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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Switch Revisions Are Basically Already Possible

Soundwave on 21 March 2017
Miyamotoo said:
Soundwave said:

No it can't, lol, some of your reasoning isn't even logical. "Smaller device = automatically cheaper" ... uh what? You still need the same processor, the same RAM, etc. etc.

Beyond the pricing issue, there's also the physical thermal issue, that 20nm chip consumes what it does ... and there's no changing that. You could have the fan blow more air but that fan doesn't magically operate for free, you then need more battery to power the fan, and even then in a smaller enclosure heat is likely to build up quickly. That could be quite dangerous quite honestly, 20nm chips that have the processing power of a Tegra X1 are not designed to be in form factors that small, to get that chip into even a design as small as the Switch currently is likely was a engineering feat in and of itself.

That's why Nvidia has no phone vendors willing to use the Tegra X1 chip ... it runs way too hot for most smartphones and even smaller tablets. 

These things are not as simple as you are making them out to be. Nintendo doesn't magically get to tell their suppliers to shave off $100 either when the components you're describing simply do not add up to $100. That dock does not cost more than $10 to make ... JoyCon straps c'mon that's maybe a $1 in real world manufacturing cost. They'd save closer to $50 altogether ... and for $50 less, really how many people are going to be willing to buy a model with a smaller screen, no TV out, one that likely is louder because of consant fan usage, no Joycons just to save $50, it's a very gimped model. It would be the PSP Go of Switch models. 

I really don't understand why you trying to prove here, because you dont make any sense. Offcrouse that same devaice with smaller form factor, with smaller screen, smaller battery, less used materials (plastic, PCB, etc),less used parts because doesn't need to work in TV mode just in handheld mode, without Dock, without Joy Cons, without cables, with smaller package and less shipping costs...will cost much less than current Switch.

I am pretty sure you thought that Tegra X1 could hardly operate even in current Switch, but reality is that current Switch doenst have any heat issues. We know that Tegra X1 does not operate at full clock in Switch, GPU operating at just 307 MHz. Like I wrote, I am pretty sure they would make cooling on acceptable level for smaller form factor. Smaller screen and smaller battery also means less heat because they also producing heat.

Tegra X1 chip is overkill for phones from various reasons, phones don't need such strong GPU and they usual go for stronger CPU. So you're comparison with phones again is bad.

You are wrong, I wrote you above what all things they can cut. Also have on mind that Nintendo doesn't need to cut exactly $100 of costs from current Switch model, they can cut for instance $80 and to still make $100 price difference and to go with smaller profit with device that's $100 cheaper on market, and that actually totally make sense, cheaper device and smaller profit than more expensive.

Also I dont completle rule posibilite of Tegra X2 for Switch Mini/Pocket, but I am pretty sure they would make Mini/Pocket even with current Switch cheap.

Like I wrote, "at end situation is very simple and obvious, current Switch already has more higher price point and screen is already big, so there any need for making actually even more price Switch with even more bigger screen, but definitely there is need to release smaller, chepar Switch just for handheld play when 3DS dies, and that will effectively replace 3DS/3DSXL segment on market".

We know the Tegra X1 even in undocked mode eats battery like crazy and even gets so hot at times that it requires the fan to come on even in portable mode. 

You think you can put that same chip in a much smaller chasis and say "well, ok guys figure out some wonder fan that will magically cool this". 

Chip engineering doesn't work like that, lol. 

The Switch's form factor as is today likely cannot be any smaller without heating problems, that's why there's a fairly large bezel (the Switch actually has two bezels, lol, the big fat black border and then another black trim around that) ... the unit has to be that size, if it was smaller it would overheat. 

How small of a screen are you talking? Like 3 inches? Because going down to 5 inches is not going to magically give you an extra hour of battery life. 

You want too many things out of a chip that simply cannot do all that, the chip you are asking for is a Tegra X2. 

There aren't a ton of parts that make the system go into "TV mode" either. It's the chip that does all the processing and that chip is going to be in your small version no matter what, you're not saving a ton there. Like the way you're describing it is there's all types of extra plastic (?) and extra moving parts that somehow enable the system to output in TV mode ... that's not the case. 



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 21 March 2017
Soundwave said:
Miyamotoo said:

I really don't understand why you trying to prove here, because you dont make any sense. Offcrouse that same devaice with smaller form factor, with smaller screen, smaller battery, less used materials (plastic, PCB, etc),less used parts because doesn't need to work in TV mode just in handheld mode, without Dock, without Joy Cons, without cables, with smaller package and less shipping costs...will cost much less than current Switch.

