I'd much prefer fresh new RE2 and 3 remakes. For RE1 we'll get the sloppy PS3/PS4 remake which lacks all the soul of the far superior Directors Cut on PSX.

RE0 was a blatant shovelware cashin. No one asked for it, and no one wanted it. It is the worst and laziest RE game ever made. It was so bad that it makes the Umbrella Chronicles games back on Wii look like masterpieces.

Yep it is known that Nintendo needs lots of third party support in order to not WiiUligize the Switch in a couple years.

Even with an auto explicative video, people fail to get the point of this thread.

This + Nintendo's generational offerings == Win.

Couldn't agree more. I've seen a lot of people on this site and others who would have never considered the Nintendo console's port of a game now saying they'll either get the Switch version of something or double dip on it just to be able to play it anywhere.

All throughout the Wii U and 3DS generation, I'd constantly debate with myself over which version of a game I want, or do I want to be able to play it comfortable on a big screen or take it with me, or should I wait to see if it will get ported to the console I'd prefer to play it on. The fact that I no longer have to pick one or the other is a humongous win.

Precisely why I love mine.

you sexist pig

I understand the part about a unified platform and the advantages as far as development goes. There are a few problems though; the first being that they're still keeping the 3DS alive, which will keep on diverting this effort a while longer, the second being that they still pretty much rely solely on first software to move hardware. And this has proven to be less important than the core concept of their consoles, as all their home consoles and handhelds have had great 1st party software (some argue that the GC didn't, but it's not terrible relevant since the N64 also crashed and burned sales-wise), but not all have had great sales. Assuming that Nintendo games will sell zounds of Nintendo consoles by default is stylistic and simplified, especially when there's lots of historical data telling us a possibly different outcome. Heck; the Wii U is very recent proof of this idea not being enough on its own (again, no, I don't expect it to sell like the Wii U, just making a point here). If one wants to refute the historical data by insisting "but the Switch is something else and historical data can't be used to decide its fate", one also needs to stop with the "they've sold a lot handhelds and a lot of home consoles, so they'll sell a lot of hybrids" as this supposition is just as or perhaps even more loosely based on irrelevant data.

Whether or not it's a "very smart" idea will become obvious during 2017 and 2018, I still don't buy this and I feel like they're taking a huge risk in their form factor, their continued push for local multiplayer and abject refusal to include or streamline certain convenience factors. It will also be a tough sell with expensive handheld hardware and accessories to fringe customers that might have otherwise taken the plunge, the 3DS didn't exactly fly off the shelves at its introduction price and only after a historically unprecedented price cut did it start to move at a decent rate.

You claim that the hybrid notion will attract many consumers, have you considered that it might rebuke many as well? People who want a more thoroughbred handheld or a more fleshy dedicated home console with more storage and stationary capability. Inclusion of the one function ups the price and lowers the convenience of the other, so where you seem endless possibilities, I see quite a few practical and marketing limitations. Let's not forget that this thing has nowhere near the mainstream buzz factor the Wii had, not even in the ballpark. They'll make a smaller or a larger version to accomodate these fringe consumers? Well, then you're entering my point of needing constant revision to stay relevant and attractive, which ties into problems of its own and in and on itself proves a big point I've been making in here for years about market movements and the future of consoles, so that's a no-go as well.

Mobile gamers will likely ignore it, presenting a tablet that isn't a tablet is not how you reel them in and neither is "big games" on the go. People who crave 3rd part multiplats will ignore it as well, support outside of 1st party is looking predictably bleak. Who's to say it won't be somewhat off-putting to 3DS owners? Why did the majority of DS owners not get a 3DS? The market is different and more fragmented today, many different demographics, and creating a machine designed to be a jack-of all trades was their plan with the Wii U as well, but they don't seem to realize that this is a poor strategy in a consumer electronics market where there's so much to choose from, prices are low when taking special deals and subscriptions, consumers demand constant revision and updates and near free content to delve into daily and they generally replace their hardware more often. Being designed the way it is, the Switch is likely to be more affected by these market movements and will be forced to make even more revisions than the competition, they're facing the market once more with inferior online, poor software breadth (especially while the 3DS still has life left in it, releasing a product to compete with your own isn't the signs of terribly well thought out strategy) and lack of multimedia functionality, which is a huge factor for consoles today, let alone smart devices.

