are that of a home console, and that is what it will be compared to because there are no other products like it on the market. It will not have a separate library of handheld games, it will have a shared library of home console games alongside other home consoles because that's what it is meant to be. A little home console. I'd call it a "portable" console, but that name is associated with handhelds. Most people call it a hybrid, but even though I don't like that name because it is not a hybrid of home and handheld, it at least communicates what it really is better than anything else.

There are home consoles and PC on the higher end. Those are your "desktops."

There are handhelds on you lower end. Those are yout "smartphones."

The Switch lies in between these two, which is why I compare it to a laptop.

It is not a mix between a desktop and a smartphone. It is not a like a handheld and it is not like a home console. It is something different that sits in the middle. In this climate, that has a lot of mass market appeal because, contrary to popular belief, most people don't care about performance. They don't even notice it. Most people can't tell the difference between the 360 version of Tomb Raider 2 and the PC version on ultra. Most people can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Most people don't know what screen tearing or shimmering. But everyone can tell the difference between playing a game on the TV while sitting formally in a chair and playing on your bed in your covers with the screen 16 inches away from your face because that how most people interact with every other piece of tech that they own. And they do that because they prefer the flexibility. That's not a Japanese thing, that's a mass market thing, and it's happening world wide. Especially in the west. Especially in the US.

Again, a lot of this is just stating the obvious. The trends away from desktops is well known, and the only reason that hasn't effected consoles is because there hasn't been a portable system that can play home console games yet. With the Switch, there is. If the GTA6 is released on the Switch, PS4, XBO, and PC, people aren't going to care that PC/PS4/Scorpio has the prettiest version. As long as the Switch version isn't this garbage version, and as long as Switch has modern online funtionality, the Switch version has little reason not to sell competitively, because it's GTA that you can take anywhere, but still play on the TV if you want. Even if you only undock GTA6 once, that is one more time than you can on the competing platforms, and that's huge. It's huge that Nintendo is the first to seemingly implement something like this successfully, because this is where the mass market is at. The "best" version of anything isn't the one with this highest quality, but with the easiest accessibility. That's what the Switch get's right.

This is a great, great post. I agree with much of it. I was on my phone and did not want to make a long post like this but if I had, it would have looked something like this post right here. Not exactly the same (as I approach personal opinions drastically differently than he does), but this post contains much of what I would have said if I was on my computer.

The Switch is evolution in the same way the home console was evolution. Home consoles basically eliminated the need for arcades and Switch (if successful) is the beginning of the end of a need for exclusive home consoles. Well, not exactly, but it is the end of traditional exclusive home consoles.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

GhaudePhaede010 said:
spemanig said:

So I'm just doing to end up stating a lot of obvious points, but there's a lot wrong with this post.

I get the sentiment that tablets offer a satisfying portable gaming experience, but they do not offer a parity of software or control with dedicated systems, which the Switch offers. Again, I get the sentiment, but for "a bit more," you'd be buying something completely different from a traditional console, not just in hardware, but in software.

The thing that's compelling about the Switch is that it's a PS4 that isn't tethered to your TV. It's an XBO that isn't tethered to your TV. It's a gaming rig that isn't tethered to your TV. Tablets are not that. They are big smartphones without a sim card, and while that is very cool, that is not what the Switch is. If you wanted a portable piece of tech that could play games, you absolutely could buy a traditional tablet and be satisfied, but if you wanted portable tech that could play the same games you can play on other dedicated gaming devices, you absolutely would not.

That being said, I am hopeful that the Switch will have an abundance of multimedia features and functionality. It's strong enough and has the right form factor beat out traditional tablets. No reason to think it'll only do games.

The biggest thing I don't agree with though is that this thing is being aimed at the Japanese market. I think you're misunderstanding the mass market a little bit. People like portability. Most people use their phones for computing tasks. If they don't, they're using a tablet or at most a laptop. Only professionals and enthusiasts use desktops because only enthusiasts and professionals care about power and performance more than convenience and flexability. It cannot be understated that no one has ever successfully implemented what Nintendo is doing.

A lot of people are still calling this a handheld, but it is not. Switch is much more akin to a laptop functionally, if you look at consoles as desktops. It is a weaker, more portable version of the same thing. It can not fit in your pocket, nor is it meant to. The expectations placed on it are that of a home console, and that is what it will be compared to because there are no other products like it on the market. It will not have a separate library of handheld games, it will have a shared library of home console games alongside other home consoles because that's what it is meant to be. A little home console. I'd call it a "portable" console, but that name is associated with handhelds. Most people call it a hybrid, but even though I don't like that name because it is not a hybrid of home and handheld, it at least communicates what it really is better than anything else.

