potato_hamster said:
Dulfite said:
If you really think the same people that are going to buy the ps4/xbox one are trying to determine between one of those and the Switch, there is no point continuing this discussion, because I refuse to agree with that. The Wii U clearly appealed to different types of gamers. And the Wii was a 2nd console to the ps3/xbox360, as is indicative by how well all three console sold (most people double dipped in the market that cycle, hence why the numbers are overall so much worse "looking" now for video games, because people haven't been double dipping as much due to the Wii U failing to attract people and due to it confusing people so much).
The people that are going to buy Nintendo devices aren't going to be lured away to another device because its games look slightly better. And don't even say "its not slightly". You can say all the nonsense you want about how the graphics blow away Nintendo graphics, but the reality is the MAJORITY of people are increasingly able to tell less and less apart from graphical cycles. I garuntee you, more people were shocked by the move from Gtx 200 to gtx 300 than people were from gtx 900 to gtx 1000 series. Graphical jumps now days just don't stand out that much unless you are a technically obsessed person who watches digital foundry all day and pays attention to fps. My brother in law is about as pc overlord as you can get and he ALWAYS makes comments about tears or framerate drops or whatever, and these are things I never naturally see. He has to point them out to me. Most people are probably even less observant than I am (especially parents, who probably favor the happier more cartoony games for their kids anyway) and I freaking out a gtx 980 ti lol. The point is, in no way will Nintendo's hardware sales be impacted simply because the piss4 pro or the xbone look a little shinier standing next to them. As long as Nintendo has the software that people have come to know and love longer than the other two companies have been in gaming, they will continue to sell to their core market.
|
The WIi U didn't appeal to anybody. Deny it all you want, prospective buyers were looking at the WIi U vs the PS4 and Xbox One, and it was a no brainer. You can say all you want that people that are going to buy Nintendo devices aren't going to be lured away by graphics, but that's Nintendo's problem isn't it? People are getting lured away by graphics, and third party games, and rock solid online play. The people that don't care about that more than they care about playing Nintendo games? Those numbers are clearly and obviously dwindling.
From everything we've seen, the Switch is barely a step up from the Wii U graphically. Besides that, what's the main difference? That they can take their Switch outside if they want? That's a limited appeal. Other than that, the sides of the Wii U tablet now detatch, and you can now only use the TV screen or the tablet screen. If they didn't find the Wii U appealing, why are they suddenly going to buy the Switch? It's arguably a harder sell than the Wii U was at launch. It's more expensive. It's accessories are far more expensive. They now have to pay to play online. All for what? The ability to take the game out on road with you if you choose to do so. That's a very hard sell.
|
False. The wii saw a MASSIVE increase in casual fans, but the Wii U is performing similiarly to the gamecube before it, so Nintendo's super loyal base is still in the 10-20 mil range, for the most part. Which means the Switch will sell 10-20 mil units minimum, not including non typical Nintendo fans. The Wii U was unappealing because the 2nd screen often was completely useless and, therefore, people could clearly see how the device was limiting itself (diverting power to two screens instead of just one). Also, the gamecube could only be moved a certain distance away from the Wii U, and the battery was horrible in that mode, whereas the switch is much better in bother of these areas. And we don't know the benefit of online pay yet, in terms of performance. All I can say is I've been through Call of Duty World at War online on the wii and that was horrible, so if paid online gets us better connection and prevents game servers from shutting down so early like Devil's third, I'm happy with that as long as it isn't super expensive.
I used to own a 360 and absolutely LOVED the online in that system. It was clear that PAYING for that was worth it because they did such a good job. Here is hoping Nintendo does the same thing with our money that Microsoft has been doing.
Not just the road, but an airplane, on a boat, on a train, in a taxi cab, on a school bus, shuttle bus, while your baby sitting your neice, and on and on. This is going to be amazingly convenient compared to massive boxy hd twins.
