(Rumor) Nintendo discarded "Switch Pro"

[Fight-the-Streets]

Chrkeller said:

Pemalite said:

No. It's objectively bad. - You just have low standards, unless you are asserting that Digital Foundry are telling lies?
I suggest you watch the digital foundry video that breaks down all the performance and technical issues.
Here it is again:


As for your car analogy... It's incorrect.
With the Switch I am not suggesting it needs to be identical to all other cars on the market like the Series X and Playstation 5, heck even older cars like the Xbox One and Playstation 4.. And that it's inability to go to 0 to 60 in 4 seconds somehow makes it "bad".

I have no issue with the Switch's current performance, provided games run perfectly fine on them.

It would be more like having a little Toyota Camry, 4 cylinder. - But the issue is, when you reach legal highway speeds, regardless of how long it takes you to get there, the steering starts to shake and wobble and the vehicle starts to feel "unsafe" at it's "rated" speed... And that is where a newer model can resolve those issues.

We are consumers, we are handing cash over for these products, we should demand and expect the best possible product, not give excuses... You are only damaging the consumers position. - And for what?

My kids love the game and don't have a problem with pokemon.  Just because you find it to be a problem doesn't mean others do.  You seemingly can't figure out the difference between opinion and fact.  

I'm not giving excuses but speaking reality.  The funny thing is this all started when I said Nintendo doesn't need to do anything because clearly consumers don't care....  and here you are saying consumers dictate the market....  thank for saying what I said pages ago.  It isn't a need because consumers have decided it isn't.  

The only time a company needs to do anything is when consumers make them do as such.  Look at sales, consumers are not making the need.  Hence you have a want....  

Well, the Nintendo OLED wasn't needed either. There was no demand for it but Nintendo created demand by advertising it, by making it appealing. That's what companies do, they sell you things you don't need and especially Nintendo has a strategy of not necessarily selling you what you want but selling you what you didn't know you want. Of course this could go into a philosophical discussion about what is really needed in life, aren't most of our problems just luxury first world problems? But then again, we were born in the first world, so we have a right for first world problems... .

On the issues with Pokémon Scarlet/Violet: Obviously, the game had to be out for the holidays season and they didn't have enough time to polish it. I'm sure it would have been a better game if they wouldn't have had a (strict) deadline. But in any case if I look at their past Pokémon games I don't think Game Freak is a very capable developer. I wonder sometimes if it would be better if Nintendo takes the development of Pokémon games in-house. After all, it is their biggest money maker. Nintendo owns 32% of The Pokémon Company (and in turn of Game Freak). It is also known that Nintendo owns 100% of the Pokémon brand. So, Nintendo has quite the saying in this matter.

But I agree with Pemalite, even a lousy programmed game would still run better on better hardware.

I think a better example than Pokémon is Bayonetta 3. Platinum Games took enough time to get the best out of the Nintendo Switch hardware. They aimed for smooth 60 fps but still having appealing graphics and lots of action on screen. It ended in a compromise and surely would be a better game on a Switch Pro (with at the very least more constant 60 fps and higher resolution).