I am pretty sure you thought that Tegra X1 could hardly operate even in current Switch, but reality is that current Switch doenst have any heat issues. We know that Tegra X1 does not operate at full clock in Switch, GPU operating at just 307 MHz. Like I wrote, I am pretty sure they would make cooling on acceptable level for smaller form factor. Smaller screen and smaller battery also means less heat because they also producing heat.

Tegra X1 chip is overkill for phones from various reasons, phones don't need such strong GPU and they usual go for stronger CPU. So you're comparison with phones again is bad.

You are wrong, I wrote you above what all things they can cut. Also have on mind that Nintendo doesn't need to cut exactly $100 of costs from current Switch model, they can cut for instance $80 and to still make $100 price difference and to go with smaller profit with device that's $100 cheaper on market, and that actually totally make sense, cheaper device and smaller profit than more expensive.

Also I dont completle rule posibilite of Tegra X2 for Switch Mini/Pocket, but I am pretty sure they would make Mini/Pocket even with current Switch cheap.

Like I wrote, "at end situation is very simple and obvious, current Switch already has more higher price point and screen is already big, so there any need for making actually even more price Switch with even more bigger screen, but definitely there is need to release smaller, chepar Switch just for handheld play when 3DS dies, and that will effectively replace 3DS/3DSXL segment on market".

We know the Tegra X1 even in undocked mode eats battery like crazy and even gets so hot at times that it requires the fan to come on even in portable mode. 

You think you can put that same chip in a much smaller chasis and say "well, ok guys figure out some wonder fan that will magically cool this". 

Chip engineering doesn't work like that, lol. 

The Switch's form factor as is today likely cannot be any smaller without heating problems, that's why there's a fairly large bezel (the Switch actually has two bezels, lol, the big fat black border and then another black trim around that) ... the unit has to be that size, if it was smaller it would overheat. 

How small of a screen are you talking? Like 3 inches? Because going down to 5 inches is not going to magically give you an extra hour of battery life. 

You want too many things out of a chip that simply cannot do all that, the chip you are asking for is a Tegra X2. 

There aren't a ton of parts that make the system go into "TV mode" either. It's the chip that does all the processing and that chip is going to be in your small version no matter what, you're not saving a ton there. Like the way you're describing it is there's all types of extra plastic (?) and extra moving parts that somehow enable the system to output in TV mode ... that's not the case. 

No, in Switch its not hot, nobody said that Switch become hot. Of Course that eats battery when we talking about playing 3D console games on 6.2" screen on hardware thats stronger than Wii Us in any case.

There is no need for wonder, if already operating without any hits problems currently, they can do same thing with smaller chase and little better/more efficient cooling. Fact also is that smaller screen and smaller battery also produce less heat.

Sorry, but you don't know how chip engineering work, your arguments are were weak or doesn't make sense.

I talking about around 5" screen. Surface of 5" screen is much smaller than surface of 6.2" screen.

I dont want too many things at all, just same chip and hardware whiotout parts that are requred for TV mode, in a little smaller form factor than actually currently is, think about form factor similar to Vita, but you acting like I talking about putting Tegra X1 in GBA Micro.

Chip is one thing, but you have other parts of Switch that are requred that Switch can work on TV mode buy just putting it on Dock.



DélioPT on 21 March 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:

 

It doesn't matter, point is that Nintendo always looking to have multiple price points on market and to cover wide range of market with their price points, and only difference with Switch is that will be only platform and not deviaded like before on two separate platforms (different handheld and different home console platform).

If you paid attention on Nintendo PR, you would know the current talking about Switch like home console of 1st place, and only reason why they doing that because Wii U is dead while 3DS is still selling.

Like I wrote, Sony and Nintendo operating different, and of course they will need lower price point because with current price point of Switch they dont have replacement for segment of $150-200 price point that's currently covered buy 3DS and 3DS XL. Of Course that much more people will be become part of Switch platform if they have device for $150-200 that plays Switch games instead of $300 (espacily for those who dont want to play on TV).

If you have different price points for platform, automatically you aiming at much wider market than with just one price point. Do you think that 3DS would sell so much if they had only one price point of $200!? Offcouse not.

Any games could be ported to Switch, if devs want they can ported even to PS3/Xbox360, or Wii or mobile phones. You do realise that on launch Wii U actually had pretty solid 3rd party support (Call Of Duty, Batman, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...) but 3rd party abandon Wii U after terrible sales and when realise that Wii U is a fail. If Switch sells good and become popular it will have more 3rd party games, but offcourse that never will be on same level like on PS4/XB1, but that would be fact even if Switch has exactly same hardware like PS4/XB1 because 3rd party knows that 3rd party games are in most cases selling worst on Nintendo platform because people buying Nintendo platforms on 1st place just to play Nintendo games.

