Quantcast
Nintendo Switch is perfectly viable as a primary or even only gaming device...

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch is perfectly viable as a primary or even only gaming device...

 

Shiken said:

Well my phone has crapped out and I lost my damn reply to half of the quotes.  So annoyed at that, and I have no time to type it all out again right now.

Looking forward to your replies.



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

Around the Network
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
Shiken said:

The point of the thread is to highlight how ALL THREE consoles are equally viable in the mainstream market as a primary based on the individual.  Many people who seem to wish it that the Switch would not be viable to "real gamers" have tried to make claims stating as much.  These people can be found trying to downplay the Switch across several gaming forums, so I have given them a chance to prove their claims.

 

The fact that everything can be so easily shot down is all the proof that is needed to show that such claims are unfounded.  What they then end up doing is complaining about how speaking about the general mainstream is pointless and getting agitated about the subject because they cannot use their own personal preference to speak for the masses.  They know that their argument is invalid to the general gaming public, and to try to continue would do nothing but expose their own bias.

But they are not equally viable. If you asked gamers what console they would choose as their primary/only console, I would bet my money that majority would choose PS4. Switch could be second, but if PS4 didn't exist, majority would most likely choose Xbox One.

And one of the main reason for this is that for example this year there have been at least 15 AAA games ranging from good to great that are not on Switch. How is it bias if you state this fact?

You could probably find some people whose primary/only console is Ouya (because they prefer its games, etc.) but what's the point? There are millions of people whose primary/only console is Switch, but it's not a valid argument to state that it's equally viable.

You have to look outside of your bubble man.  I will use myself as an example, and there are many many people in the same boat.  It is not rocket science, and it is sad that I have to keep bringing up the same points to counter the same arguments over and over.  It seems nay sayers are desperately trying to downplay the Switch because admitting that Nintendo has a viable primary console is taboo to them.

 

Like I have been saying, it is all about TIME.  The Switch has more than enough retail games to keep gamers entertained.  There are good titles that will not come to Switch, I have a PS4 Pro AS A SIDE CONSOLE for those games.  By getting the multiplat games that do come to Switch, I have double the time to actually play the games than my PS4 allows.  I own RDR2, but instead of starting it I finished Starlink, Wolfenstein 2, and invested a chunk of time into Warframe.  All of those games are good games and worth my time.  When I have the time to play RDR2  I will.  But right now, Switch is most viable.

 

It is due to this fact that I, and more people than some of you are willing to admit, buy and play more games on Switch rather than PS4 or X1.  The PS4 having the bigger library has no bearing on people with this situation.  So yes, depending on the needs of the gamer, the Switch is just as viable of a primary console than any of the other to the mainstream.  You do not equal the mainstream, hell the forums do not equal the mainstream.  Many of the people I speak of do not have the time to spend on forums, let alone be tied to a tv.

 

You can have the biggest library in the world, but without the time to play the games, it is pointless.  To those that do not like Nintendo games nor value portability, it is an easy decision.  There is nothing wrong woth going with the PS4 or X1.  But if you do like Nintendo games and that portability is important to you, like it is to many, then there is also nothing wrong with going with the Switch instead.  The fact that it is selling as well as it is in a slow year should be proof enough of this fact.

Last edited by Shiken - 6 days ago

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Mr Puggsly said:
Shiken said:

I have already seen a good number of people in other threads showing the contrary, and a few of them within this very thread as well.  I mean the fact that some 3rd party games that come out on Switch seem to outsell X1 versions is evidence that portability matters to many.

Fact is, even the majority of an online forum does not come close to accounting for the general public.  To think otherwise is lying to yourself.

All 3 are valid primary consoles based on the needs of a gamer, and as it stands, I see no evidence of the contrary.  Only arbitrary arguments made by people who wish it to be unviable, or thise who refuse to look outside of their own personal needs.

Some certainly sell better on Switch but its not an equal library, the X1 audience has more major titles to choose from. For example the average X1 may not enjoy the same type of games as the average Switch users and more importantly the Switch isn't getting the same major releases. For example, Crash and Dark Souls did better on Switch but how did RDR2, CoD, BFV, AC:Odyssey and Soul Calibur VI do on Switch?

