Pemalite said:
Pyro as Bill said:
I never claimed Switch 1st party games were. I said 'most' of Nintendo's 'big' (sellers not scale) games and they are.
Doesn't matter anyway, real Nintendo gamers would rather have a $149 dedicated home console at 720p/60 for our Wii Sports friend's (30 for Zelda and Pokemon) instead of an overpriced GC/WiiU 2/Pro home console that runs the odd PS5 port.
|
In general, the only Nintendo exclusives that will hit 1080P, 60fps reliably are those that are ported over from the Wii U and had stuff all improvements outside of that.
You are probably right that Nintendo gamers are probably happy with 720P/60fps, that audience doesn't seem to care significantly about having the best visuals, but rather are content with just "good enough".
nuckles87 said:
A TV model is *possible*, especially after the Lite, but it also makes less business sense then a Lite. The Lite serves to fill the void left by the 3DS with a smaller, cheaper, more portable experience, and most Switch users who don’t use Switch in both docked and portable modes use it exclusively as a portable. That said, definitely a market for it, and I don’t think a $150 price tag is an impossibility. |
The Switch Lite fills the void for the 3DS just the same as a Switch TV hypothetically fills the void of the Wii U.
The OG Switch is marketed towards both segments.
If a Switch TV comes out, I would sell my current Switch and buy one.
|
I would argue the current Switch already does a pretty good job filling the void of the Wii U. It’s the same price point and there are no QOL compromises to get it playing on a TV.
The only advantage a Switch TV would bring to the table is a cheaper price, meaning people who don’t want portable play won’t have to pay for a screen and batteries they won’t use. That’s not really filling the Wii U’s void, so much as its just acting as a more budget-friendly way for people to play Switch games.
