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...

0D0 said:
pikashoe said:

The 99% part wasn't really about viability, i think all three current consoles have enough games to keep 99% of people going. Viability for being a primary console comes down to gane preference. I should have made that more clear.

I don't think that many people realistically care a huge amount about specs, frame rate, resolution etc. When choosing a console. If that were the case every Nintendo handheld would have failed.

I think what games people are looking for is a big factor. Many things can go into why someone plays one console more than another. A big reason why I play my switch more than my ps4 Is convenience. I can play it on the tv, i can play it as a portable, I have 2 docks so I can easily switch tv's if I want. The switch tends to be much faster at turning on and getting into a game. The big advantage the switch has for me is adaptability. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Nintendo doesn't need the average buyer, Nintendo has at least 40m-50m Nintendo fans out there, specially in Japan. Nintendo could survive only on Pokemon, but that doesn't mean that nintendo offers what 90% of the average casual console buyers looks in a current generation console.

Ok, was this meant for me? What your saying doesn't seem to have much connection to what you highlighted in my comment.



Around the Network
I feel like a lot of people here are confusing the average consumer for themselves. Most average people don't buy massive amounts of games for consoles. A lot people buy the ps4 or x1 for a small selection of games. Most average people I know only buy cod, fifa and gta on the ps4. I doubt a single person on this website could be considered an average consumer.

0D0 said:
Shiken said:

If you are going to include 3rd parties on your list, you must do so with Switch.

Diablo 3

Warframe

Smash

Octopath

Xenoblade Torna

Dragonball FighterZ

Valkyria Chronicles 4

Wolfenstein 2

Ys VIII

 

Just to name a few.  These are all very good games and if they can play more of them due to portability, the Switch is a viable option.  There are plenty of games for the average gamer even without the ones you mentioned.

 

And again, look at the sales data for those games you say do not mean anything.  Seems awful high for a game that "means nothing" to the mainstream.

Nintendo fans alone can buy like 5m of a Mario/Kirby/Yoshi stuff. Nintendo doesn't need average buyers to have million sellers. Bringing sales has no point here.

 

One could argue that the average gamer does not buy CoD games.  A large portion of those sales are from people who ONLY play CoD.  In fact, just about every game you listed has a fanbase that can account for the majority of sales.  Watch those double standards man.

If you sell 1m octopaths, it doesn't mean that octopath traveler is as mainstream as COD.

 

No, but again many of those CoD sales are just CoD fans buying every game.  Nothing wrong with that, but it is a poor comparison.

Octopath and Ys? Are you saying that games like Octopath and Ys are as valuable to the mainstream average casual console buyer than COD, Read Dead, GTA, Spiderman, Battlefield? It's not.

 

Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Smash, and Mario Kart are.

Xenoblade? You're bringing up niches of the niches that even though can be million sellers they're just far from being mainstream to the random bloke that goes to a Walmart to get a modern current gen console.

 

Not if that random bloke likes jrpgs.  Random blokes have certain tastes as well.

Don't get me wrong, we here are gaming enthusiasts. I myself have 150h of XCX on Wii U. I don't have that on any COD, but if we're trying to find the console that could work as main/only console for the average player, well, it's very hard to be switch.

 

All boils down to if they benefit from portability or not.  If not, of course the PS4 is the way to go if they do not like most Nintendo games.  But if they do, then they would be more than happy with the games the Switch offers.  Time to play the games is essential after all, otherwise all you have is fodder for list wars.  Also as someone already pointed out, most average gamers only buy a few games a year anyway, if you really want to talk about average gamers.

If we're talking about fans and experienced gamers, well, now they can have whatever console as main console as they like. Even 3DS is the main console of many Pokemon fans out there. I've got friends that have 999h in several Pokemon games.

 

Holy shitballs that is a lot of time lol

Last edited by Shiken - on 06 December 2018

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

Shiken said:
0D0 said:

Nintendo fans alone can buy like 5m of a Mario/Kirby/Yoshi stuff. Nintendo doesn't need average buyers to have million sellers. Bringing sales has no point here.

 

One could argue that the average gamer does not buy CoD games.  A large portion of those sales are from people who ONLY play CoD.  In fact, just about every game you listed has a fanbase that can account for the majority of sales.  Watch those double standards man.

If you sell 1m octopaths, it doesn't mean that octopath traveler is as mainstream as COD.

 

No, but again many of those CoD sales are just CoD fans buying every game.  Nothing wrong with that, but it is a poor comparison.

Octopath and Ys? Are you saying that games like Octopath and Ys are as valuable to the mainstream average casual console buyer than COD, Read Dead, GTA, Spiderman, Battlefield? It's not.

