By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kai_Mao on 01 January 2017
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:
Soundwave said:

Stop comparing it exclusively to the Wii U.

It's IS the 3DS successor too. That pretty much assures some sizable level of userbase. From a practical common sense POV, most of the Switch's potential audience is coming from the 3DS base (there isn't much of anything from the Wii U base to draw from in the first place). 

Whether we're talking 30-50 million, 60-70 million, or beyond that is anyone's guess at this point.

Some of you would call a dog a cat if Nintendo marketing told you so.

Once portables got to PS3/360 level of visual fidelity having some form of TV output was inevitable, had Sony made a PSP 3/Vita 2 it likely would also be able to play on the TV, because that level of graphics looks decent enough on a HDTV.

Even so. A past systems success does not mean the successor will be successful either.
The 3DS sold less than the DS.
The PS3 sold less than the PS2.
Otherwise the Wii U might have sold more than 14% of the original Wii.

But the reverse also holds true, a poor selling system is not representative of the success of the next machine, case in point the Wii out-selling the Gamecube by about 500%.
I wish people would drop this argument anyway. :P

***

With that in mind, I don't see the Switch having Wii-like success at this stage, the same level of excitement just doesn't seem to be in the air, which is sad, hopefully I get proven wrong on release day.

Nintendo needs to do well and remain successfull, competition is a great thing and benefits us all, people wanting Nintendo to offer more competitive hardware is also a good thing, Nintendo might listen to it's consumers one day.

I will personally buy a "Switch TV" one day (Aka. Switch without all the portable stuff.) if Nintendo offers it at a lower price.

Here's the thing though. Does the Switch need to reach 100 million to be a success? It could probably sell 50-70 million and still be financially successful due to the first party games alone. Plus that's not their only area of revenue anymore since they have multiple areas which include merchandise, mobile, and, eventually, films, tv shows (outside of Pokemon), and theme parks.

its gonna be interesting. Some say that Nintendo should just completely match PS4/Xbone in terms of power. But Nintendo games themselves don't really utilize that much power and they don't emphasize power but more on gameplay experiences. BoTW is their most ambitious project yet, but it's not gonna be a new standard of pushing graphical power for Nintendo. The new 3D Mario is not gonna set the gaming world on fire with its graphical power but it's new gameplay experiences. So offering competitive hardware (4K and all that) might work for third parties but I'm not sure if it would do much for Nintendo. They're not Square or Naughty Dog who are trying to push graphics and power.

Why are Pokemon, Smash, Mario, etc. still selling so well? It's certainly not due to graphics and nostalgia alone would not be enough. It's because they provide new experiences and are great games in general. Not saying games like Last of Us, Uncharted, Halo, GTA, Fallout aren't great, but you could probably tell that for many years Nintendo doesn't prioritize power and they've remained successful at that. So why (other than third parties) do they need to have specs of that of the other consoles?