RolStoppable said:
That Nintendo never used the term "third pillar" to describe NX/Switch is all anyone needs to know. This term carries weight and therefore it's avoided intentionally when it doesn't get mentioned. I'd actually like to ignore this third pillar thing altogether because it works neither as a pro or a con for your greater claim. If you look back to the announcement of the Nx, "third pillar" was being used across the gaming community. Iwata certainly didn't use the phrase itself as everyone and their mother by then knew "third pillar" meant "one of these three is soon to disappear", but his description was almost identical to that of the original third pillar speech, complete with promises that they were working to make sure the Wii U and 3DS continued to receive releases following the launch of the Nx. Obviously this did not happen for the Wii U, but it's the same lie most tend to tell to make sure they don't hurt the sales of their current consoles in the meantime. Point 2: Indeed, Nintendo won't leave the handheld market. But since Switch is a hybrid and therefore incorporates handheld needs, Nintendo doesn't need to create a separate 3DS successor to remain in the handheld market. For further evidence, look at the country where handhelds reign supreme; Switch is already being accepted as the 3DS successor. The classification of the Switch is obviously one of those difficult bits of semantics, where one can consider it a "handheld" but it prefers "portable console", it performs more like a console, is much larger than a typical modern handheld, and features a higher price point than what one would expect from a handheld. To avoid such semantics about whether or not Nintendo will leave the handheld market, let me instead say that we shouldn't assume they'll abandon their two-platform approach. Personally, I think a likely possibility is that in a couple years (say late 2019 or so) a mini version of the current Switch hardware will become the new standard "dedicated handheld", which would also make it much easier to port games from one to the other whenever it seems worthwhile, and it will be followed by a stronger console-grade Switch a year or two afterwards. That seems to satisfy both their desire to provide a proper handheld and console experience, filling multiple price points like they currently do, and streamline game development for easy porting. Point 3: Nintendo had two platforms in the past not because of safety reasons, but because technology required it. Having two separate platforms is the reason why one wouldn't do so well at times, because the split development resources didn't allow for the necessary support. So now that technology doesn't constitute an obstacle anymore, Nintendo moves to a single platform because that's much safer for business. Additionally, it's better to have one successful platform than having one success and one failure on your hands. Point 4: This is already addressed in the final sentence of my rebuttal to point 3. Point 9: This goes back to point 3. There's no benefit in splitting development resources. There is truth to what you say regarding the need for both a console and a handheld due to inferior technology in the past, but that's not the only reason they've done it. While there is overlap, the handheld market has targeted a different price point and consumer from the start for them. They are not mutually competitive with one another, which has been evidenced by times where both were simultaneously successful and others were both were struggling for sales (early 3DS and Wii U). I'd argue that there's not a Nintendo console we can point to that performed poorly in sales where the primary causes of said difficulties was the resources spent on the Gameboy/DS line. Instead, it was generally a combination of outdated design decisions, poor marketing, and lack of third party support. Otherwise, one platform is inherently less safe than two, which is why nearly all companies (especially manufacturers) attempt to diversify as much as possible. By your logic, while you could indeed say that having one successful platform is better than one success and one failure, you could also say that one success and one failure is better than just one failure; I'm pretty sure Nintendo was happy to have the GBA and the 3DS throughout their Gamecube/Wii U experience. Point 5: Switch revisions can solve all of that. The hardware can be shrunk, the price can get lower, the form factor can be changed, all depending on what is deemed necessary. Remember that the 3DS launched with a single model at $250 and didn't serve the prices and form factors of the DS family. Revisions take care of such stuff. I agree here to an extent, as like I said above I feel the most likely future involves a shrunk down Switch in the future. The key point for me is that, for the Switch to maintain its appeal by offering a console-like experience, the hardware will have to be larger and more expensive than the typical handheld market would allow for. While I think we may very likely see a mini-switch shaped more like a typical handheld in the future and it will fill the void of the 3DS, I imagine we'll still see a stronger and larger Switch following in its wake that will receive exclusives the mini can't handle (or at the very least gets watered down ports of). In such a case, though, Nintendo would still be maintaining the two platform approach that has served them so well. Point 6: There are no laws that forbid games with lower development budgets. Of course not, but when people pay for a console they expect titles to be console quality. Whereas certain announcements generate a lot of excitement when they're releasing on a 3DS, I imagine the visuals and such would be more prone to criticism were they designed with a console-quality platform in mind. That's how people tend to behave, anyway; for instance, if the recent 2D Metroid was the only Metroid