Master analyst, Michael Pachter, predicts that Switch will not sell near Wii.

[Mnementh]

Kyuu said:

Mnementh said:

I feel like the power question is always misleading. Because the WiiU probably had more power than was used, but nobody bothered to really invest time, effort and money to make it work, because it was not seen as a system which made the investment back with game sales. For Switch on the other hand that works, which means with more effort studios are able to create "miracles". And that is not something specific for Switch and WiiU. More successful system especially in regards to game sales will result in games that make much more of the hardware available.

The second misleading thing here is the assumption of how much the horsepower influences success. This is a pretty clear lesson of game system history: the most powerful system seldom wins. Overall power has only a minor part in success. Much more important is how the perceived (subjective) value measures up. And that is strongly defined by the games on display. Switch could early on build a high perceived value, just because of how Breath of the Wild is a great game everyone wanted and still wants. More power doesn't automatically leads to more desirable games, which is why power has only minor influence on success.

If power didn't matter, generations wouldn't exist.

Corporations sell us hardware primarily as a vehicle for software sales and subscription services, so why would they ever stop supporting established system with large install bases? Why did Sony ever think of dropping Playstation 2 and instead selling PS3's at huge losses right off the bat? Why do concepts like "generations" and "system requirements" continue to exist?

Power is generally a huge factor, but it comes at a price. If you want your system to be portable AND affordable, you're going to be forced to compromise power coz the alternative is impossible.

Provided all variables are equal (price, launch date, brand recognition, consumer-base size, ease of development, etc), a significantly more powerful system would have a major advantage over the weaker system. So Switch obviously has an advantage over a hypothetical half as powerful Switch. Otherwise Nintendo could have launched a much weaker Switch and profited more by overpricing it the same. Or priced it lower and sold more units and by extension more content and services.

If Switch was only as powerful as the 7th gen consoles or Wii U ("power" as in realized results, not some hypotheticals), that would have hurt its longevity to some extent, reduced the number of 3rd party ports, and prolonged the porting period of some games and made them more expensive. The 1st party lineup could've looked and played worse too. The system would have objectively been less appealing for consumers and developers alike, it's just common sense.

Every Playstation console barring PS3 (which is complicated) and PS5 were the most -or arguably the most- powerful consoles at the time of their launch, not to mention they were the better value propositions than the competition. Power is important, but of course if your competition has it already, it wouldn't necessarily be a huge selling point by itself, that's not what I'm arguing.

The relationship between the different selling points is a very complicated one to breakdown. And it evolves over time (for instance people nowadays are willing to pay more for more, hence the lower demand for Switch Lite and Series S). But provided all but one variable are "fixed", the different variable will become a big selling point. Switch is running some games that were originally designed for PS360 at around twice the resolution, more stable fps, and higher settings. It's not an insignificant power gap like Series X vs PS5, or PS360 vs Wii U, or even PS4 vs Xbox One.

First of all: I didn't say power didn't matter, I said it has only minor influence on the success of a system.

But let's dive a bit deeper. You claim power is the reason for generations. But actually it is not. The reason for generations is money. People tend to be more excited about their new thingy, than about their old thingy, including a higher willingness to make additional spending for this thingy. For game consoles that means, people that start to be content with their yearly FIFA or whatever can buy a new console and start looking for new games that their new machine is doing. Hell, you could even sell them the same game a second time (or a third time *cough* Skyrim... GTA V *cough*). New generations exist mostly for this reason.

Naturally you need a *justification* for the new gen, and power often has been it. But not always. While Nintendo in the last few gens upgraded their tech, they advertised their new gen mostly with new inputs or additional features (dual screen, motion control, glass-free 3D, tablet-controller, hybrid). I see that VR may become a possible justification for gens going forward, but so far it isn't clearly attached to gens.

Yes, people probably wouldn't want a tech in a new gen, which is massively outmatched by current tech. But I think what massively outmatched means is defined differently by forumgoers and the general public.

