By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Another Switch Battery Life Test with Zelda and had 3h:02m:52s

It seems like it will vary on different situations.



Pocky Lover Boy! 

Around the Network

To weight in on the battery life situation, it isn't amazing but it certainly isn't bad. I think being in the middle will invite both good and bad opinions with ott opinions from both sides. At the end of the day it is what it is. It'll last you one long trip or multiple smaller trips. If you want your battery to last longer there will be accessories for that. It not a big issue and not a deal breaker if you are looking into buying one.



Goodnightmoon said:
Mummelmann said:

That wasn't my point at all; battery life isn't measured in minutes for most people, 10-20 minutes difference is of little consequence, one way or the other. Adding 14 minutes of batterly life isn't some earth-shattering feat; it's basically worthless in the grand scheme of things and battery life is still poor. Because that what it is, 3 hours and 3 minutes is poor battery life, the Switch actually has a couple of cons, regardless of your attempts at a valiant defence on every single possible front with this device. And it's okay, it has plenty of pros as well. Enjoy yours and just keep it charged whenever you can and you'll be fine.

Oh, and by the way, my phone lasts 10-11 hours with intensive tasks such as 1440p video (not that I use it for that...), so I'm not sure what phone you have, but it sounds like it could be time for a new one.

Now try to play on it with anything remotely comparable to an AAA game and see your battery dissapearing in 2 hours if you are lucky. For today standarts 3 hours of portable AAA gaming is good, and for that price is simply fantastic, even laptops and mobiles 2 and 3 times more expensive than Switch rarely go above 3 hour when playing something intensive on them.

PS Vita Slim sported a 5-6 hour battery life for gaming (with Wifi and Bluetooth and perhaps even background tasks being done), PS Vita around 3 hours and 30 minutes, DS Lite 5 hours + on highest illumination, 2DS has about 3 hours and 30 minutes or more.

The Switch really doesn't have great battery life, even in handheld territory. Gaming on mobile isn't really the same thing, a smartphone is a multi-purpose device that happens to be able to play games as well while the Switch is more or less purely for gaming (it sure can't do much else out of the box anyway) so the smartphone has great battery life for its intended purpose. As for laptops; how often do you see gamers playing heavy games on a laptop without the charger plugged in? Extremely rare, to say the least, laptops are also used for a wide range of other tasks, most use it on the go for media and as a portable office for writing, e-mail, browsing the web, homework and reports etc. Go to any coffee shop, subway station, airplane, university campus or other venues and see how many people gaming on laptops you can find, I can guarantee you there will be only a tiny amount, I don't think I ever saw a human being gaming on a laptop in a coffeeshop, for instance. Gaming laptops are really rare and crazy expensive, and they're not even any good, which is why hardly anyone buys them, in all my years as a PC nerd, I've met two people who owned gaming laptops, both were teenagers who got them from their parents...

So, speaking of poor comparisons, are these the best attempts you can make at deflecting that a product has poor battery life? How about this; stop rationalizing and accept both that the Switch has an underwhelming battery life and that this doesn't have to be a big issue, I know it isn't for me anyway, I only wrote my first post because the added time was so ridiculously low and the end result is still subpar and I found it more than a little funny how this was hailed as great news for anyone.



Goodnightmoon said:
I can see this thread is not nearly as popular as the other one. I WONDER WHY XD

Not as interesting, it's boring to most Humans when things work out



Mummelmann said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Now try to play on it with anything remotely comparable to an AAA game and see your battery dissapearing in 2 hours if you are lucky. For today standarts 3 hours of portable AAA gaming is good, and for that price is simply fantastic, even laptops and mobiles 2 and 3 times more expensive than Switch rarely go above 3 hour when playing something intensive on them.

PS Vita Slim sported a 5-6 hour battery life for gaming, PS Vita around 3 hours and 30 minutes, DS Lite 5 hours + on highest illumination, 2DS has about 3 hours and 30 minutes or more.

