Quantcast
Your thoughts on the Next Ninty Console

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Your thoughts on the Next Ninty Console

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

See I wouldn't have a problem with this concept if I had any faith that the base Switch would still be properly supported after the release of the Pro/1.5, but I have no such faith.

Nintendo will still make sure their games run fine on it, sure, but non-Nintendo releases will end up like Hyrule Warriors on the base 3DS chugging along at 20fps. 

And that may well happen, but you will still get plenty of content to play. It's not like Switch Pro will show up and OG Switch will suddenly get like only 10 games a year. Try several hundred, try probably more than you could ever spend money on or have time to play. 

As a business I can't run my business and put it at risk and also hold back my hardware sales just because of this group of consumer. You have to be reasonable.

Nintendo is already making a fairly large sacrifice in giving you one system that can play basically all their content instead of asking for two (which worked out to like over $500 US), they owe it to themselves to have higher hardware sales and more models will provide that, but they have to be significant upgrades, consumers are not stupid and are not going to go crazy over little dinky New 3DS style upgrades (case in point -- none of the 3DS revisions caused any kind of large boost in fiscal year sales for that product). 

A hybrid between the PC setup and how Apple does business is what's best for Nintendo. It will mitigate risks that come from hardware transitions (that historically have blown up in Nintendo's face half the time) and it will prevent against things like hardware shipment collapse after year 3-4 of every hardware cycle that plagues almost all Nintendo systems, even the successful ones. There's only so many Nintendo IP, and you end up using them up basically by the end of that 3rd year, then you have problems selling hardware. Switch is going to have that same problem.

Getting only 3 years before non-Nintendo games turn to shit and you're left with only the handful or less of worthwhile games Nintendo release per year is horrible for the consumer, you're screwing over what will then be over 50 million paying customers.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

And that may well happen, but you will still get plenty of content to play. It's not like Switch Pro will show up and OG Switch will suddenly get like only 10 games a year. Try several hundred, try probably more than you could ever spend money on or have time to play. 

As a business I can't run my business and put it at risk and also hold back my hardware sales just because of this group of consumer. You have to be reasonable.

Nintendo is already making a fairly large sacrifice in giving you one system that can play basically all their content instead of asking for two (which worked out to like over $500 US), they owe it to themselves to have higher hardware sales and more models will provide that, but they have to be significant upgrades, consumers are not stupid and are not going to go crazy over little dinky New 3DS style upgrades (case in point -- none of the 3DS revisions caused any kind of large boost in fiscal year sales for that product). 

A hybrid between the PC setup and how Apple does business is what's best for Nintendo. It will mitigate risks that come from hardware transitions (that historically have blown up in Nintendo's face half the time) and it will prevent against things like hardware shipment collapse after year 3-4 of every hardware cycle that plagues almost all Nintendo systems, even the successful ones. There's only so many Nintendo IP, and you end up using them up basically by the end of that 3rd year, then you have problems selling hardware. Switch is going to have that same problem.

Getting only 3 years before non-Nintendo games turn to shit and you're left with only the handful or less of worthwhile games Nintendo release per year is horrible for the consumer, you're screwing over what will then be over 50 million paying customers.

Leave it up to the dev. Likely speaking what you'll more likely get are games like Resident Evil 2 Remake that simply cannot run on the OG Switch that are Switch Pro-only ... but really you wouldn't have gotten that game on the OG Switch anyway, so what exactly have you lost? Nothing. If anything you've gained something because that game will be there waiting for you, whenever you feel like you want to upgrade. 

Just like today I can buy a new PC GPU and I know there are new games waiting for me to play that my GPU can't run. And that's great, that's power to the consumer, I choose when I want to move up, it's not dictated to me by a company deadline like I'm a 10 year old that needs to beg my parents to buy me my video games. 



Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Getting only 3 years before non-Nintendo games turn to shit and you're left with only the handful or less of worthwhile games Nintendo release per year is horrible for the consumer, you're screwing over what will then be over 50 million paying customers.

Leave it up to the dev. Likely speaking what you'll more likely get are games like Resident Evil 2 Remake that simply cannot run on the OG Switch that are Switch Pro-only ... but really you wouldn't have gotten that game on the OG Switch anyway, so what exactly have you lost? Nothing. If anything you've gained something because that game will be there waiting for you, whenever you feel like you want to upgrade. 