Also as a reminder: PC gaming is gen-free since decades, and it works as well. And no, not every PC gamer has the newest tech, many play on tech that is behind current console gens.

You are right about power coming at a price. And I think you miss one also: the price on developing games. With better tech the expectations on looks in the game increase, which has impact on the cost of development.

"So Switch obviously has an advantage over a hypothetical half as powerful Switch."

I really don't think that is the case. Except if the games would look massively different. If Breath of the Wild looked more or less similar, people would still buy the half as powerful a Switch (whatever half as powerful means, as power really isn't one variable alone). And let's not kid ourself, most consumer don't notice the difference forum goers fret over in high resolution screenshots - "look, it has three grass objects more" - that was a real discussion back about GTA on X360 and PS3.

"If Switch was only as powerful as the 7th gen consoles or Wii U ("power" as in realized results, not some hypotheticals), that would have hurt its longevity to some extent, reduced the number of 3rd party ports, and prolonged the porting period of some games and made them more expensive."

I am not so sure about this either. Well, obviously Switch is more powerful than the WiiU and we knew it from the get-go, only some people on forums were hyperbolic and claimed Switch being WiiU-levels (and as they were hyperbolic before and claimed WiiU was PS3/X360 level they claimed that for Switch as well). Obviously Switch was more powerful than WiiU and we knew it from the start, illustrated by Breath of the Wild. We also knew Switch had 4GB RAM compared to WiiUs 2GB and the 512MB RAM on PS3 and X360. So yes, we all knew that the claims Switch is no more powerful than WiiU were hyperbole and nothing more.

But the power isn't guaranteeing the higher longevity. The library does. See, Switch has gotten some games from WiiU which was mocked and hyperboled into: Switch has the same library as WiiU. But it really hasn't. While some games that basically died on WiiU because of the low sales got a second life on Switch, Switch has a library that by far extends the WiiU. Switch got Super Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Arms and Splatoon 2 in the launch year, additionally to the games WiiU also got like Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8. Gamers care about games, not power. Switch early on really expanded on the WiiUs library, that and not power is the reason Switch can live longer.

Naturally we have the question how much power is needed to make a game possible. And that is not an easy question. In the past some technological advances made new games possible, especially 3D games. But I think we are already hit hard with diminishing returns. People declared a lot of games impossible on Switch, yet "miracle" ports happened. This shows that power maybe a bit restricting for devs, but really isn't preventing any game type really at this point. Yes, we will not see Raytracing on Switch, but still you could play similar (or even the same) games, just with less fancy.

"Every Playstation console barring PS3 (which is complicated) and PS5 were the most -or arguably the most- powerful consoles at the time of their launch, not to mention they were the better value propositions than the competition."

PS1 and PS2 were not more powerful than consoles in their gen, although you worded it: "at the time of their launch". Yes N64 launched later, but it still competed pretty much with PS. It's a weird way to word it. You could also say the WiiU was the most powerful console at the time of it's launch. Nobody does, as it doesn't matter, as everyone knows WiiU competed with PS4 and Xbox One, even if they launched a year later.

And then you add the better value proposition. Which is exactly what I say. The post you quoted, I said literally: "Much more important is how the perceived (subjective) value measures up." And that is the value proposition. But this value is done with games, not power. Which is why PS succeeded over N64 and PS2 over Gamecube. Because power has a very minor influence on the perceived value.

"The relationship between the different selling points is a very complicated one to breakdown."

That is not completely wrong. But there are some clear patterns: power had only minor influence on mass market success in all of gaming history. Game library had always a massive influence. There are other factors as well: CD/DVD for PS and PS2 (although that may had influence on the games, as other games were possible) or the form factor of handheld vs. stationary.

"It's not an insignificant power gap"

And that is a highly subjective part. Yes, as I said before, gamers on forums tend to count grass to prove power superiority of their platform of choice. But the majority only cares about games. Are the games they want to play available. And in that regard the power gap is apparently insignificant enough to allow for many gaming experiences people care for.