| padib said: Lately there have been a series of articles on the Nintendo Switch. The general comments made by some users have been of the order "it is priced like a PS4 and yet the PS4 has all these games already for it". Or "it's not powerful enough". Let me ask you a question: when you buy a Nintendo console, what do you buy it for? Many people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo's flagship games. Therefore you can't say the PS4 is a better value at the same price because the PS4 doesn't have Nintendo's games. Others buy Nintendo's consoles for portable games and especially japanese games, because Nintendo portables have been highly popular in Japan since, like, ... forever. So again you can't say that the PS4 is a better value at the same price. ONE: You get Nintendo's games TWO: You get 3rd party japanese games that are portable style and that cater to people who buy Nintendo's portables. THREE: You get a portable system. The PS4 doesn't offer that.
So why when you bring up these arguments, if someone counterpoints with "it has Nintendo games and Nintendo-like 3rd party games", you discredit the argument? Nintendo consoles are bought for the games, Nintendo makes great games, and Nintendo doesn't care about the race to graphical power anymore. The graphics are good enough, what matters now is the music, the art, the gameplay and in many cases the story. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and understand the heart of the matter. When it comes to Nintendo consoles, you are buying quality of build, special design and the promise of a library of great games. Stop changing the goalposts. |
Nintendo is bought for those reasons. It just doesn't fit the role of Primary Console for many. It doesn't have the generation's best 3rd party IP - games like GTA, RDR, Tomb Raider, MGS, Witcher, Mass Effect, mainline FF, as well as popular shooters, racing & sports games are missing from Nintendo consoles. Nintendo's console competitors have those, as well as their own compelling 1st party.
For people like me, Nintendo's console is a 2nd or 3rd console, bought solely for Nintendo's games that appeal to me, despite of the fact that they look like last gen games.
For handhelds it's an entirely different kettle of fish. Nintendo is the best handheld contender; they have had most of the games people want to play. Switch is very powerful for a handheld, so that's exciting.
As far as value then, I think it is relevant to talk about the competition and about pricing. As a home console the Switch seems to still be positioned as a 2nd or 3rd console, and it is hard to see it expanding on Wii U's userbase. The strength of library and price of PS4/XB1 is additional headwind.
As a handheld the Switch should have a lock on the game library assuming it's not competing with 3DS. However it's powerful design comes at a cost, beging $300, kind of large, and battery life is so-so. This makes many of us question it's fit as a handheld and if it will be able to match or beat 3DS' success.
EDIT: The recent message shared by Reggie that Switch & 3DS will co-exist, are aimed at different customers, and Switch is primarily a home console should also add perspective. I don't think Nintendo sees Switch as being fit to be it's only handheld option.