announced and was exclusive to the Switch, I imagine mixed into excitement to see the franchise returning would be a lot of questions and criticisms regarding the visuals. The average person's reaction to an announcement is generally determined by how well the game matched their expectations, and said expectations are higher on the Switch. Point 7: You really are an idiot. There's no need for that. This is about as innocuous a discussion topic we could possibly be engaged in; it's not as if we're discussing how to properly deal with ISIS and extremism lol There's no need for a separate handheld line to sell Switch as a hybrid. The market accepts Switch as a hybrid because it offers all the functionality that is expected from a Nintendo home console. This is your worst point by far and you must have tripped and hit your head on the edge of a table or something. Or maybe you assumed nobody will be reading until that point while at the same time a huge list increases credibility for your argument. I'm not sure why you're so hostile to this particular point; it's definitely one of the least important of the list, but there's truth to it. Marketing, as we all know, is 99% perception; you're aiming to make the consumer believe whatever will maximize sales regardless of how accurate it is, and it's why everyone makes such an effort about making sure they're all using the same, marketable terms and phrases to describe their products across multiple industries. Nintendo knows this, and it's why they sent clear instructions to everyone under the sun that this be described as a portable console/hybrid, and not a handheld. In the end I think most of us recognize that the semantics and distinction between what constitutes a "handheld" and a "console" are seriously antiquated, but they're clearly important all the same. Following the Switch's reveal we had plenty of people here talking about how Nintendo had bowed out of the console race to focus on handhelds and there are still many who consider this to be a handheld. That perception matters when it comes to selling the console, and Nintendo clearly recognized this from the start as they attempted the tricky balancing act of providing portability while maintaining the appearance and performance of a console. This is one of the key reasons they've continued to market the 3DS and plan smaller, more portable versions, as when this question arises they point to the 3DS family as being their handheld line, supporting the idea that they haven't bowed out of the console race and that their superior Switch hardware is indeed a step above your typical handheld. This perception of it being a portable console was crucial to their marketing campaign, and it helped to generate hype and interest while also justifying what would otherwise be a prohibitively high price point for your typical handheld. It certainly isn't necessary for the Switch's wellbeing and I wouldn't claim as much, then, but it does help provide a visual distinction. Point 8: Kimishima has commented on this and told investors that Nintendo is always working on new hardware, but there is no separate 3DS successor planned to release anytime soon. This points towards Switch truly being the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS. Also, mainline Pokémon was announced. That's possible, and this one was definitely just speculation on my part, but it seems like fairly safe speculation. When considering Nintendo's exceedingly old obsession with constantly releasing new models (heck, they've already announced the New 2DS XL lol), as well as the very ambitious longshot that the Switch was following its least successful console in history, I sincerely doubt that they didn't have plans for a possible follow up to the 3DS should the Switch not pan out (something everyone thought was a serious possibility until just a few months ago). These things take years to design, so they'd certainly not wait until the Switch had failed to work on a possible follow up.
Point 10: A Nintendo handheld receiving first party support after its successor has already launched is normal. The DS received the exclusive Pokémon Black/White 2 about 15 months after the 3DS had launched (Japanese dates). Also, once again, Switch serves the handheld market, so your entire premise of an exit is wrong. This is where I think we see a difference of perception, as while the Switch is indeed portable it does not fit the handheld's market. It is prohibitively expensive for those who were only interested in typically priced handhelds, it is much too large to be conveniently portable or carried in the pocket, it has seriously limited battery life, and in general is far more "console" as far as the important qualities of price, performance, size, batteries, and controls are concerned than it is handheld. It is for those reasons that I personally love it and do feel it's absolutely fair to call it a "portable console", but it also precludes it for the moment from filling the portion of the market that the 3DS currently satisfies. Like I said before, I think the most likely endgame here for Nintendo is to release a smaller, more handheld-esque Switch in the future that will sell alongside a more powerful counterpart and fill the handheld void. Such a system would probably allow for easy porting, but in order for the Switch to continue to justify its claims of being a portable "console" it will have to feature exclusives that one would not get on their lesser offering. In that way, then, Nintendo would still be sporting a more streamlined two platform experience. It's possible that they'll simply drop their typical handheld lines entirely and focus only on the "portable console" that is the Switch, but there's not much incentive for them to do that right now and we really shouldn't assume that said move is in the near future. |
I responded to your post. I do hope you'll read it as I love these discussions.