 

 

 

NIntendo's intentions were not having multiple price points, but to extend the life of it's prodcuts, which naturally resulted in different price points because the new HW, if i'm not mistaken, always came at a higher price. The only exception might be the 2DS.

Again, with future HW revisions, they can get to that price. And again, they don't need to lower the price to attract a wide range of consumers.
Just look at Sony and their consoles: they never needed lower price tags to sell 80 to 150 million consoles. Or look at Apple and their iPhone line.
Higher price tags don't necessarily mean leaving money on the table/wasting sales potential. Switch is actually doing so well that those people who would only buy it at your 150-200, are probably buying it right now or will buy it soon.

What could happen is that with the interest around Switch, lowering the price tag would result in lower profits unnecessarily.

The question isn't so much if games can be ported to Switch, the question is at what cost.
Things could soon hit a point where the difference is so big that consumers won't even bother with the Switch version.

With Wii U, things were already BAD before the console failed. It just got worse after sales proved it wouldn't take off.



Miyamotoo on 21 March 2017
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

It doesn't matter, point is that Nintendo always looking to have multiple price points on market and to cover wide range of market with their price points, and only difference with Switch is that will be only platform and not deviaded like before on two separate platforms (different handheld and different home console platform).

If you paid attention on Nintendo PR, you would know the current talking about Switch like home console of 1st place, and only reason why they doing that because Wii U is dead while 3DS is still selling.

Like I wrote, Sony and Nintendo operating different, and of course they will need lower price point because with current price point of Switch they dont have replacement for segment of $150-200 price point that's currently covered buy 3DS and 3DS XL. Of Course that much more people will be become part of Switch platform if they have device for $150-200 that plays Switch games instead of $300 (espacily for those who dont want to play on TV).

If you have different price points for platform, automatically you aiming at much wider market than with just one price point. Do you think that 3DS would sell so much if they had only one price point of $200!? Offcouse not.

Any games could be ported to Switch, if devs want they can ported even to PS3/Xbox360, or Wii or mobile phones. You do realise that on launch Wii U actually had pretty solid 3rd party support (Call Of Duty, Batman, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...) but 3rd party abandon Wii U after terrible sales and when realise that Wii U is a fail. If Switch sells good and become popular it will have more 3rd party games, but offcourse that never will be on same level like on PS4/XB1, but that would be fact even if Switch has exactly same hardware like PS4/XB1 because 3rd party knows that 3rd party games are in most cases selling worst on Nintendo platform because people buying Nintendo platforms on 1st place just to play Nintendo games.

 

 

NIntendo's intentions were not having multiple price points, but to extend the life of it's prodcuts, which naturally resulted in different price points because the new HW, if i'm not mistaken, always came at a higher price. The only exception might be the 2DS.

Again, with future HW revisions, they can get to that price. And again, they don't need to lower the price to attract a wide range of consumers.
Just look at Sony and their consoles: they never needed lower price tags to sell 80 to 150 million consoles. Or look at Apple and their iPhone line.
Higher price tags don't necessarily mean leaving money on the table/wasting sales potential. Switch is actually doing so well that those people who would only buy it at your 150-200, are probably buying it right now or will buy it soon.

What could happen is that with the interest around Switch, lowering the price tag would result in lower profits unnecessarily.

The question isn't so much if games can be ported to Switch, the question is at what cost.
Things could soon hit a point where the difference is so big that consumers won't even bother with the Switch version.

With Wii U, things were already BAD before the console failed. It just got worse after sales proved it wouldn't take off.

If point was just to extend life of product, why they didn't canned basic 3DS after New 3DS XL or after 2DS!? Fact is that you will much easier sell your platform if you have different price points of your platform, not all people are willing to pay just on higher price for product. 2DS is first lowered price hardware that is part of family, because 3DS was highest price Nintendo handheld and they wanted to have more afordible devaice, and now we have Switch that's even more expensive, not only that but Switch will not have huge price cut in its 1st year like 3DS did.

Of Course they need to have lower priced version if they want potentially much bigger sales. Like I wrote, "Sony and Nintendo operating different, and of course they will need lower price point because with current price point of Switch they dont have replacement for segment of $150-200 price point that's currently covered buy 3DS and 3DS XL. Of Course that much more people will be become part of Switch platform if they have device for $150-200 that plays Switch games instead of $300 (espacily for those who dont want to play on TV).

You comparison with Apple is bad, beacuse Apple do exatly things I talking about. Apple has iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, Iphone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, plus multiple versions of those models from 32GB to 256GB. Do you actualy realise how huge price point Apple is covering with their iPhone line!?

