1. We all know Nintendo doesn't give a shit about graphical power, the philosophy they follow is one of artistical progress and looks. This has worked in the past for them with the wii better then most of their other consoles, which is fine if there isn't any other platform that supplies the same options ( or is as easily available). But, currently you can get plenty other games with this this setup on the other 2 consoles, and ofcourse on tablets and phones which generally speaking are superior to the switch.

2. Spreading wings, putting their games on display on different platforms economicly profitable or not and more importanly being of great quality or not is a problem. Suppose the games are good will it actually turn people towards getting nintendo hardware or let them wait for the next game release on non-nintendo hardware. Are the gae of lesser quality this is even more debateable, why get pokemon go aka an halfassed game if you can get a fanmade game which is much more closer to the actual IP on the handhelds

3 Selling points, does the switch even has a selling point these days, hardware related? imo nah. Gamewise you could say yes a few games are proper gems but how much more of the same old mario kart do you really want? hell the best smah bros was melee

Do not be suprised when it doesn't outsell the wii U

So all 3DS owners will switch(HA!) to mobile then?

It will sell better than the WiiU because of Japan.

Thats a very low standard to compare with

I will buy it but imho it's the worst of both worlds.
Weak home console with portability that many home console players won't care about, could have been more powerful for the same price, portability is forced on the consumer.. (just like the gamepad)
An expensive handheld with a really short battery life and games that cost 60$ instead of 40$.
Besides the best argument about the Switch being a hybrid was price, no need to buy 2 consoles to play all Nintendo games.
Well, the accessories are expensive as fuck, so that's gone too.


Nintendo had to slash the price of the 3ds for 80$ after launch because it wasn't selling, do they really expect to sell a 300$ console with 60$ games to those consumers?

Thats what the OP did, so I just disagree with him.

It defines what you consider a flop. If it is a flop by not outselling the combined sales of 3ds and Wii U, than your point is probably valid. It will outsell the Wii U, but Nintendo's biggest treath is whether people will spend $300 on a tablet without proper social functions just to play Nintendo games. Whilst if they get a samsung or another android player they will get a device that can enjoy them while travelling and has other functions besides gaming for the same price. Time will tell if this console appeals further than the hardcore Nintendo fanbase.

I am not a Nintendo fan (not even in the slightest) and I don't think their games are better than high profile game of other AAA developers. So for me the product isn't appealing. Whether the mass agrees with that will translate in the sales of the Switch. In that respect the Wii U has proven a dedicated Nintendo home console which is very Nintendo doesn't appeal anymore, but perhaps the handheld market is different since the 3DS is still a succes.

I'm still stupified by this. They're replacing an overpriced console with a different overpriced console, with a lot of the same games. I don't see how this will appeal to those who passed on the WiiU.

I think its simple.

1. It will have no third party support because of limited power specs.
2. It's portability is too limited to be a replacement for the 3DS.
3. It's too pricy.
4. People are burned because of the way they handled the Wii U.

So, this won't capture the mainstream gamer audience. The Nintendo harcore audience is smaller due to burning. The portable audience will stick to the 3DS and wait for a sucessor or move to phones.
More casual audiences will be turned off by the price (and theres really no good gimmick to pull them in. It also looks like its too frail for kids to handle).

So... yeah... i see it potencially doing worse than the Wii U. Only advantage is it actually seems to have a few more games coming this year. But not that many and subject to delay.
There are also no portable titles. Its all Wii/U ports or sequals coming, so thats another reason why i don't see this appealing to portable fans on top of the non-portability.

I second this. I don't know what they were thinking.

It's funny, the more I hear this, the less it makes sense. I vaguely recall continually charging my 3DS. So I decided to check online and compare battery lives:

The range of the 3DS XL is supposed to have 3.5-6.5 hours of battery life average.

The range of the N3DS is supposed to have 3.5-6 hours of battery life average.

The range of the 3DS XL is supposed to have 3.5-7 hours of battery life average.

This I don't get either. Out of the games announced there are basically 5 games on the Wii U. 3 of which are on basically every platform. In what way is that most games?