Just like today I can buy a new PC GPU and I know there are new games waiting for me to play that my GPU can't run. And that's great, that's power to the consumer, I choose when I want to move up, it's not dictated to me by a company deadline like I'm a 10 year old that needs to beg my parents to buy me my video games. 

My issue isn't games that wouldn't have run on base Switch anyway. My issue is games that could have run okay on base Switch becoming barely playable 20fps chugfests cos devs prioritize the stronger hardware and put the bare minimum of effort into making the base version run.



curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

Leave it up to the dev. Likely speaking what you'll more likely get are games like Resident Evil 2 Remake that simply cannot run on the OG Switch that are Switch Pro-only ... but really you wouldn't have gotten that game on the OG Switch anyway, so what exactly have you lost? Nothing. If anything you've gained something because that game will be there waiting for you, whenever you feel like you want to upgrade. 

Just like today I can buy a new PC GPU and I know there are new games waiting for me to play that my GPU can't run. And that's great, that's power to the consumer, I choose when I want to move up, it's not dictated to me by a company deadline like I'm a 10 year old that needs to beg my parents to buy me my video games. 

My issue isn't games that wouldn't have run on base Switch anyway. My issue is games that could have run okay on base Switch becoming barely playable 20fps chugfests cos devs prioritize the stronger hardware and put the bare minimum of effort into making the base version run.

There wouldn't be much incentive for a dev to do that if OG Switch users are the majority, which they would be anyway through 2021 most likely. 

Even if there are a handful of devs that want to piss off the consumer base by doing that, that's on them, they lose business. More likely what you will see is the same games that would have come out on Switch, come out on Switch. What will be added are PS4/XB1/even PS5/XB2 tier games that simply are impossible to run on the modern Switch, but those devs would be interested in offering versions of some of those games (ie: Kingdom Hearts 3) for some extra sales in the Switch ecosystem. 

Long term IMO when people get used to the new setup they will realize they probably like the new setup better ... driving a hardware into the ground until its badly outdated and losing brand momentum is not a positive. It's not even good for business, it was a reality of the hardware model of the past because largely in the past the majority of gamers were kids that had to rely on parents to buy their game hardware for them so you had no choice but to space things out. 

But today? We live in the Apple world and consumer expectations are dramatically different, not only is iterative business models OK by consumers, most actually *prefer* that model. They want the company to give them multiple choices and then they choose when they want their next iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Playstation, XBox, Switch, Apple Watch, iPad, whatever. It's up to the consumer to decide. 



Soundwave said:

Waiting until 2022/2023 will be a disaster. IMO Nintendo knows this 100%, they're not going to wait that long. There is no Game Boy/DS second product line for Nintendo to fall back on if the "console" fails either. It's far too risky to do things that way. The upgrade cycle has to change.

Even look at their software by the end of 2019 Nintendo will have used up Mario 3D, Zelda, Pokemon, Pokemon Lets Go, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Luigi's Mansion, probably Metroid, Fire Emblem ... they can make sequels to these IP but the hardware boost is going to be nowhere near the same because much of the fanbase will own a Switch already for the pre-existing game. 

With what new IP are they going to sell the Switch with for 2020, 2021, and 2022? It will be a disaster with declining sales every year and no, some little New 3DS style upgrade or even Switch Mini is not going to be enough for Nintendo to maintain a high level of sales. 

Then Nintendo are shit out of luck regardless ? The console cycle just simply needs a hard reset irrespective of the next generation system featuring BC or not and that's the way it will remain because if their only way of maintaining higher hardware sales is through selling new iterations of their franchises advertising the capabilities of their next generation system then it won't mean much whether or not they adopt your so called "PC model" since they only did it in name only ... 

After all, aside from releasing a more expensive model to appease the 3rd party developers what are the other advantages your model offers compared to existing home consoles who also offer upgraded systems as well ? Should Nintendo titles also adopt a continuously updating development baseline or should they also stick to a hard baseline target and change it as if there was a new upcoming generation just like how every other console manufacturer did so far ? 



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

My issue isn't games that wouldn't have run on base Switch anyway. My issue is games that could have run okay on base Switch becoming barely playable 20fps chugfests cos devs prioritize the stronger hardware and put the bare minimum of effort into making the base version run.

There wouldn't be much incentive for a dev to do that if OG Switch users are the majority, which they would be anyway through 2021 most likely. 

