By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Emily Rogers: Switch has 4GB of ram in RETAIL units, leaked specs might not be farfetched

Soundwave on 02 November 2016
oniyide said:
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

I dont think anyone really turned up their nose at those games they just chose to buy them on another system. Why wouldnt they? why wouldnt you buy COD on anything but Wii U when you know millions of people will have one of those versions which means the online will last longer. How much WIi U owners ONLY have a Wii U? 

Well I don't think the problem is much better this generation if that's the case. 

PS4 is already at 47 million shipped, they are going to be at almost 60 million before Nintendo even gets to 2 million.

Most people are going to own a PS4 this generation one way or another that's just how it goes, in which case, are people really going to buy two versions of a game (one for PS4, one for NS) for instance?

Even if you love say FIFA or COD (provided those games even come to the Switch, right now it's far from gaurunteed), how many people love a game so much that they're willing to buy it or 1) two platforms or 2) buy the portable version and sacrifice graphics for the novetly of being able to play outside of the house. 



Around the Network
bigtakilla on 02 November 2016
oniyide said:
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

I dont think anyone really turned up their nose at those games they just chose to buy them on another system. Why wouldnt they? why wouldnt you buy COD on anything but Wii U when you know millions of people will have one of those versions which means the online will last longer. How much WIi U owners ONLY have a Wii U? 

I even have an Xbone, and to be honest will probably get all my online shooters there, and really any third party multiplat. I got screwed on a lot of Wii U games last gen, exclusives becoming multiplats, story dlc Warner just decided the Nintendo version of Arkham Origins didn't deserve. Beating around the bush for COD season passes and free maps that either never came or showed up months to a year + after purchase. 



Miyamotoo on 02 November 2016
curl-6 said:
Miyamotoo said:

You writing nonsense and clear example of that is that you accuse me like I wrote that Wii U has GPU and RAM of GC, even it's very clear I was talking about GC CPU only and thats actually well known fact (but it seems not for you).

Actually, your post never specified you were only referring to the CPU. You said: "Wii U tech was basically GC tech", and that is straight-up wrong because its GPU tech is totally different, it's RAM tech is totally different, etc.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of gaming hardware (which is a lot of us) can see that numerous claims you've made in this thread are BS. You do not know what you are talking about, and the more you post, the more obvious that becomes. The best thing for you to do is stop now before you make yourself look any worse.

In first post I didn't specified CPU because it's well known fact that Wii U CPU is GC architecture/tech not RAM and GPU (so you definatly dont have "even a basic knowledge of gaming hardware"), right away in next post I specified only CPU beacuse you were not aware of that fact. But you continue accusing me like I wrote that Wii U has GPU and RAM of GC.

This second paragraph is also proof that you continue to talk nonsense, you keep accusing me without any evidence for such a claims, better for you to stop because you keep acting like some angry kid.



teigaga on 02 November 2016
oniyide said:
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

I dont think anyone really turned up their nose at those games they just chose to buy them on another system. Why wouldnt they? why wouldnt you buy COD on anything but Wii U when you know millions of people will have one of those versions which means the online will last longer. How much WIi U owners ONLY have a Wii U? 

This. Nintendo core fans do not exclusively play Nintendo. The presence of PSN/Xbl is enough a hurdle for Nintendo at the beginning of a generation, let alone halfway through a generation.

 

Imo anyone talking as if Nintendo's key to success with the Switch is receiving every single PS4/X1 game is completely out of the loop and it baffles me because don't most people on here already have a PC/PS4/X1. So the obsession over "there goes third party support" is really like saying " there goes those games I can already play on a more powerful system I already own, aka the only console I intended to buy the game for". 

 

Nintendo's agenda with Switch must be to create it's own ecosystem just as they did with the Wii and all of their handhelds and sell itself as a secondary system for core gamers and a primary system for kids/ fringe gamers.Third party support is a part of that battle but not the necessarily the same titles we see on PS4, although it always helps to have Fifa and COD.

 

 

 



zorg1000 on 02 November 2016
Darc Requiem said:
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

The problem is the part of the Nintendo audience that bought third party games has moved on generations ago. The audience that is left are Nintendo diehards. Nintendo blew a golden chance with Wii U to gain that audience back.

