| Kai_Mao said: 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. |
You probably aren't wrong. 30+ million would probably be seen as a success for most companies, any more is icing.
Sadly they will miss out on a chunky piece of the TV/Movie market due to the lack of 3G/4G mobile support, Netflix on the Go?
Something like Pokemon Go would thus also be unlikely.
As for Nintendo's Revenue. You would be kidding yourself if you don't think Consoles aren't Nintendo's bread-and-butter, however they have seen the writing on the wall and they cannot guarentee success every time they release a product... And so to erase such volatility, they need to diversify.
Microsoft has done it, Sony has done it. They don't rely on any singular market for the majority of their revenue, it is smart business sense, it doesn't mean they neglect consoles though.
| Kai_Mao said: 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. |
Nintendo will do what Nintendo does.
With that in mind, my favorite Nintendo consoles are the ones that were competitive in terms of performance and not "generationally behind" like the Wii or Wii U.
The NES reinvigorated console gaming and brought us some amazing games for that generation.
The SNES refined it and took it to the next level. - Plus games using SGI machines to make pre-rendered art were draw-dropping back then.
The Nintendo 64 could only be beaten by the PC, Perfect Dark showed us what the N64 could do when programmed it's way.
The Gamecube had some amazing games which have aged extremely well. (Luigi mansions lighting is one.)
And they all had some of my favorite games like Kirby's Dreamland on the NES, Killer Instinct on the SNES, Perfect Dark on the N64 and Metroid Prime on Gamecube.
And they were some of the best looking and most enjoyable games in those Generations as well. In otherwords... You can have both amazing graphics and amazing gameplay and as a consumer you should always push companies to give their best.
Sure, Nintendo doesn't need graphics to make great games, but better Graphics does help in my opinion, it makes a game world more believable and immersive so you can loose yourself in it.
Nintendo often sadly needs to resort to other simpler effects such as Cell-shading or cartoonish art to hide their graphics deficit, which can look fine I guess... But it does scare away 3rd party's and that means less people will consider a Nintendo device and opt for a competitors.
| Kai_Mao said: 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? |
The main reason games like Pokemon, Smash and Mario do so well is because... Well. They are simply the best games on the system. You can't exactly pick up the latest Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Battlefield, Asassins Creed and play them.
Your only real choice is Nintendo titles, which are solid in their own right.
Plus Nintendo Platforms tend to target younger gamers and the casual Audience, which tend to gravitate to the less-mature video game franchises for obvious reason, which is also fine.
Plus power can lend a hand towards gameplay.
It wasn't untill we reached a point just last generation that gaming platforms got powerful enough to handle decent Physics calculations... Which enabled new gameplay mechanics in Half Life 2... And enabled a new amazing franchise to be Born. Portal.
We reached a point a few generations ago that Lighting was sufficiently advanced enough for Stealth to actually be a viable mechanic.
Game worlds also seem to be getting larger and more "open" thanks to the vastly increased amounts of storage and DRAM present in systems, which is again. Also great.
In the end. The only reason why Nintendo hasn't opted for more powerful hardware is simply, money. They wish to make more of it with cheaper, albeit slower hardware.
| GhaudePhaede010 said: 1) The point of his argument is to get people to stop thinking of the console from ONLY one perspective. |
And that's fine.
| GhaudePhaede010 said:
2) Did you see Wii having Wii-like success? I mean, you could argue you saw it being successful, but did you REALLY see it having the success it enjoyed? Or how about the DS enjoying the success it enjoyed? People at the time thought making a second hand held (because Nintendo said it was the, "third pillar") was commercial and finacial suicide. The DS even started out kind of rocky, was weaker than the PSP, and was being derided by journalists (until the first online titles came out... specifically Animal Crossing) but... it took off and almost nobody saw what was coming. My point? Saying you do not see it is just a safe bet. It takes heart to jump out and see something being a massive success or a massive failure. I am not saying you are lying about how you feel, I am just saying that it surprises nobody that people would think a console that has proven nothing will be nothing special. |
Irrellevent? The Wii had people racing to stores, it was all anyone could talk about, it even ended up in old-folks homes.
The Switch? It is not generating the same kind of buzz.
Ergo... At this point in time, It is reasonable to predict that the Switch is NOT going to have a Wii-like success, which was bordering on a craze.
Again, that's fine.
| GhaudePhaede010 said: 3) The hardware is competitve for a hand held. I think people want it to be a home console so badly that they are not realizing it is a freaking hand held. What it offers will not appease everyone; if it tried, it may not be affordable to everyone. However, the people that have seen the console (especially from a more casual side) seem to see little reason to hate on the console. |
The hardware is not fine for a handheld.
It is certainly inadequate for a console.
And it has to do the job of both.
| GhaudePhaede010 said: 4) So, you do not plan on buying a Switch then... And why would anyone buy want what appears to be an evolved 3DS without the evolutionary parts (protability, touch screen, or 3D feature)? Why would anyone buy another version of Wii U but without the touch screen or off screen game play in 2017? It makes no sense to want this console in another form factor because it seems incomplete and lacking in leverage if it does not offer something to compensate for its lack of graphical horse power. |
I would have been in line to grab the switch before Tegra was announced to be included.
An underclocked Tegra makes me sneer at it.
I am a tech enthusiast, I don't enjoy mediocre hardware and you need to deal with that fact.
As for why I would like it in another form factor? Cost. Ditch the screen, ditch the removable controls, ditch the battery, ditch the docking mechanism...
If Ouya can do it for $99... Then it has the appropriate price/performance to attract my attention.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