Even if there are a handful of devs that want to piss off the consumer base by doing that, that's on them, they lose business. More likely what you will see is the same games that would have come out on Switch, come out on Switch. What will be added are PS4/XB1/even PS5/XB2 tier games that simply are impossible to run on the modern Switch, but those devs would be interested in offering versions of some of those games (ie: Kingdom Hearts 3) for some extra sales in the Switch ecosystem. 

Long term IMO when people get used to the new setup they will realize they probably like the new setup better ... driving a hardware into the ground until its badly outdated and losing brand momentum is not a positive. It's not even good for business, it was a reality of the hardware model of the past because largely in the past the majority of gamers were kids that had to rely on parents to buy their game hardware for them so you had no choice but to space things out. 

But today? We live in the Apple world and consumer expectations are dramatically different, not only is iterative business models OK by consumers, most actually *prefer* that model. They want the company to give them multiple choices and then they choose when they want their next iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Playstation, XBox, Switch, Apple Watch, iPad, whatever. It's up to the consumer to decide. 

Most devs are generally cheap and lazy and will take the path of least resistance; if that means stronger hardware making development easier than optimizing something properly on the base Switch, they'll do that, and we'll have to suffer for it.

Take a game like Wolfenstein II for example; in its current state it holds a stable 30fps most of the time on Switch, but I'm willing to bet if a stronger model was available it would run at 30fps on that and struggle along at 15-20fps on the base model.



curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

There wouldn't be much incentive for a dev to do that if OG Switch users are the majority, which they would be anyway through 2021 most likely. 

Even if there are a handful of devs that want to piss off the consumer base by doing that, that's on them, they lose business. More likely what you will see is the same games that would have come out on Switch, come out on Switch. What will be added are PS4/XB1/even PS5/XB2 tier games that simply are impossible to run on the modern Switch, but those devs would be interested in offering versions of some of those games (ie: Kingdom Hearts 3) for some extra sales in the Switch ecosystem. 

Long term IMO when people get used to the new setup they will realize they probably like the new setup better ... driving a hardware into the ground until its badly outdated and losing brand momentum is not a positive. It's not even good for business, it was a reality of the hardware model of the past because largely in the past the majority of gamers were kids that had to rely on parents to buy their game hardware for them so you had no choice but to space things out. 

But today? We live in the Apple world and consumer expectations are dramatically different, not only is iterative business models OK by consumers, most actually *prefer* that model. They want the company to give them multiple choices and then they choose when they want their next iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Playstation, XBox, Switch, Apple Watch, iPad, whatever. It's up to the consumer to decide. 

Most devs are generally cheap and lazy and will take the path of least resistance; if that means stronger hardware making development easier than optimizing something properly on the base Switch, they'll do that, and we'll have to suffer for it.

Take a game like Wolfenstein II for example; in its current state it holds a stable 30fps most of the time on Switch, but I'm willing to bet if a stronger model was available it would run at 30fps on that and struggle along at 15-20fps on the base model.

Lazy developers also had a tendency to get punished with lower sales. But sure that can happen, there are pros and cons to that approach, but from a business POV, I think there are more pros than cons.

50% of Nintendo's hardware transitions have been failures/dissapointments, you can't bank the entire company on a traditional Switch 2 going swimmingly well. What's your back up plan if it doesn't? The better plan is to not put your company in that position to begin with and change to something that's far less risky of a hardware model. PC has been doing something else for decades and its worked fine there, Apple is making more money than all three console makers with their model. 

There are pro-consumer arguments for an Apple/Steam-PC like model too, I think the freedom of being able to upgrade whenever you want and having games available right from day 1 instead of having to wait months/years for the library to build up is a significant pro. 



Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

Most devs are generally cheap and lazy and will take the path of least resistance; if that means stronger hardware making development easier than optimizing something properly on the base Switch, they'll do that, and we'll have to suffer for it.

Take a game like Wolfenstein II for example; in its current state it holds a stable 30fps most of the time on Switch, but I'm willing to bet if a stronger model was available it would run at 30fps on that and struggle along at 15-20fps on the base model.

Lazy developers also had a tendency to get punished with lower sales. But sure that can happen, there are pros and cons to that approach, but from a business POV, I think there are more pros than cons.

50% of Nintendo's hardware transitions have been failures/dissapointments, you can't bank the entire company on a traditional Switch 2 going swimmingly well. What's your back up plan if it doesn't? The better plan is to not put your company in that position to begin with and change to something that's far less risky of a hardware model. PC has been doing something else for decades and its worked fine there, Apple is making more money than all three console makers with their model. 