The Switch really doesn't have great battery life, even in handheld territory. Gaming on mobile isn't really the same thing, a smartphone is a multi-purpose device that happens to be able to play games as well while the Switch is more or less purely for gaming (it sure can't do much else out of the box anyway) so the smartphone has great battery life for its intended purpose. As for laptops; how often do you see gamers playing heavy games on a laptop without the charger plugged in? Extremely rare, to say the least, laptops are also used for a wide range of other tasks, most use it on the go for media and as a portable office for writing, e-mail, browsing the web, homework and reports etc. Go to any coffee shop, subway station, airplane, university campus or other venues and see how many people gaming on laptops you can find, I can guarantee you there will be only a tiny amount, I don't think I ever saw a human being gaming on a laptop in a coffeeshop, for instance. Gaming laptops are really rare and crazy expensive, and they're not even any good, which is why hardly anyone buys them, in all my years as a PC nerd, I've met two people who owned gaming laptops, both were teenagers who got them from their parents...

So, speaking of poor comparisons, are these the best attempts you can make at deflecting that a product has poor battery life? How about this; stop rationalizing and accept both that the Switch has an underwhelming battery life and that this doesn't have to be a big issue, I know it isn't for me anyway, I only wrote my first post because the added time was so ridiculously low and the end result is still subpar and I found it more than a little funny how this was hailed as great news for anyone.

It isn't big news, but the OP of the other thread was acting like if this was shocking and Nintendo lied to the people or something when this thread shows it lasts exactly what they said, around 3 hours. The thing is this is the portable gaming device with better battery in relation to the intensive gaming it can support and the price it has and when compared to last gen hanheld it seems to fair pretty well, if this lasts 3 hours with zelda, means it probably lasts around 5 hours or more with low intensive games, which happens to be the most suited for portable gaming usually, when compared to the original PsVita is probably superior, some Vita games like Killzone and Freedom wars can last less than 2.5 hours (killzone with online barely 2h), Zelda is probably one of the most intensive games the console is gonna have in a long time, which means 2.5h -3h is probably the worst case scenario, and for a worst case scenario is pretty decent.



Around the Network
Goodnightmoon said:

It isn't big news, but the OP of the other thread was acting like if this was shocking and Nintendo lied to the people or something when this thread shows it lasts exactly what they said, around 3 hours. The thing is this is the portable gaming device with better battery in relation to the intensive gaming it can support and the price it has and when compared to last gen hanheld it seems to fair pretty well, if this lasts 3 hours with zelda, means it probably lasts around 5 hours or more with low intensive games, which happens to be the most suited for portable gaming usually, when compared to the original PsVita is probably very superior, some Vita games like Killzone and Freedom wars can last less than 2.5 hours (killzone with online barely 2h), Zelda is probably one of the most intensive games the console is gonna have in a long time, which means 2.5h -3h is probably the worst case scenario, and for a worst case scenario is pretty decent.

Bolded; as I indicated before, that's ridiculous. 10-20 minutes either way is no issue and not huge news at all.

Also, like I said, battery life isn't a concern for me at all, for two main reasons; realistically, how far am I from an outlet for charging most for of my day and the second and most important; it won't matter since I'll be using mine docked 100% of the time anyway.



You'll be bored playing long before the battery dies.



So what do you want to prove here? It is exactly what nintendo advertise? Cos i still dont see anything good abt this news



m_csquare said:
So what do you want to prove here? It is exactly what nintendo advertise? Cos i still dont see anything good abt this news

Im pretty sure its a counterpoint to the other thread that was complaining that Zelda got 2h 48m instead of the advertised 3 hours.



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

FWIW battery life on my Vita on a game varies a *lot* depending on especially screen brightness. When I use it in the plane on a long flight (where it's dark), I set the Vita in darkest setting which is still easily bright enough. Turning off Wifi helps too.
According to Digital Foundry, you can get up to like an hour of extra battery life like that on Uncharted.

On the Switch it's probably the same, and I bet you can get at least 30 minutes extra like that with Zelda.