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

Well of course the fusion of handheld and console development was a logical way to go, but that's not where is the problem.

Like I said in my previous comment, you can create an ecosystem of devices, that tends to different demographic and consumers needs and still put the same games on each devices. That is what apple, and google are doing, and it works very well. And that is also the strategy Microsoft is going with with Windows 10 (PC, One S, Scorpio).

Here like you said, there is only the Switch, a console that tries to please everybody, but you can't please everybody with one device, you just end up pleasing nobody.

So yeah Nintendo will sell the same games to the handheld and the home system crowd under one roof, but that doesn't mean they'll sell more. Take for example Smash Bros, sold on 2 systems, 13 million games sold, with at the time 50 millions 3DS and 10 millions WiiU in the wild. If the Switch, like you say, sells less than the 3DS, then where will they sell more games? To whom?

A strategy like the Switch can only mean a decrease in market share and game sales for Nintendo. Now yes, the reducing in costs of having 2 separate systems will be beneficial, but I doubt Nintendo's plan is to have a smaller place in the market.

The problem with that is a portable has to be a central component and as such, it's not so easy to scale games as people think. 

Windows plays well with other Windows platforms, but most laptops will die in like an hour or two if you try playing a hardcore 3D game on them (provided they can even run them in the first place). 

Having the same game play on a 5 watt device and a 50 watt device and actually utilizing both platforms well is a tough task. 

The iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch have a shared ecosystem sure, and they're different devices, but it's also true that it's not like you can play Uncharted 4 on the iPad while the iPhone is running that game at half res. No, those devices are all fairly close in power. 

And I think Nintendo probably will have different versions of Switch like that, but if you're saying "well why can't I have a Switch console that's 2.5 TFLOP, and the people who want the portable can just have the portable".

No. 

It doesn't work like that, games can only scale so far, as matter of fact I think this is why the docked version of the Switch is even underclocked. There isn't really any big reason why the docked Switch shouldn't run at full clock (1 GHz = 500 GFLOPS), but I think they had to down clock it to 768 MHz (384 GFLOPS approx) because the gap would be too hard to have the same game for the docked and undocked mode if the gap in performance was any larger than the 2.5:1 ratio Nintendo apparently settled on. 

Of course it's work, but it's a lot less work than porting a WiiU game on 3DS.  You don't have to start from scratch to rebuild the game.

I will always think that the extra costs is nothing in comparison to having two devices instead of one. They could have easily used the full capacity of the tegra, even push it to ore than 1 Tflops and 8 GB of ram, so that they could have the same architecture but something on par with the Xbox One.

They could have sold more devices, the Switch handheld would have been a handheld instead of a hybrid, making it a real successor to the 3DS and having only the mobile market as a competitor.

And the switch home would have been a cost effective solution to compete in the home console market, it would have live off the back f the handheld, and could have easily received ports of third parties AAA

That's a way better solution if Nintendo's strategy is to actually increase their market shares.

 

Mark my words, the Switch will sell less than the 3DS, and it will not be the only device Nintendo releases during the next 2-3 years