You are totally wrong that those are all same people who are willing to pay $300 for current Switch, and people who dont need (TV mode) and that $300 is definitely too high price for them but they would pay around $200. Yes curent Switch will be chepaer buy the time, but also Switch Mini/Pocket will also cheaper buy the time, we already saw Nintendo doing that with DS and 3DS line.

 

Well we have infos that Switch development is very easy and actually that Switch is light years ahead of Wii U in that matter. 3rd party games will always in any case look in handheld mode of Switch. Like I wrote, "on launch Wii U actually had pretty solid 3rd party support (Call Of Duty, Batman, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...) but 3rd party abandon Wii U after terrible sales and when realise that Wii U is a fail". 



DélioPT on 21 March 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:

NIntendo's intentions were not having multiple price points, but to extend the life of it's prodcuts, which naturally resulted in different price points because the new HW, if i'm not mistaken, always came at a higher price. The only exception might be the 2DS.

Again, with future HW revisions, they can get to that price. And again, they don't need to lower the price to attract a wide range of consumers.
Just look at Sony and their consoles: they never needed lower price tags to sell 80 to 150 million consoles. Or look at Apple and their iPhone line.
Higher price tags don't necessarily mean leaving money on the table/wasting sales potential. Switch is actually doing so well that those people who would only buy it at your 150-200, are probably buying it right now or will buy it soon.

What could happen is that with the interest around Switch, lowering the price tag would result in lower profits unnecessarily.

The question isn't so much if games can be ported to Switch, the question is at what cost.
Things could soon hit a point where the difference is so big that consumers won't even bother with the Switch version.

With Wii U, things were already BAD before the console failed. It just got worse after sales proved it wouldn't take off.

If point was just to extend life of product, why they didn't canned basic 3DS after New 3DS XL or after 2DS!? Fact is that you will much easier sell your platform if you have different price points of your platform, not all people are willing to pay just on higher price for product. 2DS is first lowered price hardware that is part of family, because 3DS was highest price Nintendo handheld and they wanted to have more afordible devaice, and now we have Switch that's even more expensive, not only that but Switch will not have huge price cut in its 1st year like 3DS did.

Of Course they need to have lower priced version if they want potentially much bigger sales. Like I wrote, "Sony and Nintendo operating different, and of course they will need lower price point because with current price point of Switch they dont have replacement for segment of $150-200 price point that's currently covered buy 3DS and 3DS XL. Of Course that much more people will be become part of Switch platform if they have device for $150-200 that plays Switch games instead of $300 (espacily for those who dont want to play on TV).

You comparison with Apple is bad, beacuse Apple do exatly things I talking about. Apple has iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, Iphone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, plus multiple versions of those models from 32GB to 256GB. Do you actualy realise how huge price point Apple is covering with their iPhone line!?

You are totally wrong that those are all same people who are willing to pay $300 for current Switch, and people who dont need (TV mode) and that $300 is definitely too high price for them but they would pay around $200. Yes curent Switch will be chepaer buy the time, but also Switch Mini/Pocket will also cheaper buy the time, we already saw Nintendo doing that with DS and 3DS line.

 

Well we have infos that Switch development is very easy and actually that Switch is light years ahead of Wii U in that matter. 3rd party games will always in any case look in handheld mode of Switch. Like I wrote, "on launch Wii U actually had pretty solid 3rd party support (Call Of Duty, Batman, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...) but 3rd party abandon Wii U after terrible sales and when realise that Wii U is a fail". 

They didn't can it because they had stock left - or still have, who knows - and because it became the second lowest entry price point for the platform.
I don't know about where you live, but i can't recall seeing the regular 3DS for some time.
2DS a different move for Nintendo for 2 reasons: offer a lower price tag and take away the 3D screen. This was probably the biggest reason for 2DS to exist. Remember all that talk about how 3D could hurt children's eyes and how not everyone adapted well to 3D?

I know that there are people who won't pay 329 for the Switch or could care less for the home console part of it? But how big is that market anyway? Would it make sense to make a smaller product when kids already pay with tablets? How can Nintendo offer an equal product to the regular Switch with a smaller price tag.

In theory yes, 200 price tag will attract consumers who wouldn't pay 300. But that's in theory.
Consoles and smartphones have shown that if the product is desirable, people will pay up whatever companies ask for to get it. Period.
And although there will always be people who won't give in, that market will be the more small, the more attractive/desirable the product is.

The comparison to Sony and Apple is more than fair: they always started with high price tags and sold a ton of consoles/devices.
The introduction, in Apple's case, came as a result of competition and they needed to lower the price. But even that, and if i'm not mistaken, the not-mainline versions lacked something (the camera quality).
You don't get to lower the Switch price just because you offer a smaller version. Something will have to give and you will end up with an inferior product, not just smaller.