It was common knowledge that both Sony and MS weren't going use the loss leader model for the PS4 and XB1. Nintendo could have released a console within the same realms as the XB1 in power for a reasonable price. Instead they choose to release consoles in the realm of the PS3 and 360 in power with an awkward architecture.

I mean they could have something like a AMD Phenom II X4 X940BE with a 5870M. Sure the CPU isn't that great  but Jaguar cores aren't world beaters. The 5870M was a pretty good GPU 1.12 TFLOPs from 50W. Both chips would have been 2 years old when the Wii U launched. The TPD would have around 100W. I still dont understand the philosphy behind the Wii U's architecture. 

While such a device would likely have had a better chance than Wii U to recieve longer lasting 3rd party support, i still think it wouldnt have worked for them.

A device with specs that you described would likely retail for $399 in 2012, considering PS4 & Kinectless XBO sku were that price in 2013/2014.

I think people who primarily play AAA western titles would continue to play on their existing PS3/360 and wait to see what PS4/XBO had to offer and lighter gamers looking for a console would choose the $199 360/PS3 with large libraries of cheap games and large online communities.

So even if Wii U were competitive with PS4/XBO in specs, i dont really see most of the mainstream western audience moving over and the big 3rd party titles would still sell poorly and with higher specs than Nintendo's own software output could potentially be affected and the already bad droughts would be even worse.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
Barozi on 02 November 2016
Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

Porting is just one problem.

The other problem is (sadly) Nintendo's own buyer base.

They turned their nose up at perfectly good/playable ports like COD and Assassin's Creed on the Wii U launch and shunned things like Need For Speed because they were a few months late. Even an exclusive like Zombi U didn't sell well.

If they wouldn't buy these games because of very minor differences in performance or a game being a couple of months late (yes, heaven forbid developers prioritize two platforms with 80 million users each over your 0 userbase ... lets be real), then I doubt they are going to deal well with much bigger differences with PS4/XB1.

The Wii U was at least much closer and better in some areas than the PS3/360, the Switch won't be so favorable vs a PS4/XB1. 

It doesn't really matter if a third party bothers to port or not if no one is going to buy any of the games. I think a large part of the Nintendo community doesn't really even want these games, they just want to be able to use it as a bullet point in online arguements with Sony/MS fans "we have the same games as you, neener, neener, neener!". But actually buying them? Hell no, they mainly only buy Nintendo games.

Developers are not going to prioritize a Switch port when PS4 has 50 million users already, XB1 has 25 million, and then there's PC too. 

1) The port of ZombiU to the other consoles sold terribly so that's not strictly a problem with the userbase as that's universal across gaming, the issue really is infact that the userbase on 2) Nintendo aren't as swayed by the mainstream, 3) these aren't people who would be yearly installments of a franchise by default. It's also not a case of them not wanting the game either as I'm sure they wouldn't mind such games but what they don't want is buying installments on a yearly basis when the's little change over the previous game. The multiplayer following in the userbase just want to buy one complete version that they can play over and over, they don't mind DLC either.

Also why should they go out their way to buy games that are late or have performance issue just to please the developer? 4) They're spending money as well and in some cases being charged more than other versions, treat certain consumers with less priority then don't be surprised if they're not out there rushing to buy your products.

1) I'm not arguing against that, but how could you know?
The game was a digital exclusive for half a year until it got a retail release. The sales here aren't even close to accurate.

2) So Mario and Pokemon are not mainstream? Then why does a game sell automatically better then as long it carries the name even if there are far better games out there? (talking about spin-offs here)

3) again how would you know? Did you make/read a survey that people buy yearly installments by default. Wouldn't it be possible that millions of people buy these games only once every two years? The fanbase of FIFA, Call of Duty etc. is much higher than one would think by looking at each individuell installment.
Also there haven't been many cases of yearly installments on Nintendo consoles, so there's no way to know what Nintendo customers would prefer.

4) There hasn't been a single Wii or Wii U game that was more expensive at launch than the PS3/360/PS4/X1 counterpart. Just because a late port costs $60 at release and at the same time the old original version on other systems costs $30, doesn't mean they've been fooled. The original game also used to cost $60.
Which is even completely irrelevant if you only own one console.

