spemanig said:
I think most of those people will totally opt for that version. Let's say Tomb Raider 3 comes out on all three. That's a pretty cinematic game. There's a compelling argument to be made for someone to have the option to play that game on the go, especially since the trade-off in fidelity won't be that noticeable to most people. Remember, most people who play games are casual gamers. Most people who bought the first two rebooted Tomb Raider games are casual gamers. There are a lot of people who are going to see the trade off as a non-issue. And remember, the game will still be playable on a TV. The benefit is flexibility explicitely. It's having the option to take the game away from the TV. You're totally right, there definitely are a lot of people who won't mind waiting, but I think that there are unquestionably more who'd rather not be forced to wait if they don't have to, and the Switch gives them that. You could play Tomb Raider 3 on your Switch exclusively docked the whole time, but just knowing that you're not tethered to your TV is going to be compelling for most consumers. It's not just playing on your TV either. It's playing in your bed. Like I said, most people with laptops don't take them out of their house. They use it at home without being shackled to a monitor. So it's not just playing it at work that's valuable, but playing in your bed, in your bathroom, etc. And again, it's not those things specifically that make the Switch versions of multiplats desirable, it's just the fact that you have that flexibility at all. The Switch isn't a handheld, so it's really not a catch 22. Remember, Switch is not a hydrid. It's something else entirely. The same way the smartphone audience doesn't effect laptops, the handheld audience doesn't effect the Switch. There frankly aren't enough hardcore gamers for losing to be an issue. Most people don't even know what framerate is, and can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. You tell people that the Switch will play someones favorite multiplats in HD wherever they go, and they'll be sold. Like I said, the only people who buy desktops anymore are professionals and enthusiast. For everyone else, the power found in laptops, and even tablets now, is enough. The flexibility of mobility they provide make them the clear superior option for those people. With good 3rd party support and a $249-$299 price tag, the same will be true of the Switch. --- SPECULATION: I also think that there will be a "Switch Pro" and a "Switch Lite" in the future that is marketed towards hardcore gamers and people who want a pocket-sized handheld specifically. If you look at Apple as an example, and you should, Nintendo's Switch is like if Apple fused their Macbook and iPad lines into one product. Apple still has the Mac Pro on the higher end and the iPhone on the lower end. I see Nintendo doing something similar. I think they'll make a powerful $350-$400 home console that can only play Switch games at home, and a $150-$200 pocket-sized handheld that can only play Switch games on the go. In that way, Nintendo is using this OG Switch to trojan-horse this "Switch" platform. The only thing they need to really think about is getting the Switch Pro to talk to the original Switch's dock, because people who already own a Switch will still want to dock their Switch into their TV, and having two systems connected to a TV would be a bad deal. Maybe the Switch Pro will just be is a beefier dock, and you'll have the option to either dock it or pop the card into the Pro itself for more power. Maybe the Switch Pro will be that SDK and it will just connect to the dock itself. Maybe it'll be more seemless. Maybe I'm crazy. I dunno. |
I hope your right.
