By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 05 January 2017
Edit Thread
maxleresistant said:
Soundwave said:

If by pleny of people you mean the same people who bought a Wii U, sure (minus that chunk of Wii U buyers who were so upset with Nintendo over the system that they won't be coming back, which I'd say is probably a 20%-30% chunk of that).  

As a home console, it's functionality is fairly poor and it doesn't have the price benefit either, PS4/XB1 will be $250, maybe even $199.99 by next year with thousands of games available, I don't really think the same sales pitch of "well we got Mario and Zelda" is going to seriously be a game changer in that sense. 

Switch is going to need to hold that 3DS base, and even that I think Nintendo is in for a tough challenge there. 

There's no Wiimote miracle coming to bail out the fact that it's a fairly mediocre proposition console wise, terrific Nintendo games notwithstanding but every Nintendo console has terrific Nintendo games. 

finally someone that applies logical thinking to the Switch.

People's arguments that the Switch will sell like hotcakes because "it's amazing because it's both a handheld and a portable and a hybrid", so switch sales=3ds sales+WiiUsales+hybridsales" , and "it will have mario zelda, pokemon etc"...

Like you I don't see it at all, putting both market onto one device's shoulders. Putting it up against  everything else (mobile, PC, xbox, playstation) is a risky proposition

I believed in the "hybride" ecosystem, with two devices completing each other, one being a powerful home console and the other being a handheld, sharing games, OS, architecture. 

But one handheld that you plugged into a TV, and that you label a home console and therefore make it underpowered in front of the Xbox and PS4... I can't believe that this is Nintendo end strategy.

The more time pass the more I think they have something else brewing in their R&D department, maybe a device more in line with the mobile market.

There is strategy there, you just may not like it. 

By effectively making their two hardware lines into one, Nintendo can now sell the games they spend the most time/money developing (the Splatoons, Breath of the Wilds, of the world) to 80-85% of their audience that doesn't want a Nintendo console unless it has a Wiimote like lightning-in-a-bottle phenomenon. 

Even Nintendo's own fans voted with their wallets and have largely said no to any Nintendo console after the Super NES era and opted instead to buy the handheld only. 

So it was a problem for Nintendo when you are spending the majority of your time and money making games for the minority of your audience. That doesn't make sense. Imagine McDonalds saying they're only going to sell Big Macs to 20% of their restaurants and if you want a Big Mac you must drive to those select locations. 

Beyond that Nintendo just couldn't support two distinct platforms any longer, not with the portable side coming up to PS3/360 tier visuals ... something has to give, that's way too much development resources for two different platforms for any company to realistically bear. Sony/MS wouldn't be able to do it either. 

So in the end I don't even think there was much of a choice for Nintendo in the matter, the Switch approach was really the only realistic way to continue.