All I'm seeing are baseless assumptions.



Barozi on 02 November 2016
teigaga said:
oniyide said:

I dont think anyone really turned up their nose at those games they just chose to buy them on another system. Why wouldnt they? why wouldnt you buy COD on anything but Wii U when you know millions of people will have one of those versions which means the online will last longer. How much WIi U owners ONLY have a Wii U? 

This. Nintendo core fans do not exclusively play Nintendo. The presence of PSN/Xbl is enough a hurdle for Nintendo at the beginning of a generation, let alone halfway through a generation.

 

Imo anyone talking as if Nintendo's key to success with the Switch is receiving every single PS4/X1 game is completely out of the loop and it baffles me because don't most people on here already have a PC/PS4/X1. So the obsession over "there goes third party support" is really like saying " there goes those games I can already play on a more powerful system I already own, aka the only console I intended to buy the game for". 

 

Nintendo's agenda with Switch must be to create it's own ecosystem just as they did with the Wii and all of their handhelds and sell itself as a secondary system for core gamers and a primary system for kids/ fringe gamers.Third party support is a part of that battle but not the necessarily the same titles we see on PS4, although it always helps to have Fifa and COD.

Yeah on here, but out there are still tens of millions customers who are going to buy a console in the near future and Nintendo could have a much bigger share of that if they get as many multiplats as possible.

Wii/PS3/360 sold 270M consoles and even if you subtract Wii sales as "casual gamers that won't come back" there were still 170M consoles sold, whereas WiiU/PS4/X1 sold 80M consoles to date.



Wyrdness on 02 November 2016
Barozi said:

1) I'm not arguing against that, but how could you know?
The game was a digital exclusive for half a year until it got a retail release. The sales here aren't even close to accurate.

2) So Mario and Pokemon are not mainstream? Then why does a game sell automatically better then as long it carries the name even if there are far better games out there? (talking about spin-offs here)

3) again how would you know? Did you make/read a survey that people buy yearly installments by default. Wouldn't it be possible that millions of people buy these games only once every two years? The fanbase of FIFA, Call of Duty etc. is much higher than one would think by looking at each individuell installment.
Also there haven't been many cases of yearly installments on Nintendo consoles, so there's no way to know what Nintendo customers would prefer.

4) There hasn't been a single Wii or Wii U game that was more expensive at launch than the PS3/360/PS4/X1 counterpart. Just because a late port costs $60 at release and at the same time the old original version on other systems costs $30, doesn't mean they've been fooled. The original game also used to cost $60.
Which is even completely irrelevant if you only own one console.

All I'm seeing are baseless assumptions.

1) We know because it's not the only example of a late port, look at NMH on PS3 that was an enhanced port and sold worse as well as did Muramasa when it was ported to other platforms, the Wii is still the top selling version by a fair margin.

2) Hence the wording aren't as swayed, Mario and Pokemon also sell better because they've been established among the userbase to have a certain level of quality even the spin offs like Mario Tennis, Mario Party, Pokken etc... even though they don't tend to sell as much as the main games.

3) Franchises like FIFA were on Nintendo platforms before and highlight this, on the Wii sales declined each year with the exception of F10 and F11 after the series just dropped sharply and never regained any sales while on GC the series not only tanked but showed the same result, sales of AC also declined the following year and COD did the exact same on both the Wii and Wii U especially on the former where it declined year on year, once every two years like you claim also still falls into my point and is not an argument against it.

4) False the have been some at least here in the UK, Mass Effect 3 was not only more expensive than the originals release it was more expensive than even the trilogy that came out at the same time. Also the are cases of some games like Sniper (not sure it's name) which was missing some of the modes as well as some games like Injustice which flat out never got the DLC despite people being charged the full price of other versions yet with the example of ZombiU which wasn't even full price at least here in the UK.

So no these aren't baseless as you claim they're formed from observation.



teigaga on 02 November 2016
Barozi said:
teigaga said:

This. Nintendo core fans do not exclusively play Nintendo. The presence of PSN/Xbl is enough a hurdle for Nintendo at the beginning of a generation, let alone halfway through a generation.