You didn't understand me.
It's not about how easy it is to port games. It's about what you can get out of said machine.
Right now, Switch is clearly inferior to XB 1 and PS4, if they don't catch up to future PS and Xbox products, it won't matter how easy it is to port to Switch, the time will come where the difference is so big that devs will not want to butcher their games so they could work on Switch and fit in a cartridge.

Wii U didn't lose support because sales showed it failed, Wii U didn't have even before it went on sale.
Bringing games to a console takes year and if there were games coming in the first year you'd have seen a lot more in 2013. After that you'd see the difference.
This video is from May, 2013, a few months after the Wii U came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ig7A-eaZA8



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 21 March 2017
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

If point was just to extend life of product, why they didn't canned basic 3DS after New 3DS XL or after 2DS!? Fact is that you will much easier sell your platform if you have different price points of your platform, not all people are willing to pay just on higher price for product. 2DS is first lowered price hardware that is part of family, because 3DS was highest price Nintendo handheld and they wanted to have more afordible devaice, and now we have Switch that's even more expensive, not only that but Switch will not have huge price cut in its 1st year like 3DS did.

Of Course they need to have lower priced version if they want potentially much bigger sales. Like I wrote, "Sony and Nintendo operating different, and of course they will need lower price point because with current price point of Switch they dont have replacement for segment of $150-200 price point that's currently covered buy 3DS and 3DS XL. Of Course that much more people will be become part of Switch platform if they have device for $150-200 that plays Switch games instead of $300 (espacily for those who dont want to play on TV).

You comparison with Apple is bad, beacuse Apple do exatly things I talking about. Apple has iPhone 6, iPhone 6S, Iphone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, plus multiple versions of those models from 32GB to 256GB. Do you actualy realise how huge price point Apple is covering with their iPhone line!?

You are totally wrong that those are all same people who are willing to pay $300 for current Switch, and people who dont need (TV mode) and that $300 is definitely too high price for them but they would pay around $200. Yes curent Switch will be chepaer buy the time, but also Switch Mini/Pocket will also cheaper buy the time, we already saw Nintendo doing that with DS and 3DS line.

 

Well we have infos that Switch development is very easy and actually that Switch is light years ahead of Wii U in that matter. 3rd party games will always in any case look in handheld mode of Switch. Like I wrote, "on launch Wii U actually had pretty solid 3rd party support (Call Of Duty, Batman, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...) but 3rd party abandon Wii U after terrible sales and when realise that Wii U is a fail". 

They didn't can it because they had stock left - or still have, who knows - and because it became the second lowest entry price point for the platform.
I don't know about where you live, but i can't recall seeing the regular 3DS for some time.
2DS a different move for Nintendo for 2 reasons: offer a lower price tag and take away the 3D screen. This was probably the biggest reason for 2DS to exist. Remember all that talk about how 3D could hurt children's eyes and how not everyone adapted well to 3D?

I know that there are people who won't pay 329 for the Switch or could care less for the home console part of it? But how big is that market anyway? Would it make sense to make a smaller product when kids already pay with tablets? How can Nintendo offer an equal product to the regular Switch with a smaller price tag.

In theory yes, 200 price tag will attract consumers who wouldn't pay 300. But that's in theory.
Consoles and smartphones have shown that if the product is desirable, people will pay up whatever companies ask for to get it. Period.
And although there will always be people who won't give in, that market will be the more small, the more attractive/desirable the product is.

The comparison to Sony and Apple is more than fair: they always started with high price tags and sold a ton of consoles/devices.
The introduction, in Apple's case, came as a result of competition and they needed to lower the price. But even that, and if i'm not mistaken, the not-mainline versions lacked something (the camera quality).
You don't get to lower the Switch price just because you offer a smaller version. Something will have to give and you will end up with an inferior product, not just smaller.

You didn't understand me.
It's not about how easy it is to port games. It's about what you can get out of said machine.
Right now, Switch is clearly inferior to XB 1 and PS4, if they don't catch up to future PS and Xbox products, it won't matter how easy it is to port to Switch, the time will come where the difference is so big that devs will not want to butcher their games so they could work on Switch and fit in a cartridge.

Wii U didn't lose support because sales showed it failed, Wii U didn't have even before it went on sale.
Bringing games to a console takes year and if there were games coming in the first year you'd have seen a lot more in 2013. After that you'd see the difference.
This video is from May, 2013, a few months after the Wii U came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ig7A-eaZA8

Most logical reason is to offer even lower price point for 3DS for people who dont want to pay $150, but point is that they already done that with 2DS. You have New 3DS, New 3DS XL and 2DS on market, so 3 price points of 3DS, from $80/100 to $200. Yes, with 2DS they took away 3D screen and had more affordable option of 3DS family, same would be with Switch, take away TV mode with Joy Cons, Dock...and you have more affordable Switch option for people who dont need TV mode. Just in case of Switch its even more important because when 3DS dies, they will not have lower price point on market.

