Currently Online 
JWeinCom said:
Those games can and did run on inferior Wii U hardware. I guess it was better than the 5+ year old Vita. I wouldn't say those games are graphical powerhouses, but you can define things your own way. Again, the question is whether or not the type of person who finds the graphics on those names good enough going to be the same type of person that will be willing to spend 300+ dollars for the kind of improvements a new chipset could offer. Pretty sure that even after the release of the 2DS, the 3DS models continued to sell better. The feature seems to be worth the extra cost to most people at least. Probably not worth the cost in terms of performance, but offputting is a bit much. Not really sure what you're trying to argue with software, because if the shift of shovelware to mobile was a factor, then that seems to cut against the argument you're making if I'm not misunderstanding. If that was a big part of the Switch's decline, more horsepower wouldn't have really helped. So, absent that, what would the 3DS have sold? 100 m? What would a beefier DS have sold? The Vita was what people are suggesting the Switch 2 should be. Essentially the same, with better graphics, and QOL improvements. It may not have had the improvements you think it ought to have had, but it did everything the PSP did, and then some. People weren't interested. Those kinds of sequel consoles are just not guaranteed to have the same appeal as predecessors. I did not say the Switch 2 would be the same thing as going from the GBC to GBA. The GBA was a legitimately massive leap over the GBC that allowed you to do types of games that just couldn't have been done before. The Switch 2 will not do that. It was also for the most part a wholly unique library that couldn't be found anywhere else. Outside of the first party stuff, the Switch 2 presumably won't have a ton of exclusives. The GBA came out at the height of Pokemon where handheld gaming was taking off. I'm not saying the Switch 2 won't simply continue the trend of Switch sales, but the scenario is different, so there is no guarantee of that. Yeah, the hybrid feature is appealing. But, people already have a system that does exactly the same thing, the Switch. If you're expecting them to drop another several hundred dollars, then the new system should do something worthwhile that the old one doesn't. If we have the same kind of cross gen period as XBoxSx/PS5, the value proposition on the Switch becomes very unclear. Is the Switch audience going to be sold on shinier graphics when that really hasn't been a major selling point in the first place? They can just only put games on the Switch 2, and some people are going to buy it because they just have to have the next Smash Bros. But I think a lot of people are going to think why am I going to 400ish dollars for a system that plays pretty much the same kinds of games at the same level of quality? What's the pitch? "It's like the Switch, but a little better." "Well, if you want to play the next animal crossing, you kind of have no choice". Well, you're entitled to your opinion. In the unlikely event I wind up running a massive gaming hardware manufacturer, you will not be working for me. |
Zelda: Breath of the Wild has a scope and scale that no Vita or smartphone had.
If Nintendo tried to sell a DS type console today (something underpowered and cheap) IMO it wouldn't sell that well.
The whole thing that makes the Switch special is that it CAN play full blown console type experiences along with other types of games, but you take away the BOTWs and Mario Kart and Xenoblade type games and the system is not anywhere near as special anymore.
Smartphone gaming was cutting into mobile gaming with the 3DS and Vita, to combat that you had to go upmarket with higher end tech and deliver gaming experiences that are way better than what you can get on a phone (read: experiences that are basically console games, not "kid brother spin-off portable titles that are much smaller in scale type of experiences).
Essay Pro