In short; the Switch has some pretty big weaknesses and is not a perfect product. Is it more exciting than a PS4 or Xbox One? Maybe to you, and many more, but we're not the ones who set the pace or dictates the motions, perceived value rules the day and the market and I still hold firm that the Switch will prove a tough sell in the long run. Many seem to think it will have a slower start and then build up huge momentum, I rather think it will have a good start, a decent middle and then a quick end, with none of those crazy peak years in the 20-25 million zone required to be compared to the likes of the Wii. The pace of the market(s) they're aiming for, lack of functionality and proper convenience, the cost of constant revision and lack of truly competitive software breadth based on mostly relying on 1st party once again and the possibly unfortunate form factor might really put a damper on the party. That's not to say it won't be a success, I think it will, but there is no reason to think it's the Wii all over again. To simply assume it will inherit the entire 3DS and Wii U install base and add even more simply because it can be both docked and handheld and has the same games as previous consoles is a rather unsound line of reasoning and brushes of many factors.

I think the Switch is the consumer electronics answer to the MPV (multi-purpose vehicle) in the automotive industry; it was a hit at the start and provided a good mix between the comforts and practicality of a large van with the somewhat nimbler nature and looks of an estate/station wagon. However, for practical reasons (diesel emission demands) and due to competition being more steady and focused, the MPV became outdated and is now being trounced by compact SUV cars. People have found that the MPV lacks the agility and response of a station wagon and it lacks the space of a van, they're rather uneconomical to drive and own and often feature a rather abhorrent design. Meanwhile, compact SUV's have become poised, provide perfect mid-range engines and economy, driving comfort and great safety measures and fantastic design and station wagons remain the choice of people who are drivers, who appreciate the feel of the connecting with your vehicle and this remains a stable and sound market. MPV's remain popular in one major market (the US) but declines globally while compact SUV and station wagon continues to grow massively and slightly respectively.

In case it's unclear; the Switch is the MPV (Japan will be its saving grace like the US to the MPV), station wagons are traditional home consoles and PC, and compact SUV's are mobile/tablet social/browser games.

But, hey, only time will decide for sure. For now, as mentioned, I think the Switch will be a success, if they play their cards right, they might position themselves somewhere between Xbox One and PS4 territory. If the market turns out and progresses the way it has and attempted forced market convergence once more proves ineffective for Nintendo in the long run, it might be a battle for second place. Honestly, there's no scenario I can imagine that makes the Switch a Wii with 100+ plus lifetime sales, I don't think the market will permit it and this notion that Nintendo have created a new blue ocean is utterly false, they're not appealing to an entirely untapped and new demographic as with the Wii; they're trying to appeal to existing demographics who have other options and might easily be disuaded from a purchase, current owners reports that "you realize the value when you own it" somewhat support this view and could provide a big hurdle from a marketing perspective.

Nintendo doesn't need a blue ocean. The blue ocean of the Wii/DS is actually the reddest ocean today, there are more games aimed at casual/fringe players being made today and more money spend marketing those games than traditional games today. Clash of Clans has a bigger marketing budget than any console game. 

You can't compete with free. It's a killer app and none of those people give a shit about buttons. You're not going to win them over "free" with "buttons". That's the naive mom who thinks she's going to win over kids with raisins instead of Halloween candy. They probably even prefer no buttons because it forces smartphone devs to make simpler interfaces that are easier to pick and play. You can't compete with that.

Switch can go the other way though and create a premium high end experience that's never really been available before in portable gaming like this. Switch is unique by its very form factor and usability, it doesn't need all that other gimmicky crap. 

So much is made of HARDWARE sales too ... what about SOFTWARE sales guys? Do you know the GameCube has the highest tie ratio of any Nintendo system? Not DS, not Wii, not NES, but the fucking GameCube at a whopping 9.6 games per console. What if they could replicate a more GameCube like attach rate, but get a hardware base more along the lines of 3DS? 

If Nintendo can sell 70-75 million Switches even with a tie ratio of even 8 games per console (lower than GameCube) 560-600 million software titles sold, that's more than Wii U + 3DS combined by a mile, they will make a shit ton of money from that system. 

Maybe Nintendo should aim for that instead. Hardware is only there to drive software sales, how easily we forget this.

That's a great point, Soundwave. Software is king and the profit margins on software absolutely murders hardware of any kind, doubly so at the beginning of the life cycle of a new machine. This is how success should be measured. I won't be surprised if the Switch ends up with GC/N64 level attach rates on certain big titles, which will more than make up for the lack of a Wii Sports or Wii Fit, Nintendogs or Brain Age. It should be a good enthusiast machine and I think that at its core, the Switch will be most "hardcore" on the market as far as its main demographic goes. The outliers in demographics won't be easy to attract, but they might not be needed. If one had to choose between selling 100 million consoles with a poor attach rate and selling 60-70 million with awesome attach rate, the latter would be the best choice in the long run, installed base is mostly about bragging rights, having a big installed base is of lower value unless they keep investing in the platform.