How big that market is!? Look at installed base of 3DS and installed base of Wii U, maybe that isn't best scenario, but fact is that handheld market always had much bigger instal base than console market in case of Nintendo. Actually Switch Mini/Pocket only for handheld playing for around $200 would force good number of 3DS owners to upgrade to Switch platform that are not currently willing to pay $300 for Switch with TV mode.

Like I wrote, fact is that Nintendo always manage their business different compared to Sony, Nintendo always had multiple price points on market, Sony usual only one.

Like I wrote, Switch Mini/Pocket will loos TV mode and console mode with dock and Joy cons, and it will be device just for handheld play. Not relly hard to understand.

 

Like I wrote, any games could be ported to Switch, if devs want they can ported even to PS3/Xbox360, or Wii or mobile phones. If devs think that porting would pay of to port game to Switch, they will do that, but actually most important is healthy platform that sells. Its very simple.

Do you actually see what I writing!? Wii U at launch had games like few Call Of Dutys, few Batmans, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...so actually Wii U had solid (not best or good but solid for Nintendo platform) 3rd party games on launch and that's a fact, but after terrible Wii U sales in 1st year and become clear that Wii U is faile, we saw that every 3rd party abandoned Wii U in its 1st year. Why do you think Wii U got just only one Fifa, one NBA or one NFS, while for instance Wii had tens of them!?

 

PLS read what I already wrote, there is no point to repeating myself.



DélioPT on 21 March 2017
Miyamotoo said:
DélioPT said:
 This video is from May, 2013, a few months after the Wii U came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ig7A-eaZA8 

Most logical reason is to offer even lower price point for 3DS for people who dont want to pay $150, but point is that they already done that with 2DS. You have New 3DS, New 3DS XL and 2DS on market, so 3 price points of 3DS, from $80/100 to $200. Yes, with 2DS they took away 3D screen and had more affordable option of 3DS family, same would be with Switch, take away TV mode with Joy Cons, Dock...and you have more affordable Switch option for people who dont need TV mode. Just in case of Switch its even more important because when 3DS dies, they will not have lower price point on market.

How big that market is!? Look at installed base of 3DS and installed base of Wii U, maybe that isn't best scenario, but fact is that handheld market always had much bigger instal base than console market in case of Nintendo. Actually Switch Mini/Pocket only for handheld playing for around $200 would force good number of 3DS owners to upgrade to Switch platform that are not currently willing to pay $300 for Switch with TV mode.

Like I wrote, fact is that Nintendo always manage their business different compared to Sony, Nintendo always had multiple price points on market, Sony usual only one.

Like I wrote, Switch Mini/Pocket will loos TV mode and console mode with dock and Joy cons, and it will be device just for handheld play. Not relly hard to understand.

 

Like I wrote, any games could be ported to Switch, if devs want they can ported even to PS3/Xbox360, or Wii or mobile phones. If devs think that porting would pay of to port game to Switch, they will do that, but actually most important is healthy platform that sells. Its very simple.

Do you actually see what I writing!? Wii U at launch had games like few Call Of Dutys, few Batmans, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...so actually Wii U had solid (not best or good but solid for Nintendo platform) 3rd party games on launch and that's a fact, but after terrible Wii U sales in 1st year and become clear that Wii U is faile, we saw that every 3rd party abandoned Wii U in its 1st year. Why do you think Wii U got just only one Fifa, one NBA or one NFS, while for instance Wii had tens of them!?

 

PLS read what I already wrote, there is no point to repeating myself.

So what if they don't have that lower price point right now?
Other companies can thrive without a lower price tag so soon and Nintendo can't, just because that's not Nintendo's way of doing things? By your own words, Sony is in the wrong because they are offering two price points now.
Just because Nintendo hasn't been doing something in a certain way, does not mean they won't do it. Things change. Just look how long it took between Switch's presentation and release. That's not Nintendo style. Yet, it happened.

If Nintendo is making money now (just look how they price the dock) why should they release a machine that is inferior, will most likely make them less profits when they can get a new out that is a better version (more appealing) and maintains them in the run with Sony and MS - aswell as making porting easy?

You can take away the dock and call it Switch, but you can't take away the joy cons and still call it Switch.
Your solutions for a low price handheld end up being a deviation from what Switch offers. Who would honestly want that in favor of a Switch?
You can't take away the joy cons and you certainly can't reduce the battery power even if it's in a slightly smaller screen.