 

Imo anyone talking as if Nintendo's key to success with the Switch is receiving every single PS4/X1 game is completely out of the loop and it baffles me because don't most people on here already have a PC/PS4/X1. So the obsession over "there goes third party support" is really like saying " there goes those games I can already play on a more powerful system I already own, aka the only console I intended to buy the game for". 

 

Nintendo's agenda with Switch must be to create it's own ecosystem just as they did with the Wii and all of their handhelds and sell itself as a secondary system for core gamers and a primary system for kids/ fringe gamers.Third party support is a part of that battle but not the necessarily the same titles we see on PS4, although it always helps to have Fifa and COD.

Yeah on here, but out there are still tens of millions customers who are going to buy a console in the near future and Nintendo could have a much bigger share of that if they get as many multiplats as possible.

Wii/PS3/360 sold 270M consoles and even if you subtract Wii sales as "casual gamers that won't come back" there were still 170M consoles sold, whereas WiiU/PS4/X1 sold 80M consoles to date.

Those 10s of millions are under influence from all the same forces which have governed the 75-80m (excluding Wii U) current gen users who will exist by the time the Switch arrives.

 

As a notably weaker platform with a fraction of the games (PS4 & Xbox have 3 years worth of consistent support which means 100s of titles), zero of the brand association where AAA games are concerned and an online ecosystem alien to the biggest multiplayer 3Rd  party titles, Nintendo never had much chance of leaving with more than crumbs of the PS4/X1 pie. Of course more games is obviously better but that statement can't exist in a vacuum, how would they get more games? If we're talking specs (as the thread is about  4gb Ram) we have to address the reality of what is possible within a tablet form factor. Certainly not  an  affordable, functional portable system that can match xbox One or run its games without notable concessions.

 

At the end of the day, the minute Nintendo confirmed the hybrid route is the one they wanted to take, several things should have become clear as day. It opened several new opportunities as well as closing several. So again, I remain baffled by the expectations of people on this forum who seem oblivious to routes Nintendo has closed/limited. 

 

The only thing that would change this reality is if Nintendo simultaneously said:

1. Handheld support is not mandatory. (they would damage the selling power of the gimmick)

2.The dock has another Tegra chip inside. (they would increase  the price of production by ar least $50)



Darc Requiem on 02 November 2016
zorg1000 said:
Darc Requiem said:

The problem is the part of the Nintendo audience that bought third party games has moved on generations ago. The audience that is left are Nintendo diehards. Nintendo blew a golden chance with Wii U to gain that audience back.

It was common knowledge that both Sony and MS weren't going use the loss leader model for the PS4 and XB1. Nintendo could have released a console within the same realms as the XB1 in power for a reasonable price. Instead they choose to release consoles in the realm of the PS3 and 360 in power with an awkward architecture.

I mean they could have something like a AMD Phenom II X4 X940BE with a 5870M. Sure the CPU isn't that great  but Jaguar cores aren't world beaters. The 5870M was a pretty good GPU 1.12 TFLOPs from 50W. Both chips would have been 2 years old when the Wii U launched. The TPD would have around 100W. I still dont understand the philosphy behind the Wii U's architecture. 

While such a device would likely have had a better chance than Wii U to recieve longer lasting 3rd party support, i still think it wouldnt have worked for them.

A device with specs that you described would likely retail for $399 in 2012, considering PS4 & Kinectless XBO sku were that price in 2013/2014.

I think people who primarily play AAA western titles would continue to play on their existing PS3/360 and wait to see what PS4/XBO had to offer and lighter gamers looking for a console would choose the $199 360/PS3 with large libraries of cheap games and large online communities.

So even if Wii U were competitive with PS4/XBO in specs, i dont really see most of the mainstream western audience moving over and the big 3rd party titles would still sell poorly and with higher specs than Nintendo's own software output could potentially be affected and the already bad droughts would be even worse.

The Wii U was $349. Not much of a difference in price. Honestly, I think they could have hit same price point. Both of the chips I listed were from 2010. I'm not foolish enough to think that would have resolved the Wii U's 3rd party issues. At least Nintendo wouldn't have been bringing a knife to a gunfight. They would have gotten a seat at the table.