 

Probably about as good as Octopath Traveller and Mario Plus Rabbids sell on the PS4 and X1.  All platforms have games that you will miss out on, but yes the Switch will get less 3rd party games.  We know this, but it still gets healthy support, especially from Japan.  There are more than enough quality 3rd party titles in conjunction with 1st party titles to keep gamers busy of Switch is their primary.

You're correct about saying forum doesn't reflect the general public. But I do know the PS4/X1/PC will move many of the same games we don't see on Switch. So I could argue Switch is less reflective of the general public.

 

Well they have been on the market for 5 years, so I would certainly hope those games would still sell with the current install base.

I'm not arguing Switch couldn't be viable as an only console. But I highly doubt people who just use a Switch are avid gamers or just enjoy few IPs. I bet people were content with the Wii as their single platform for a period, but I suspect many of them eventually upgraded to 360 and PS3. Which would explain why games like Call of Duty declined on Wii while growing on other platforms.

 

I would have a hard time making this argument for the Wii.  The game changer from my perspective is the portability.

 

Munn75 said:
I think the devil is in the details. Viability simply means that it can be successful as a console. Any of the current or previous systems released would fit that description in the sense that they can all play games. A better question would be is the Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution compared to the Xbox One, PS4, or a gaming PC. That is to say, is the Switch the best or most favorable single option.

In some cases yes the Switch is most viable but not equally so. I believe that if portability or a preference to Nintendo franchises are your primary preferences in gaming, then the Switch is the most optimal console for you. The Xbox One, PS4 and gaming PCs offer many advantages over the Switch that should factor in to which console is the best single optimal choice.

 

Well PC will always be the best, as laptops can offer portability as well.  However prices are much higher than that of a console, though not as bad as in the past.  Any advantage a console has over PC is consistent with all three really as price for a sizable upgrade from current gen would be the main deterrent.

The X1 and PS4 have a 3rd party advantage and a performance advantage, but that is about it.  They have more apps, but most TVs being sold these days are smart TVs, rendering them usless.  Those that have not upgraded would be able to take advantage of it though, so again it is subjective to the situation.  Compared to the 1st party games of Nintendo and the portability of the console, I would say it close to evens out when it comes to those who value the time gained from being able to play on the go.

Xbox and PS4 obviously have specific first party titles that appeal to their fans and also have many more third party titles including almost all of the previously mentioned AAA titles. Many of these third party titles are not available on Switch and those that are available on all three consoles run better on X1 and PS4.

 

That is the trade off for portability.  If you have the time to spend it tied to a TV and value those things, by all means an X1 or PS4 is the better primary.  But to those that will not even have time to play many games without the portability, 720p at 30 fps is perfectly fine.  Again, it depends on your needs.

A gaming PC is optimal for those that want to run the available games at the highest resolution, frame rate, effects, etc. and also tends to be optimal for software price and availability of many older games. Of course a gaming PC will run AAA titles better than current consoles. Gaming PCs lack any of the first party titles from PS4 and Switch but have several of the high profile X1 titles.

 

Agree with everything you say here.

So viability as a single console solution is heavily dependent on your gaming preferences. If you love Nintendo games, JPRGs, portability, then the Switch is the most logical choice if you can only choose one console.

 

Or platformers, local multiplayer, and metroidvanias.

If you love games like GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Fallout, Madden, Uncharted, Halo, Spider-man, God of War, Witcher 3, etc. or if you want to play games at higher resolution, frame rate, etc. then Switch is not logically the optimal system for you. It cannot play these games and it will always run third parties in lower resolution and lower frame rate when compared to PS4, X1 and a gaming PC.

 

If those are the only games you want to play and you have the time to play them, then the Switch would be a bad choice.  However those that would value what the Switch has to offer instead should not have to deal with bias trolls acting like "they are not real gamers".  Not everyone even buys every big AAA title that comes out.  They normally just get one or two and move on, or sales on PS4 would be 50mil minimum, and many that buy them also do not complete them.  That is a topic for another discussion though.  Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with only playing those games nor primarily playing games that come to Switch.

