Bloomberg: Nintendo Traders Signal Switch Could Be Bigger Hit Than the Wii

[Magnus]

Miyamotoo said:

Nautilus said:

Except it is a hybrid.You dont need any chips in the dock itself for it to be a home console.It just needs to have the functionality of one.Home consoles are more of a concept, rather than a piece of tecnology.A home console is something that plays mainly games(as in it is optimized for that) and displays that image on the tv, while you control it via a controller, but the unit itself is not portable.And the Switch is ALSO that(you can treat it as only that, if you so like).If we dont take that concept as the definition, then the PS4 and XOne are actually just very limited PCs, that happens to only play games.

The Switch is both parts equal home and handheld console.I can understand why you would prefer using more one or the other, and thus being more of a handheld for you, but its a hybrid at heart.And hey, if you wanna go by the official statement, the Switch is a home console(according to Nintendo), so there is that.

Great post.

Its funny how people see Switch hardware and say it's handled not home console only because has mobile hardware in it or Switch itself has mobile form factor, but dont realise that whole Switch is made from ground that can act, to be used and to give full home experience also, and actual Switch does that.

It's very obvious that Switch is true hybrid console of home console and handheld console, and how it would be used depends only from each consumer.

 

Magnus said:

Need for Speed was not a CPU intensive game so it could run well on Wii U. But most 360 and PS3 games weren't like that. EA broke with Nintendo because the Wii U couldn't run Frostbite.

EA (like most other 3rd parties) abandoned Wii U because terrible sales of Wii U.

EA abandoned Wii U before the system launch. They flatout said that they would not support the system beyond launch before the Wii U launch.

That was a clock rate issue.  The majority of game engines were developed around PS3 and X360 which both had CPU's clocked at 3.2 Ghz.  The Wii U's CPU was clocked lower and hence had difficulty running those game engines.  PS4 and Xone have lower clocks too and if those engines were simply ported (rather than rebuilt for them), they'd have issues too.   

So it's not so much it was weak as it was a matter of the game engines being developed around an expected CPU speed.  Would you say the PS4 and Xone CPU's are weaker than their predecessors?

You can't compare CPU speed like that between different architectures. The Jaguar CPU on PS4 and XBox One is stronger than Cell or Xenon. But Wii U's espresso is weaker and lacks SIMD instructions. And launch games that ran on PS4 and XBox One were often built on the same engines as 360 and PS3 games yet they still looked much better on the next-gen consoles. If the Wii U was a step up from 360 and PS3 it should run games better than on those consoles, even at launch.