Bofferbrauer2 said:
I would put that under false equivalency. After all, even though you can connect them to the TV, they don't change their behavior (as in, clocking higher or lower depending on if they are docked or not) and more importantly, you don't change the input device. The Switch changes how you play and use it depending on being docked or not, but that's not true for your Tablet or phone. |
My Phone and Tablets operate under dynamic frequency, so whenever connected to mains power (I.E. Docked) the SoC's will operate at a higher frequency if thermal headroom allows for it.
The Switch doesn't "Change" how you play.
The games are for all intents and purposes are the same, they might have slightly better visuals or operate at a slightly higher resolution, but they are the same games with the same defining visual defining feature sets... And will use the same controls. (Joycons which detach.)
| Doctor_MG said: Do your phone and tablet increase clock speeds when docked in order to provide increased resolutions? |
Yes.
| Doctor_MG said: Anyway, the phone and tablet argument are ridiculous because they aren't even dedicated gaming consoles. |
False.
This is the tablet.
And unlike the Switch actually has a 1080P display.
| Doctor_MG said: The Switch's entire design was based upon it being both. The hardware is mobile hardware because that is the only way to make it both (The PS4 and Xbox One APU's draw too much power to become as portable as the Switch). |
False. The Switch is designed as a mobile device first and foremost, otherwise you would start making compromises to battery life, weight, size and portability if you started on the opposite side.
| Doctor_MG said: You're suggesting mobile hardware = a portable game console, but this couldn't be further from the truth (especially when the PS4 and Xbox One consoles are based on laptop chipsets, yet they clearly are not portable consoles). |
Correct. Mobile hardware... Aka. Mobile power optimized SoC, mobile DRAM, mobile power optimized EMMC storage, mobile form factor and building it around features to use it in mobile aka.... Battery and screen. -Is what makes it primarily a mobile device.
In short, Nintendo didn't compromise mobility for it's mobile capabilities, but it did compromise it's fixed-home console capabilities because of it... And not the other way around.
The Playstation 4 and Xbox One weren't designed around mobile hardware and are for all intents and purposes fixed home consoles...
The Chipsets are NOT laptop chipsets, the CPU block in the Playstation 4 and Xbox One is Jaguar which is an evolutionary step from Brazos which is certainly designed for mobile applications (Netbooks) but also fixed devices like Nettops and industrial machines and so forth.
But you are forgetting that these are not off-the-shelf chips like the Switch's mobile Tegra chip... They are semi-custom.
Sony and Microsoft paired them up with desktop-DRAM Aka. DDR3/GDDR5 which isn't mobile/power optimized... And then they spent a few billion transistors on the graphics cores, which are definitely not mobile/power optimized like the Switch... Meaning they had power consumption north of 100W.
The Xbox One and Playstation 4 also didn't feature built in batteries, displays and were large and chunky so couldn't be used in the hand because of thermal and size of components constraints. (Desktop stuff tends to be bulky.)
| Doctor_MG said: The variant point is ridiculous. Is the Vita a home console because of the PS Vita TV? |
The Vita TV is a fixed home console as it doesn't include a display and battery for you to take it portably and has a form factor to match. (Boxy and not ergonomic.)
The fact it's limited to the Vita's average game library is more or less a con, rather than a pro.
| Doctor_MG said: Does the GBA player make the GBA a home console? |
No. It makes the GBA player a home fixed console.
The GBA is still a mobile console.
It's all in the form factor and hardware.
| Doctor_MG said: Heck, if they made a dock only Switch unit would your point become moot? |
If they made a dock-only switch it would still be a mobile device as that is what it's primarily designed around.
But if they made a Switch-TV which ditched the mobile features like battery and display, mobile ergonomics, then it would be a fixed-home console.
| Doctor_MG said: I mean, your last sentence makes it pretty clear that the dockable incentive is driving purchases, meaning people are using the console for more than just portable gaming (there was some statistic out there that showed docked and portable play was almost equal amongst players). |
Just because you can run it off a TV doesn't mean you can't use it like a fixed device, shit. I do... I never use my Switch in portable mode.
But that doesn't stop it from being a mobile device first and foremost.
| Doctor_MG said: This isn't even taking into account that Nintendo themselves stated that they consider the Switch to be a home console first and foremost (which you can see from their software lineup). All in all, I just disagree with you. |
Companies say all sorts of silly things, when they don't mean it. I remember when Microsoft said they weren't going to remaster Halo 2... And look what happened.
I bet there are other examples where Nintendo has made statements then done the complete opposite, not all cogs in the wheels go in the same direction.
And I would actually put forth this question to you... What would happen to the Switch if you took a hammer to the dock? Absolutely nothing. It will still function as *intended* with the loss of a feature. (Outputting to a display.)
I also disagree with you and have outlined my arguments on why.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