Actually, Nintendo's latest comments show that they are not working on a Handheld.

Who's to say those same 3DS owners don't consider Switch attractive enough to buy it despite a higher price?
As i have showed you, price isn't the main concern. If the product is appealing enough, those consumers who wouldn't spend more than 200 dollars on just another console, will do it in a heart beat.
And that is one of the reasons why i don't see the need for a cheap Switch. With another being that, to actually get it smaller and cheaper, it would no longer be Switch, but something else - also, not as appealing.

I have no doubt that if Switch succeeds, 3rd party games will come. My point is at what price?
Who, owning a Switch would want to buy a 3rd party game that pales in comparison to the same game on PS4/XB1, specially if they own a PS4/XB1?
I don't expect a Switch Pro to compete, but i expect it to at least stop the power difference from growing.
Also, If i'm not mistaken, Wii U couldn't even run Unreal Engine 4. Do you know how many games didn't come because of that?

The video i gave you showed that, as of May of 2013, 48 games, announced for other consoles, were not coming to Wii U.
This, i believe, shows that Wii U's problems more than began before the console came out because the decision to port it had to be made a year or so before.



Miyamotoo on 21 March 2017
DélioPT said:
Miyamotoo said:

Most logical reason is to offer even lower price point for 3DS for people who dont want to pay $150, but point is that they already done that with 2DS. You have New 3DS, New 3DS XL and 2DS on market, so 3 price points of 3DS, from $80/100 to $200. Yes, with 2DS they took away 3D screen and had more affordable option of 3DS family, same would be with Switch, take away TV mode with Joy Cons, Dock...and you have more affordable Switch option for people who dont need TV mode. Just in case of Switch its even more important because when 3DS dies, they will not have lower price point on market.

How big that market is!? Look at installed base of 3DS and installed base of Wii U, maybe that isn't best scenario, but fact is that handheld market always had much bigger instal base than console market in case of Nintendo. Actually Switch Mini/Pocket only for handheld playing for around $200 would force good number of 3DS owners to upgrade to Switch platform that are not currently willing to pay $300 for Switch with TV mode.

Like I wrote, fact is that Nintendo always manage their business different compared to Sony, Nintendo always had multiple price points on market, Sony usual only one.

Like I wrote, Switch Mini/Pocket will loos TV mode and console mode with dock and Joy cons, and it will be device just for handheld play. Not relly hard to understand.

 

Like I wrote, any games could be ported to Switch, if devs want they can ported even to PS3/Xbox360, or Wii or mobile phones. If devs think that porting would pay of to port game to Switch, they will do that, but actually most important is healthy platform that sells. Its very simple.

Do you actually see what I writing!? Wii U at launch had games like few Call Of Dutys, few Batmans, Mass Effect, NFS, Fifa, NBA...so actually Wii U had solid (not best or good but solid for Nintendo platform) 3rd party games on launch and that's a fact, but after terrible Wii U sales in 1st year and become clear that Wii U is faile, we saw that every 3rd party abandoned Wii U in its 1st year. Why do you think Wii U got just only one Fifa, one NBA or one NFS, while for instance Wii had tens of them!?

 

PLS read what I already wrote, there is no point to repeating myself.

So what if they don't have that lower price point right now?
Other companies can thrive without a lower price tag so soon and Nintendo can't, just because that's not Nintendo's way of doing things? By your own words, Sony is in the wrong because they are offering two price points now.
Just because Nintendo hasn't been doing something in a certain way, does not mean they won't do it. Things change. Just look how long it took between Switch's presentation and release. That's not Nintendo style. Yet, it happened.

If Nintendo is making money now (just look how they price the dock) why should they release a machine that is inferior, will most likely make them less profits when they can get a new out that is a better version (more appealing) and maintains them in the run with Sony and MS - aswell as making porting easy?

You can take away the dock and call it Switch, but you can't take away the joy cons and still call it Switch.
Your solutions for a low price handheld end up being a deviation from what Switch offers. Who would honestly want that in favor of a Switch?
You can't take away the joy cons and you certainly can't reduce the battery power even if it's in a slightly smaller screen.

Actually, Nintendo's latest comments show that they are not working on a Handheld.

Who's to say those same 3DS owners don't consider Switch attractive enough to buy it despite a higher price?
As i have showed you, price isn't the main concern. If the product is appealing enough, those consumers who wouldn't spend more than 200 dollars on just another console, will do it in a heart beat.
And that is one of the reasons why i don't see the need for a cheap Switch. With another being that, to actually get it smaller and cheaper, it would no longer be Switch, but something else - also, not as appealing.