 

Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Smash, and Mario Kart are.

Xenoblade? You're bringing up niches of the niches that even though can be million sellers they're just far from being mainstream to the random bloke that goes to a Walmart to get a modern current gen console.

 

Not if that random bloke likes jrpgs.  Random blokes have certain tastes as well.

Don't get me wrong, we here are gaming enthusiasts. I myself have 150h of XCX on Wii U. I don't have that on any COD, but if we're trying to find the console that could work as main/only console for the average player, well, it's very hard to be switch.

 

All boils down to if they benefit from portability or not.  If not, of course the PS4 is the way to go if they do not like most Nintendo games.  But if they do, then they would be more than happy with the games the Switch offers.  Time to play the games is essential after all, otherwise all you have is fodder for list wars.  Also as someone already pointed out, most average gamers only buy a few games a year anyway, if you really want to talk about average gamers.

If we're talking about fans and experienced gamers, well, now they can have whatever console as main console as they like. Even 3DS is the main console of many Pokemon fans out there. I've got friends that have 999h in several Pokemon games.

 

Holy shitballs that is a lot of time lol

My friends 3DS literally stopped tracking after 999h of Pokemon X.



PLAYING: Horizon Zero Dawn (PS4), For Honor (PS4)

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


It's perfectly viable..  All systems are perfectly viable that hasn't already been retired. But Switch more than Wii, Gamecube, Or Wiiu is a viable only system.  It really depends on how fussy you are. I'm fussy enough that I end up owning all systems at one point or another because there's always a game I want to play that is exclusive to one system or another. But I could get over it if I wanted to.  I mostly play Switch right now. Still catching up on exclusives I want to beat.  I'm a completionist so it takes me a long time with each title. I imagine that at a certain point I will focus on PS5 or Xbox Next but I'm sure Nintendo will pull me back in after that with a new hardware revision and a great lineup of exclusives. 



Around the Network
Munn75 said:
pikashoe said:

That is not the point at all. Quantity of games has nothing to do with viability here. It is personal preference that dictates a consoles viability. The ps4 may have more exclusives but if a person has no interest in most of those games it will not be viable for them. The point of this thread appears to be that the switch should not just be dismissed as a persons primary or only console. The console has more than enough games to keep 99% of people going for years.

I think this is where the confusion is occurring. You are saying that the Switch has more than enough games to keep 99% of people going for years. At the same time though, you say that quantity of games has nothing to do with viability. So by that logic, even though Switch has enough games to keep people busy, if they aren't the games that people prefer, than is that really a viable option?

Ultimately I think that Switch is great for certain people and obviously could be their only console. I just tend to believe that if a person is only able to choose one console, Switch has less appeal due to technical specs and third party support. For those that are not interested in AAA games, FPS/resolution, or those who only want to play Nintendo's own AA/AAA games, Switch is a viable option.

Personally I am glad I don't have to choose just one.

Well, thanks that you speak about that. See, if I go after my personal preferences, the PS4 has only two games I cannot play on my Switch, which interest me: Person 5 and the Witcher 3. Everything else is available on Switch (Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea, Ys, Dragon Quest Builders) or boring (yeah, I tried GTA V and Tomb Raider on my PS3 - go away with that shit). So if I argue like some in these threads, I could say: "The PS4 has months, even years between interesting releases!!!"

For your scenario, if you could choose one, it is not as easy as you describe. Say someone is a strategy fan and plays Mario+Rabbids, Valkyria Chronicles and Civ VI. Obviously the Switch is clearly superior for this person. And this doesn't even need Nintendo games (except you're one of the guys who try to put Ubisofts games into Nintendos quarter). Or someone who is fan of indies and has to commute to work. This one is bored with his PS4 at home while he sits in the train, but can have the same fun with the Switch while commuting and at home. He also clearly would choose Switch if he only wants one.

So many detractors want to reduce the Switch on Nintendo games. And while this clearly is an important point, it is an insult to all the 3rd-party devs who put great games on the Switch. And the reality is, the Switch has many great 3rd-parties, no denying that. It may not have the 3rd-parties you want, but that doesn't change the fact it has great 3rd-party games.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

Why you will not convince me I have chosen bad consoles. / awesome Miiverse art / my greatest games list

Bet with platformmaster918 and ethomaz about PS3 overtaking Wii in total sales.

Predictions: Switch / Switch / Switch / MHWorld / GOW > BOTW / Switch vs. XB1 in the US

0D0 said:
NightlyPoe said:

I feel bad for anyone who doesn't think it's viable.  It may not be their choice, but there's no argument that it can't be someone else's.