 

0D0 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Some certainly sell better on Switch but its not an equal library, the X1 audience has more major titles to choose from. For example the average X1 may not enjoy the same type of games as the average Switch users and more importantly the Switch isn't getting the same major releases. For example, Crash and Dark Souls did better on Switch but how did RDR2, CoD, BFV, AC:Odyssey and Soul Calibur VI do on Switch?

You're correct about saying forum doesn't reflect the general public. But I do know the PS4/X1/PC will move many of the same games we don't see on Switch. So I could argue Switch is less reflective of the general public.

I'm not arguing Switch couldn't be viable as an only console. But I highly doubt people who just use a Switch are avid gamers or just enjoy few IPs. I bet people were content with the Wii as their single platform for a period, but I suspect many of them eventually upgraded to 360 and PS3. Which would explain why games like Call of Duty declined on Wii while growing on other platforms.

I couldn't agree more.

The average gamer just can't find games on Nintendo since the last years of Wii at least. So many genres, so many basic 3rd party games that Nintendo lacks, plus the prices and the technology. You can get a full entertainment machine from PS4/Xb1 and dozens of great games in a reasonable price, while many average gamers out there would only get Zelda on Switch. For most gamers out there, 2d platforms, indies, FE, Animal Crossing, Pokemon, octopath, don't mean anything.

 

Sales data says otherwise.  You are embarrassing yourself.

I guess that's why many say "Nintendo doesn't have games". It's not as if it really doesn't, but it just lacks too much of the games that the average gamer looking for a console expects from a modern current generation console.

Munn75 said:
I think the devil is in the details. Viability simply means that it can be successful as a console. Any of the current or previous systems released would fit that description in the sense that they can all play games. A better question would be is the Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution compared to the Xbox One, PS4, or a gaming PC. That is to say, is the Switch the best or most favorable single option.

In some cases yes the Switch is most viable but not equally so. I believe that if portability or a preference to Nintendo franchises are your primary preferences in gaming, then the Switch is the most optimal console for you. The Xbox One, PS4 and gaming PCs offer many advantages over the Switch that should factor in to which console is the best single optimal choice.

Xbox and PS4 obviously have specific first party titles that appeal to their fans and also have many more third party titles including almost all of the previously mentioned AAA titles. Many of these third party titles are not available on Switch and those that are available on all three consoles run better on X1 and PS4.

A gaming PC is optimal for those that want to run the available games at the highest resolution, frame rate, effects, etc. and also tends to be optimal for software price and availability of many older games. Of course a gaming PC will run AAA titles better than current consoles. Gaming PCs lack any of the first party titles from PS4 and Switch but have several of the high profile X1 titles.

So viability as a single console solution is heavily dependent on your gaming preferences. If you love Nintendo games, JPRGs, portability, then the Switch is the most logical choice if you can only choose one console.

If you love games like GTA 5, Red Dead Redemption 2, Fallout, Madden, Uncharted, Halo, Spider-man, God of War, Witcher 3, etc. or if you want to play games at higher resolution, frame rate, etc. then Switch is not logically the optimal system for you. It cannot play these games and it will always run third parties in lower resolution and lower frame rate when compared to PS4, X1 and a gaming PC.

I thought that the question of this thread was exactly that: is Switch an equally optimal single gaming solution?

I agree, not equally so. All the third party games and franchises that one can think of you can find on both current generation consoles. Not on Switch, plus all other benefits that current gen consoles offer and switch doesn't.

 

To those that need the extra playtime to actually beat nost of the games they have to choose from, the bigger library is irrelevant as long as they still have other games they would like to play.  You are ignoring the point entirely.  Also those other advantages you speak of in my house are irrelevant, as pretty much all new TVs these days are smart TVs and offer the same thing natively.

Current gen consoles (ps4,x1) are like your regular grocery store. They're Walmart of sorts.

Switch is just that vegan, organic shop with a few of the items you can find on Walmart, but with its own quality stuff for its own public. Others can go there to buy posh 95% cacau chocolate once in a while, but when they need to feed, they go to Walmart.

 

Again, sales data says otherwise.  Just as many people prefer Nintendo games than those who prefer Sony or MS.  You are spouting nonsense on a site that has the sales data right in front of you.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

I like Switch, and playing it with my little son. But it's not the main console, of course. PS4 is the main console, and cannot be otherwise. The exclusive games, which I prefer, the far superior graphics, all the 3rd party games, and the best cannot even run on Switch. The Ninty console is the side console for me.

