Norion said:
| JWeinCom said: 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. |
Wouldn't the best move here be for Nintendo to try to get into the sort of position Playstation is in? That being where they don't need to do much aside from releasing more powerful hardware and compelling software to get guaranteed huge success as long as they don't screw up. I just can't see why it would be a good business move to risk the best position they've been in in 15 years when they could keep at least close to this level of success going for close to another decade by playing it safe. A standard Switch 2 would almost surely sell at least 120m if they keep the compelling software coming. |
Because when you take risks you can grow your business. If they don't want to take the risk up to them. I'm not saying they should do something different just for the hell of it, but I would hope they're considering other things that can be done. And, if they have an idea they believe in, they should try it.
Soundwave said:
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). |
Not sure you couldn't run BOTW on the Vita. The Vita ran games pretty close to the PS3, and BOTW ran on Wii U.
I'm really not sure the point you're making in the rest. I think we agreed the Switch was successful. And yeah, being able to play console level games on the go is part of that... but you could already do that on the Switch. So, that's not going to be as exciting the second time around.
zorg1000 said:
JWeinCom said:
RolStoppable said:
3D was very detrimental to the 3DS, it pushed people away from buying one. At first Nintendo did eat the cost, but eventually they also released the system without 3D. That speaks volumes about how offputting 3D was. Plus 3D also cut the battery life in half, so even people who didn't want to use it at all were still negatively affected. The 3DS's retail software library certainly couldn't compete with the DS's. There's a wide range of software you aren't interested in, but for a lot of others it did matter. Such as games based on licenses, no matter how crappy they are, but the video game industry moved them to smartphones based on their belief that mobile was the logical successor to the dedicated gaming handheld - it turned out it wasn't, but additional damage was done. There are more examples for how the library suffered, but in general a strong decrease in the overall number of released software goes hand in hand with a decrease in breadth and depth of a library. The Vita failed to have proper R2/L2/R3/L3 buttons, so it wasn't a complete basic upgrade over the PSP - come to think of it, Nintendo also released the monstrosity Circle Pad Pro for the 3DS, because they hadn't thought through things either. Aside from this hardware blunder, the Vita was also negatively affected by the video game industry's assumption that mobile is the future. As such the Vita's game library paled very much in comparison to the PSP, especially as far as American and European software is concerned. The PSP also had the benefit of releasing before smartphones, so it could sell based on its multimedia features too; the Vita got none of that anymore. I don't expect the hardware leap to sell Switch 2, it will still be its games. Gameplay-wise, we've basically hit the end of the road with the Wii U by making open world games comfortably doable. Doesn't matter though, because "comfort gaming" is a big thing. Comfort gaming is defined as something that you know, something that assuredly is fun for you. Just like there are certain games that people always tend to go back to over time, there are certain game types that will be always welcome. So if Nintendo makes sure that odd hardware choices aren't getting in the way, they'll keep that audience. If Switch 2 is to Switch in sales what the GBA was to the GBC years, then I don't know what the problem is. There's now a large market for console gaming that seamlessly transitions from the TV to portable. People know it, people like it. Third parties know it too, so I doubt that Switch 2 will have to go through the same extent of hesitation as the first Switch. Other people here aren't the measuring stick for what makes Switch 2 successful or the level of the success it will have. The track record of the general consensus on an internet gaming forum regarding Nintendo hardware sales predictions is very, very bad. Nintendo's current situation with their handheld monopoly isn't one that has held true often in the past - the GBA is the sole exception - nor is the current status quo of being the only one to have a hybrid console a common one. The important main point here is that Switch 2 will have a unique feature by default as the only hybrid console on the market. Or in other words, you don't need secret sauce for continued success when your well-known sauce is already something that the market can't get enough of. The girlfriend argument is just one angle to explain why switching play modes is such a good thing. It's not all there is to Switch's success. Of course it's also true that Switch appeals to females. |
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". |
It seems like you’re assuming Vita did poorly because it was a straight forward successor and that seems like a very poor conclusion. A big part of PSP’s appeal was that it was pretty much the first all-in-one portable multimedia device, you could play games, watch movies, listen to music and surf the web. That was a really big deal in 2005. Fast forward to 2012 and everybody has a smartphone and/or tablet that does all of those things, it’s no longer a selling point. On top of that, many of the top selling games on PSP like Grand Theft Auto, Monster Hunter, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, God of War, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, etc did not get new additions of Vita. If a bunch of other wildly popular hybrid devices release before Switch 2 and it doesn’t get Zelda, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Smash Bros, Animal Crossing, etc then yeah it will probably bomb. We have seen with NES to SNES, GB to GBA, PS1 to PS2, PS2/XB to PS3/360 to PS4/XB1 to PS5/XSX that more powerful devices with QoL improvements can do very well. Devices that have a big drop off from their predecessors do so because of specific reasons, not because they were straight forward successors. |
No, I didn't assume that at all. We have to work with the data we have. I was pretty careful with my wording to avoid that. What I said was.
"Those kinds of sequel consoles are just not guaranteed to have the same appeal as predecessors."
I can't say why exactly the Vita failed, just that it was a pretty straight forward upgrade on the PSP, and that it didn't. The Vita had an incredibly slow start before we really saw what the software lineup would be. It had Uncharted at launch, we knew it would get COD (and not that it would suck), and Assassin's Creed, so it had some heavy hitters. Maybe if it had taken off, it would have gotten more, but on paper, things didn't seem horrible. Software is always part of it, but on the hardware side, its key feature was visuals. The hype train never got going, so it's some combination of those two things.
I really don't think the PSP's multimedia functionality was a huge part of its appeal. Did the UMD format really take off? Did people really use it as a web browser.
We have seen that more powerful devices do well, and we've seen them fail. Which is why I said, there are no guarantees. For Nintendo in particular, we've never seen a straight successor do better than its predecessor except debatably GBA. Looking at the specifics here, you're dealing with an audience that in large parts isn't super enamored with graphics and many of whom are more casual. A lot of your best selling software is really not going to be significantly better with more improved visuals.
Do you think there are a significant amount of people who bought a Switch, played games like Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc, that may be on the fence on paying 3-400 dollars for a new machine to play the sequels? If so, what is the value proposition to them with an improved Switch? I don't think things like ray tracing in Animal Crossing are going to do it.
Essay Pro