I have no doubt that if Switch succeeds, 3rd party games will come. My point is at what price?
Who, owning a Switch would want to buy a 3rd party game that pales in comparison to the same game on PS4/XB1, specially if they own a PS4/XB1?
I don't expect a Switch Pro to compete, but i expect it to at least stop the power difference from growing.
Also, If i'm not mistaken, Wii U couldn't even run Unreal Engine 4. Do you know how many games didn't come because of that?

The video i gave you showed that, as of May of 2013, 48 games, announced for other consoles, were not coming to Wii U.
This, i believe, shows that Wii U's problems more than began before the console came out because the decision to port it had to be made a year or so before.

Are you serious!? Offcourse they have curently lower price point on market with 2DS/3DS/3DSXL. I relly dont know what are you talking about, difrent companies operating difrent, that doesnt mean some companie is dooing right thing other wrong. Clear fact is that Nintendo operating different than Sony, and that always looking to have different price points on market in same time. Of Course that things can change but only if that make sense, and totally make sense that Nintendo release cheaper version of Switch when 3DS dies, same like there was sense to make one platform that will unified Nintendo home console and handheld platforms.

Sry but do you have some problem with reading my posts!? Like I wrote several times now,  beacus you have some people who don't need TV mode and they don't want to pay $300 for Switch, but they would pay around $200 for Switch without TV mode, you cantbet that lotsa 3DS user will upgrade on Switch Mini/Pocket. They will gain much more users buy releasing cheaper version of Switch not more expensive one than $300. More users means more sold games, that means more profit.

You can take away Dock and Joy Con and called it Switch Mini/Pocket, they can call it like ever they want. Who will want Switch Mini/Pocket!? Like I already stated 10 times to you, people who dont need TV mode and dont want to pay $300 for Switch. You missing clear point, to offer different versions of hardware with different price points, and consumer will choose version that suits them most, similar like you have with 3DS family currently, 3DS, 3DS XL and 2DS. Its very easy to understand and to see how much that actualy make sense.

Actually they said they dont working to 3DS successor at moment, but Switch Mini/Pocket would be part of Switch family not true successor to handheld and want be difrent family compared to Switch. Nintendo comment about handheld was unspecific PR talk beacuse its obvious they dont want to talk about that yet, they basicly said "we always thinking about new handheld", that could mean anuthing.

Because it's logical to assume that not all owners of console that is only handheld and had price point of $150-200, are not willing to pay $300 for new console. Some of them will defiantly buy Switch in current form, but some of them will not be will to pay $300 but they would pay $200 for instance. Like I wrote, difrente price point aiming at difrents segments of market, curently with Switch and 3DS Nintendo covers price point from $80/100 to $300, but when 3DS dies they will left with just their highest price point, and of course they work to have more affordable version of Switch that would replacement on market for 3DS price point.

 

We don't know that price. Owner who will want to play that game in handheld mode on to go, or owner who has only Switch. Switch 2 or Switch Pro or whatever will make power difrence smaller, but that really doesn't change anything, it's clear that Nintendo doesn't care of power of competition and dont have attention to compete with Pro/Scorpio. Yes, I know that Wii U didnt supported UE4 or some other standards on market, but difference is that Switch supports them all out of gate.

You need to realise that Nintendo platforms always had worse 3rd party support (actually from SNES gen) compared to competition, and that actually Wii U had solid 3rd party support for Nintendo platform with games that I mentioned, but Wii U loosed that support after terrible sales in 1st year.



Soundwave on 21 March 2017

They'll use a Tegra X2 for revisions, I'm more certain of it now the more I think about it.

Nintendo fans are too over-awed by new technology they think it automatically must cost way more, that's often not the case. In 12-16 months the Tegra X2 likely won't cost much if at all more than the Tegra X1 does now and virtually all the R&D has already been done on the chip. 

Nintendo not using a stupid custom chip gives them options that they didn't have with a lot of their past hardware. 



zorg1000 on 21 March 2017
Soundwave said:

They'll use a Tegra X2 for revisions, I'm more certain of it now the more I think about it.

Nintendo fans are too over-awed by new technology they think it automatically must cost way more, that's often not the case. In 12-16 months the Tegra X2 likely won't cost much if at all more than the Tegra X1 does now and virtually all the R&D has already been done on the chip. 

Nintendo not using a stupid custom chip gives them options that they didn't have with a lot of their past hardware. 

Switch Lite, 5" 720p screen w/built in controls, 4-8hr battery

Switch TV, microconsole w/Pro Controller or Joy-Cons+Grip

September 2018, $199.99 each



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