RolStoppable said:
It's always fascinating how you try to make the pieces fit your narrative. Nothing about the Switch is "wow" for people who care about graphics. Those people won't be interested in a stronger Switch when the gap in processing power will still be equally as big as it is now, because by the time your proposed stronger Switch will be out, there will be more capable home consoles available too. Conversely, the people who don't care about Switch's graphics now won't change their mind in a few years. Switch is succeeding because its concept is the convenience of playing games where you want and how you want, coupled with a strong lineup of exclusives and supplemental titles. Your Twilight Princess example is a fallacy that you love to use. Every time someone says that graphics aren't a selling point, you try to disprove it by making a ridiculous argument comparable to "Wii wouldn't have sold as well if it had had NES graphics." Well yes, that may be true, but it fails to address the argument properly. Breath of the Wild looks as it does, but people aren't raving about it because of its graphics. Whenever graphics are brought up, they are usually considered a weak point of the game. |
I agree it's succeeding because he convienace of playing games where you want and how you want ... but it's *console* scale games that makes the concept work. It ain't Bomberman that's selling that system. There's a reason Zelda has an attach rate over 100%.
Vita and 3DS can play anywhere, any time too. I can't take a four hour poop and play Zelda on my 3DS too. Matter of fact these systems are more convienant that the Switch in that regard (longer battery life for one) if you strictly want to take convienance. There's no "wow" factor about that.
Switch has the "wow factor" but it's because it's the first device that portably can run a game people would look at and say "hey this is a home console game". OK, the performance isn't dead on, but the scope/scale of the game is close enough that for now Nintendo can blur that line.
The concept IMO does not work if you lose that aspect over time. Saying "well we have buttons" isn't good enough to keep consumer enthusiasm.
Switch is an upmarket product and for good reason, Nintendo would be in trouble if they made another cheap, little rinky dink portable with PS Vita graphics instead of pushing the envelop a little harder with the Switch. So yes, even though hardware performance has a part to play in the equation. I think you override any kind of nuance on this issue because you had so many arguements with PS/XBox fans during the Wii era, but it colors basically any kind of opinion you have on this issue (10 year old internet arguments).
For now the Switch can produce plausibly relevant games that are relatively comparable to what people think of home console games as. Relatively close, doesn't have to be exact. At least keep it within a generation gap. But if you let that gap grow too big, then basically all you have is an oversized 3DS, and 3DS shipments have been mediocre for several years now (especially in the West), even with a small uptick from Pokemon Go, they are historically low for Nintendo.