”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Nate4Drake said:
I like Switch, and playing it with my little son. But it's not the main console, of course. PS4 is the main console, and cannot be otherwise. The exclusive games, which I prefer, the far superior graphics, all the 3rd party games, and the best cannot even run on Switch. The Ninty console is the side console for me.

Thank you for stating that PS4 is the main FOR YOU.  Nothing wrong with that.  I honestly bounce back and forth a lot.  Example I played Uncharted 4, Horizon, God of War, RE7, and Persona 5 over the summer on my PS4.  I had the time to do so.

 

But in 2017 my PS4 went unused as the portability of the Switch allowed me to play far more.  This continued up to just before God of War came out.  Now as we enter the fall, portability has become a major factor again, and the Switch has all of my attention.

 

FOR ME, I flip flop and go through spurts.  More often than not though I find myself preferring the Switch due to time constraints.  They both certainly have their place though.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:

How do you know how big budgets those games have? Just Cause 4 for example most likely has about as big budget as most other AAA games. It's atleast much closer to AAA than AA. And money that is spent on developing a game (not marketing) improves its quality and content.

Name those AA games that have been released this year that match these this year's AAA games quality-wise:

Monster Hunter World, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Detroit Become Human, Vampyr, Spider-Man, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Red Dead Redemption, Just Cause 4 (and these are only the ones that I have bought).

Those are all good/great games, so how are AAA games diminishing?

Again some of the games you've listed are AA, SOTC for example would of had a budget comparable to games like Octopath which under the logic you're employing would make that AAA, Just Cause is a series that averages 2.5m per game so I highly doubt the development team received a budget comparable to games like RDR and GOW because that would mean huge losses sorry some of those aren't AAA games you're mistaking being good for being AAA, Just Cause is a mid tier title much like the Saints Row games.

Here are the top rated Switch games for 2018 as you can see the are over 50 games that have averaged 80 plus so the platform is hardly lacking in quality releases.

AAA are diminishing in not only release numbers but what set them apart lets look at 2017 where the were 15 actual AAA titles for the time 10 of which average 90+ and these were along side a tonne of AA titles, now days the are less releases from AAA and AA titles are going blow for blow with in everything but budget that's a sign of diminishing.

I highly doubt that Octopath had as big budget as SotC, and it would be only because it's a remake.

I don't think that barely anyone would call Just Cause 4 AA. It probably doesn't have as big marketing budget as some bigger AAA games, but it's graphics are AAA, it has huge and detailed map, cutscenes and plenty of dialogue. So it's development costs are  most likely about as big as some other AAA games. And what are those Switch AA games that have similar devolopment costs (not counting marketing costs) as Just Cause 4?

At least 48 of those Switch games are available on PS4 and Xbox, and they are almost all indie games not AA. So were are those AA games with 80-90+ rating?

"2017 had 15 AAA games, 10 of which got 90+ rating. " Where did you get these numbers? Only Persona 5 got 90 or more (and Divinity 2, but it's AA). Horizon Zero Dawn, Nier, Nioh and Wolfenstein 2 got 85-89. And if you think that Just Cause 4 and Detroit are AA, then so are Persona, Nier and Nioh. Why would you count BotW and Mario Odyssey when this should be about comparing PS4/Xbox AAA games?

And 2018 had at least 14 AAA PS4/Xbox games, which almost all got 80+, and 5 got 90 or more (not "about" 90). So how is that diminishing?

Are you just making stuff up to damage control, or what is this?



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

I mean, the online is significantly more devastating to your argument than you care to admit.

Shiken said:
Nate4Drake said:
I like Switch, and playing it with my little son. But it's not the main console, of course. PS4 is the main console, and cannot be otherwise. The exclusive games, which I prefer, the far superior graphics, all the 3rd party games, and the best cannot even run on Switch. The Ninty console is the side console for me.

Thank you for stating that PS4 is the main FOR YOU.  Nothing wrong with that.  I honestly bounce back and forth a lot.  Example I played Uncharted 4, Horizon, God of War, RE7, and Persona 5 over the summer on my PS4.  I had the time to do so.