You're right, but the thing is, everything can be viable for someone else. Even a piece of painted rock can be viable if you're into painted rocks. Therefore, if that's the argument of this thread, it's just pointless and if there are people out there that think that nintendo isn't viable for someone into nintendo or into whatever nintendo offers, i guess this argument must be so rare that doesn't make sense discuss it.

Yes, the answer can be taken to the absurd level.  However, there is a point of reasonable discussion that could be made on what is or is not a viable console.  For example, the Virtual Boy hardly had any games and a truckload of physical issues.  Someone may have liked it, but it's reasonable for most people to conclude that it wasn't viable as a primary gaming device.  And there's a sliding scale on upwards from there, like failed mainstream consoles like the Saturn or the Wii U.  A reasonable argument could be made that their failure and software droughts made them untenable as a primary choice even if some people actually did choose them.

The Switch doesn't belong in that category no matter how you slice it though.  It's a system that's receiving plenty of support, including being the exclusive home of some of the most decorated games of the generation thus far, it's going to continue receiving support for a long time.  And it has a virtual monopoly on the entire handheld marketshare with only the aged 3DS being more than a blip.

The last alone pretty much makes it automatically viable.  You can't monopolize a huge (even if cut into by phone apps) market and simultaneously not be viable.  The two concepts are just incompatible.



Mnementh said:
Munn75 said:

I think this is where the confusion is occurring. You are saying that the Switch has more than enough games to keep 99% of people going for years. At the same time though, you say that quantity of games has nothing to do with viability. So by that logic, even though Switch has enough games to keep people busy, if they aren't the games that people prefer, than is that really a viable option?

Ultimately I think that Switch is great for certain people and obviously could be their only console. I just tend to believe that if a person is only able to choose one console, Switch has less appeal due to technical specs and third party support. For those that are not interested in AAA games, FPS/resolution, or those who only want to play Nintendo's own AA/AAA games, Switch is a viable option.

Personally I am glad I don't have to choose just one.

Well, thanks that you speak about that. See, if I go after my personal preferences, the PS4 has only two games I cannot play on my Switch, which interest me: Person 5 and the Witcher 3. Everything else is available on Switch (Valkyria Chronicles, Disgaea, Ys, Dragon Quest Builders) or boring (yeah, I tried GTA V and Tomb Raider on my PS3 - go away with that shit). So if I argue like some in these threads, I could say: "The PS4 has months, even years between interesting releases!!!"

For your scenario, if you could choose one, it is not as easy as you describe. Say someone is a strategy fan and plays Mario+Rabbids, Valkyria Chronicles and Civ VI. Obviously the Switch is clearly superior for this person. And this doesn't even need Nintendo games (except you're one of the guys who try to put Ubisofts games into Nintendos quarter). Or someone who is fan of indies and has to commute to work. This one is bored with his PS4 at home while he sits in the train, but can have the same fun with the Switch while commuting and at home. He also clearly would choose Switch if he only wants one.

So many detractors want to reduce the Switch on Nintendo games. And while this clearly is an important point, it is an insult to all the 3rd-party devs who put great games on the Switch. And the reality is, the Switch has many great 3rd-parties, no denying that. It may not have the 3rd-parties you want, but that doesn't change the fact it has great 3rd-party games.

Based on what you have shared about your preferences, given the choice of only one console, the Switch is overwhelmingly the best option for you. I actually think that is the case for a lot of people. Nintendo has a very strong and loyal fan base. I don't think the Switch is equally viable as a single option but I do think it is the right choice for many people as evidenced by sales. I just believe that PS4 currently has the broader appeal as a single option. If you look at mainstream games, it has the majority of them. This is not to say that it makes PS4 a better system than Switch, that is a personal decision that each person must make based on their own preferences. 

I personally like the Switch. It's my favorite Nintendo console since the SNES. I wish it was a little more powerful so it could handle more of the third party multi-plats but I respect what Nintendo has done with 1st party, Indie and some 3rd party. Playing Neo Geo games on the go has been great too. On a side note, it's weird to buy a Neo Geo game for $8 when I can remember paying $200 for the same game in the 90's.



"There are things which, if done by the few, we should refuse to imitate; yet when the majority have begun to do them, we follow along - just as if anything were more honourable because it is more frequent!"

-Seneca

If something is equally as viable, then it should as well be equally as chose... so there goes your point.
And OP say portability should be ignored, but all his points are basically "I like portability because it doubles my playtime so that is the reason why it's viable". Consoles lived for over 30 years without it, if you want to use portability as sign of viability do it comparing to Handhelds, even if you have to defend higher price and lower battery life.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363