torok said:
The problems with your analysis is that you're trying to use the 3DS as a price comparison, while I'm using a Shield tablet, that's way closer in cost. 3DS is 5-year old tech (being generous, it's actually way more than that), so ir ends up being a bit overpriced because components are made exclusively for it. Who else uses a 240p glass-free 3D screen? Nobody. And a 720p 6.5' multitouch screen? Millions of tablets. You are considering that the techs packed on the Switch are expensive, when they indeed are not. Basically, it just has a port to output video (tablets usually have HDMIs) and ports to slide the controllers. It's not like those costed 100 bucks. The Tegra X1 is indeed close in performance to an Athlon 5150, that is a quad core version of the Jaguar used on PS4, so we are probably still dealing with a decent gap in the single components that is more bottlenecked on the PS4. You pixel count still doesn't match. Tegra X1 is weaker than you think. It packs around 40% of the punch of a GTX 750, the weaker desktop Maxwell GPU (https://www.quora.com/How-do-modern-mobile-GPU-compare-to-desktop-ones). A GTX 750ti, that's a good equivalent for the GPU on the PS4 is 10% more powerful, so PS4 probably is 2.75X stronger while X1 is around 1.8X. The pixel increase from 720p to 900p is roughly 50%. In a very, very approximated math, we can assume that this isn't matching plain and simple: 80% more power pushing 50% more pixels, so it is closer to running a 900p game with X1 settings at 540p or less. We dould have to turn quite a bit of settings down to reach 720p. These benchmarks were made using the Tegra X1 on ARM boards or Shield console, so they can be more similar to "docked" performance than mobile one. My main worry is that it can end up being to weak to receive ports without some reengineering, instead of the current PC/X1/PS4 situation where you just tune some settings or the resolution and call it a day. Regarding the Wii U, maybe if 3rd party games were successful, it would keep receving all games and the console would sell. Software sells hardware. You install base argument doesn't work when you consider that PS4 in its first few months had a smaller install base than the Wii U and 3rd parties still sold several times more copies than on the Wii U. The kind of consumer that buys Nintendo home consoles is the one that has other console or a PC os simply doesn't care about 3rd parties. Those are a minority, specially the first case that is for consumers with more cash. The single console owner are the majority and they gravitated towards Sony and MS to get 3rd party games. This leaves Nintendo with two options: - Create a 3rd party friendly console: risky, since it would have to match PS4/X1 in power and they would still have to assure that 3rd parties would support it instead of consoles with 25 or 50M units on the wild. They would have to basically pay for support and it could still backfire. - Create a cheaper console, to be used by casuals or as second console to play Nintendo games: it has to be cheap. Less than 200 bucks. As the Switch is significantly weaker, they are going this route. If they combine it with a high price, it won't work. |
I using New 3DS XL for comparison because it will close price to Switch (most likly $249). And Switch incomparable in every possible way have much higher value than 3DS, going from hardware to fact that Switch is also home console not just handheld.
I dont say they are expensive, but they all contribute to cost of Switch, that goes for dock and easily for Joy Grip and Joy Cons. Like I wrote, Switch is packed with lotsa techs and functions, just look at that Switch patent thread and look at all posiblites and functions.
Tegra X1 has quad core + dual core CPU, we still dont know if Switch will have only quad core CPU, but in any case it want be bottleneck if power of GPU is 500-600 GFlops.
Stock Tegra X1 has 512 GFlops. Beside resolution, ports for Switch can have some other smaller downgrades, but offcourse that 3rd parties will ports XB1/PS4 games not making from ground game for Switch,if they want they can port games even for Xbox 360/PS3.
Fact is that Wii U had 3rd parties, and despite them it sell terible beacuse had to many huge problems. 3rd parties games dont sell Nintendo consoles like they do PS4, but they make Nintendo console more appealing for people who are not only Nintendo fans, and that point about 3rd party games on Nintendo platforms.
All points that Switch is very 3rd party frendly console despite its weaker than XB1/PS4, Switch tech/hardware is very modern and easy to work with it, sources saying that Switch has very modern new APIs and tools that make porting easier.
$249 for product like Switch isnt high price at any mean (again New 3DS XL is still selling solid at $199 and Switch has incomparible much higher value in any way), Switch will sell very good with price point of $249 (actualy it would have solid sales even with $299 price point), beacuse its basicly handheld and home console in one, its aiming home console and handheld market in same time, this is successor to 3DS and Wii U, it will have all Nintendo hevi hitters like Pokemon, 3D Mario, 3D Zelda, Splatoon...than some 3rd parties like Monster Hunter, Yokai Watch that are very popular on 3DS, and offcourse some western 3rd parties.