 

But in 2017 my PS4 went unused as the portability of the Switch allowed me to play far more.  This continued up to just before God of War came out.  Now as we enter the fall, portability has become a major factor again, and the Switch has all of my attention.

 

FOR ME, I flip flop and go through spurts.  More often than not though I find myself preferring the Switch due to time constraints.  They both certainly have their place though.

Yep, it's the beauty of taste and opinions.  I don't care that much about the portability, or even nothing, but my son does care a lot, and he prefers the Switch, he can play it in any place, and you should see how much he is good with Splatoon2...he's only 7 years old; I like the game a lot too.

 Anyway, I'm happy with both, and I'll play the best games on both ;)            XBox? not for this generation, as two consoles are more than enough, and often I don't have the time to fully enjoy the consoles I already have.   I will stay tuned on "Scarlet", who knows, maybe I will own 3 consoles, the next gen :D



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

WhatATimeToBeAlive said:

I highly doubt that Octopath had as big budget as SotC, and it would be only because it's a remake.

I don't think that barely anyone would call Just Cause 4 AA. It probably doesn't have as big marketing budget as some bigger AAA games, but it's graphics are AAA, it has huge and detailed map, cutscenes and plenty of dialogue. So it's development costs are  most likely about as big as some other AAA games. And what are those Switch AA games that have similar devolopment costs (not counting marketing costs) as Just Cause 4?

At least 48 of those Switch games are available on PS4 and Xbox, and they are almost all indie games not AA. So were are those AA games with 80-90+ rating?

"2017 had 15 AAA games, 10 of which got 90+ rating. " Where did you get these numbers? Only Persona 5 got 90 or more (and Divinity 2, but it's AA). Horizon Zero Dawn, Nier, Nioh and Wolfenstein 2 got 85-89. And if you think that Just Cause 4 and Detroit are AA, then so are Persona, Nier and Nioh. Why would you count BotW and Mario Odyssey when this should be about comparing PS4/Xbox AAA games?

And 2018 had at least 14 AAA PS4/Xbox games, which almost all got 80+, and 5 got 90 or more (not "about" 90). So how is that diminishing?

Are you just making stuff up to damage control, or what is this?

SOTC is a remake of a game that one never had a high budget to begin with and two already had much of the ground work done it even reused the original's code so to suggest SOTC has some high AAA budget is questionable Octopath is a new ground up AA project so would have a budget comparable or even more to such a game being remastered. 

Graphics and content don't make a game AAA you can have games that are exactly like AAA games in what they offer but aren't AAA because they aren't mega mainstream and high budget which JC has neither comparable to actual AAA games like RDR and some of what you listed again you may like these games but that doesn't make them AAA this isn't damage control it's flat fact as even people in this very thread that would tout those games would tell you they're not AAA.

Click

"AAA (pronounced "triple-A") is an informal classification used for video games produced and distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, typically having higher development and marketing budgets"


You don't have even 14 AAA games that's the point otherwise if we went by your own logic it proves that things have diminished even more because it would mean 2007 had 50 AAA titles if we used your metric which further backs what you're arguing against.

Last edited by Wyrdness - 6 days ago

Azuren said:
I mean, the online is significantly more devastating to your argument than you care to admit.

Eh, I don't know about that personally. In Overwatch, I've had moments of waiting for a good chunk of time (5-10 minutes) before even entering a match and sometimes I get kicked into a middle of game, which I personally don't like because it's like being put into the fire without expecting it. Plus, most of the time, my team would be losing when I'm entered into the fray. In Street Fighter V, I've had some matches that lagged pretty badly and my PS4 had a wired connection. I know people have had issues with SFV's online, but its something that bothered me at times.

In Splatoon 1 and 2, I've had some disconnects, but when there are none, the game plays great. I don't even notice the ticks, or however you guys describe the tick issues in Splatoon 2. ARMS is great as well as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, and I'm playing WiFi. I guess Smash Bros. for Wii U was an exception for team battles and free-for-alls, but I had great 1-on-1 matches.

I get that this could be anecdotal, but I just wanted to point out that Nintendo Switch Online, at least the main feature of the program, which is the online multiplayer, is pretty good to me for $20 a year.