There are home consoles and PC on the higher end. Those are your "desktops."

There are handhelds on you lower end. Those are yout "smartphones."

The Switch lies in between these two, which is why I compare it to a laptop.

It is not a mix between a desktop and a smartphone. It is not a like a handheld and it is not like a home console. It is something different that sits in the middle. In this climate, that has a lot of mass market appeal because, contrary to popular belief, most people don't care about performance. They don't even notice it. Most people can't tell the difference between the 360 version of Tomb Raider 2 and the PC version on ultra. Most people can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Most people don't know what screen tearing or shimmering. But everyone can tell the difference between playing a game on the TV while sitting formally in a chair and playing on your bed in your covers with the screen 16 inches away from your face because that how most people interact with every other piece of tech that they own. And they do that because they prefer the flexibility. That's not a Japanese thing, that's a mass market thing, and it's happening world wide. Especially in the west. Especially in the US.

Again, a lot of this is just stating the obvious. The trends away from desktops is well known, and the only reason that hasn't effected consoles is because there hasn't been a portable system that can play home console games yet. With the Switch, there is. If the GTA6 is released on the Switch, PS4, XBO, and PC, people aren't going to care that PC/PS4/Scorpio has the prettiest version. As long as the Switch version isn't this garbage version, and as long as Switch has modern online funtionality, the Switch version has little reason not to sell competitively, because it's GTA that you can take anywhere, but still play on the TV if you want. Even if you only undock GTA6 once, that is one more time than you can on the competing platforms, and that's huge. It's huge that Nintendo is the first to seemingly implement something like this successfully, because this is where the mass market is at. The "best" version of anything isn't the one with this highest quality, but with the easiest accessibility. That's what the Switch get's right.

This is a great, great post. I agree with much of it. I was on my phone and did not want to make a long post like this but if I had, it would have looked something like this post right here. Not exactly the same (as I approach personal opinions drastically differently than he does), but this post contains much of what I would have said if I was on my computer.

The Switch is evolution in the same way the home console was evolution. Home consoles basically eliminated the need for arcades and Switch (if successful) is the beginning of the end of a need for exclusive home consoles. Well, not exactly, but it is the end of traditional exclusive home consoles.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean the Nintendo formula is neccessarily going to be the one that carries that future forward. 

Honestly, tablet manufacturers could start making a lot of tablets with snap on controllers standard and the ability to dock to a TV as standard too and play games that way. It wouldn't be hard at all. 

So yeah, in 10 years, kids may basically just have a tablet that does all of those things and has the horsepower of a PS5 or whatever. 



Soundwave said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

This is a great, great post. I agree with much of it. I was on my phone and did not want to make a long post like this but if I had, it would have looked something like this post right here. Not exactly the same (as I approach personal opinions drastically differently than he does), but this post contains much of what I would have said if I was on my computer.

The Switch is evolution in the same way the home console was evolution. Home consoles basically eliminated the need for arcades and Switch (if successful) is the beginning of the end of a need for exclusive home consoles. Well, not exactly, but it is the end of traditional exclusive home consoles.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean the Nintendo formula is neccessarily going to be the one that carries that future forward. 

Honestly, tablet manufacturers could start making a lot of tablets with snap on controllers standard and the ability to dock to a TV as standard too and play games that way. It wouldn't be hard at all. 

So yeah, in 10 years, kids may basically just have a tablet that does all of those things and has the horsepower of a PS5 or whatever. 

I can see what you are saying and I can subscribe to that reality. I would prefer if Nintendo were the ones to carry that future forward but the reality is, that is very unlikely.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

zorg1000 said:
Zappykins said:

But I also don't see why anyone would really get it, other than super hard core gamers.  Which is a rather small market.

I like Nintendo, but this seems like WiiU2.

Why would anybody want a PS4 or XBO other than hardcore gamers? The same reason people will buy Switch, because they have the software & features that people want.

I fail to see in any way how this is a WiiU2, care to elaborate?

What I mean is that only super hard core gamers that have a specicic game in mind are going to get the switch.  I don't think there is that much appeal over a regular tablet that can do more - much more.  Why carry an extra tablet for a few specific games, when there are so many games for a regular tablet.

And without enough power vs the others two, it will not get as much 3rd party support.  Which seems to be quite important for the success of any console. 

It may be a nice little console, but I don't see anything amazing to set it appart from so much competition.   It seems like another GameCube or WiiU.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!