Barkley said:
Which is blatantly not true, it's a phenomenal piece of handheld hardware, but if they prioritized the home console side of things then it wouldn't be so weak. Because they wanted it to be a hybrid it's weaker then consoles released 40 months before it. It's a hybrid first and foremost, but it shares more similarities with a handheld device. Anyway, getting back to what you were discussing about this potential not being a successor to the 3ds, if they released a seperate dedicated handheld the entire point of the switch would be null, it'd be the dumbest decision they could make. Switch would end up even worse than the WiiU. |
It's what Nintendo calls it and it's what for which audience is meant for. This might not be the 3ds audience. So ( portable ) home console first and foremost.
Hence, It's a more right decision for you to sell a 250$ hybrid to handheld conoles gamers that are disregard home gaming, eh barkley? Those who weren't buying 3ds at 250$ in its first months... Don't forget that the strong point of Nintendo are their handheld consoles.
The handheld device could be just a decoy and by extend, a way to reinvigorate Nintendo's home consoles business and have a commercially succesful home console in Japan.
Nothing can end up like the wii u. Wii u life was cut prematurily, didn't sell at its maximum potential and many people skipped it because of being overpriced/expensive! Switch is what wii u should be, in an afforable price and with a more powerful hardware.
If switch is ony for home console gamers, surpassing gamecube in sales ( hitting N64 numbers for example ) is more than enough, especially after the disaster of wii u.
The fact that is also a handheld console makes that very possible.
A porportion of 3ds owners who like gaming in their houses on their tv too, would buy it and some home console gamers who have the desire to continue playing what they are usually playing on their sofa in their tv, outside or anywhere and anyhow inside their home, would purchase it too.
However, what about those 3ds owners who don't care for home consoles? Will they pay 250$ for the ''3ds'' sucessor? They didn't do it for 3ds itself when it was launched. Therefore, don't deem a separate successor redundant due to switch having a handheld part or a detriment for switch, because of depriving of it possible sales to handheld console gamers. Those 3ds owners who like home consoles will acquire it, but many of them may not be interested stationary consoles...
For me , switch will be a 3ds successor if it can be sold at 199$ and less, standalone or if there will be a switch redesign, being cheaper, weaker and more portable...
You have forced me to reiterate myself!
P.s
A seperate successor could still take the same games, if the shared library is your ache.