There are pro-consumer arguments for an Apple/Steam-PC like model too, I think the freedom of being able to upgrade whenever you want and having games available right from day 1 instead of having to wait months/years for the library to build up is a significant pro. 

They can maintain hardware momentum with hardware revisions like they did with the DS. It doesn't need to be a full-on Switch 1.5 with a big power boost, it could just be a Switch Deluxe with a bigger and higher quality screen. That way you avoid consumer interest waning until it's time for a proper successor.



curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

Lazy developers also had a tendency to get punished with lower sales. But sure that can happen, there are pros and cons to that approach, but from a business POV, I think there are more pros than cons.

50% of Nintendo's hardware transitions have been failures/dissapointments, you can't bank the entire company on a traditional Switch 2 going swimmingly well. What's your back up plan if it doesn't? The better plan is to not put your company in that position to begin with and change to something that's far less risky of a hardware model. PC has been doing something else for decades and its worked fine there, Apple is making more money than all three console makers with their model. 

There are pro-consumer arguments for an Apple/Steam-PC like model too, I think the freedom of being able to upgrade whenever you want and having games available right from day 1 instead of having to wait months/years for the library to build up is a significant pro. 

They can maintain hardware momentum with hardware revisions like they did with the DS. It doesn't need to be a full-on Switch 1.5 with a big power boost, it could just be a Switch Deluxe with a bigger and higher quality screen. That way you avoid consumer interest waning until it's time for a proper successor.

The DS era was a different time, people were easier to impress, the full weight of what Apple was about to do and the smartphone industry had not really shaped people's expectations. 

So something like the OG DS to DS Lite was considered an impressive change for 2006, but that's 12 years ago.

The 3DS revisions ... every single one of them basically resulted in no sales boost, and in many cases it actually resulted in a decline. 

Past that, I don't even think the 5-6 year cycle works for Nintendo, it was a set up born out of the 1980s when Nintendo had 100% third party support and could easily have 5 years of content. 

In the post Playstation era where Nintendo doesn't get that anymore and has to rely on basically 7 or 8 main franchises to sell a platform ... it's hard to not be tapped out of content even by year 3. The Switch for example will have used up basically all the A/B-tier Nintendo franchises by the end of 2019 (3D Mario, 2D Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, PLG, Mario Kart, Splatoon, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem). It's not a coincidence most Nintendo hardware sales really start to decline by year 4/5 of their hardware cycles, because that hardware cycle was never designed to be a setup where the system was mainly sold by Nintendo games. The NES and SNES were not like that. 

It's very hard to maintain 5-6 years of 15 million+ hardware sales (which is likely what Nintendo wants) when you're basically relying on just one company's franchises and then some secondary/tertiary support from developers. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 27 November 2018

Soundwave said:
curl-6 said:

They can maintain hardware momentum with hardware revisions like they did with the DS. It doesn't need to be a full-on Switch 1.5 with a big power boost, it could just be a Switch Deluxe with a bigger and higher quality screen. That way you avoid consumer interest waning until it's time for a proper successor.

The DS era was a different time, people were easier to impress, the full weight of what Apple was about to do and the smartphone industry had not really shaped people's expectations. 

So something like the OG DS to DS Lite was considered an impressive change for 2006, but that's 12 years ago.

The 3DS revisions ... every single one of them basically resulted in no sales boost, and in many cases it actually resulted in a decline. 

Past that, I don't even think the 5-6 year cycle works for Nintendo, it was a set up born out of the 1980s when Nintendo had 100% third party support and could easily have 5 years of content. 

In the post Playstation era where Nintendo doesn't get that anymore and has to rely on basically 7 or 8 main franchises to sell a platform ... it's hard to not be tapped out of content even by year 3. The Switch for example will have used up basically all the A/B-tier Nintendo franchises by the end of 2019 (3D Mario, 2D Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, PLG, Mario Kart, Splatoon, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem). It's not a coincidence most Nintendo hardware sales really start to decline by year 4/5 of their hardware cycles, because that hardware cycle was never designed to be a setup where the system was mainly sold by Nintendo games. The NES and SNES were not like that. 

Switch is not the 3DS, it's selling as well at $300 as 3DS did at a $170. There's a lot of interest in various hardware revisions of the original Switch.

As for "they won't have any more system sellers after year 3", even if that were true, a Switch 1.5 in 2020 and every 2 years thereafter doesn't solve that anyway.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 27 November 2018