Honestly, the only reason I would see the Switch needing constant online would be the option to play online, and even then it's not really necessary. Sure, playing online anywhere would be cool, but it is just as fine to play single player games, or play coop with someone on it. Portables have been fine like this since the beginning, so I don't think it suddenly needs that to be a good system. Also, I don't think because many devices are getting internet access means that consoles need them as well. Perhaps it would be nice, but if it's more of a hinderance to the system, there I don't really see any need for it.

The problem with that is. Right now the handheld market is shrinking. Many people that previously bought Sony and Nintendo handhelds have decided that smartphone games are good enough. Sure people like you and I will cave and buy the Switch, we love gaming. However, with each passing generation, the amount of people that are willing to buy a device that is comptetly isolated gets smaller and smaller. This is bad news for the people that truely love games. As much as people like to say a console or handheld should only be for games, the reality of things, is that consoles still compete in the broader market. Not only do they have to be at a certain price point, but they also have to have a minimum level of value for mass market appeal as well. If the market shrinks too much, there will come a time, when the real gaming is no longer viable business.

How can we save Consoles and Handhelds? Expand the value. This is what Sony and Microsoft are doing with PS4 and XBO. They are both becoming more and more functional, while also getting cheaper. They are making the value so great that owning a cheap PC, a set top box, or settling for a smart TV is no longer justifiable. 

What is the main thing that can recapture the mass market for handhelds? Constant online connection, that brings console quality real time gameplay to mobile. Like it or not, online multiplayer is massive. On the same note, constant connection to friends and family is also extreamly popular. That constant connection, and ability to do something impossible on current phones, would be enough to sway a whole bunch of people back to gaming form factor mobile devices. This larger market, along with people having the device on them 24/7 would create a vacuum that brings developers high and wide to the platform. This my friends, is golden, for anyone that lives, breaths, and dreams about gaming.

Again, to everyone. Please understand, that we who visit these boards, and buy dozens of games every year, are not the people keeping this industry afloat. For gaming to continue to grow we have to have the other 125 million casual gamers that create the majority of the market. These are the people that can justify a console because it has other features they will use more, but they will have a gaming device when they have time for it. We can not loose these people to low end set top box gaming, and slabphone gaming. If Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo let the low cost, high powered, built for gaming first devices die, the market will colapse. We will have a market that is filled with smartphones and set top boxes and low end games. We can all go to PC, but even if all ~25 million of the most core gaming community went to PC and set a much, much higher baseline for hardware, there would not be enough people playing high quality games to recoop development cost.

So please, don't go on belittling additional features on consoles and handhelds. Embrace new functionality, and spread the word. Let the mass market know how awesome consoles and handhelds are. Don't automatically go on the defence everytime Sony, or Microsoft, or Nintendo try to release a platform that has wider appeal. They are trying to do it for our own good. My only hope is that somehow someway, I can change the culture of gamers from that of exclusive community, to that of a welcoming and open community. Hopefully it will happen before we loose everything.

In what way would it possibly be a hindrance?

Times have changed. If something was fine the way it was in the beginning, then we wouldnt have tech advancement in the first place.

Consistent online presence wouldn't be only for online play. Watch YT clips, look at FB feeds, etc. Of course for specific ppl these things ar enot required (like myself) but that doesn't mean the option wouldn't be greatly appreciated by a more casual audience, who these days want devices that can be as all-in-one as possible as opposed to multiple devices that function as different things.

This is partly why mobile gaming is such a big thing: you have your phone for messaging functionality and it can play games. 1 device, with everything you need to keep you entertained when you need to be. Besides, we live in a Smart world now. Aircons, lamps, kettles, rice cookers, bed sheets even: Smart functionality is everywhere.

So yeah, I agree not having 3G LTE is not important for me, or for you specifically. That doesn't change that such a feature could be important for countless other people, where mobile hardware is almost synonomous with phones/ tablets: the  very market a handheld has to compete with. 

Cloudman said:

I still feel you 2 are putting a much bigger importance on this one function that it would actually be. All those things mention on the things you could do with the switch: watching youtube videos, checking facebook, chatting with friends, and other reasons listed, are not really important for the switch to have. That is what a phone is for. People don't need 2 devices that can do this. The Switch will be for what it is designed to do best: play games where eve, whenever, and that's okay. I'm no no way trying to belittle the casual market or say they're not important. 3G/LTE just doesn't seem that necessary, when all the functionalities mentioned work just fine, and likely better on phones. Besides, are people really going to be using this device to be doing all those things anyways, especially when they have a phone? Probably not.

I don't think it's easy to conclude that PS4 and XBO are succeeding because they can do multiple functions in one device. I think it comes back to the games. They have more than enough games to appeal to the masses and Sony has done great with the marketing to find the device appealing. I mean, the device that was even promoted as an all-in-one device, the XBO, isn't selling as well as the PS4, which pushes the games. So yeah, if the Switch is at a good price, appealing games, and just overall look like a worthwhile item to own, it should be fine.

Also, with the addition of 3G/LTE possibly just draining the battery quicker or adding more cost to the device, due to possibly needing fees for a data plan or something, and it not possibly being that great of internet speed, doesn't seem that much of a risk to me to have it included either.

Cloudman said:

I still feel you 2 are putting a much bigger importance on this one function that it would actually be. All those things mention on the things you could do with the switch: watching youtube videos, checking facebook, chatting with friends, and other reasons listed, are not really important for the switch to have. That is what a phone is for. People don't need 2 devices that can do this. The Switch will be for what it is designed to do best: play games where eve, whenever, and that's okay. I'm no no way trying to belittle the casual market or say they're not important. 3G/LTE just doesn't seem that necessary, when all the functionalities mentioned work just fine, and likely better on phones. Besides, are people really going to be using this device to be doing all those things anyways, especially when they have a phone? Probably not.

I don't think it's easy to conclude that PS4 and XBO are succeeding because they can do multiple functions in one device. I think it comes back to the games. They have more than enough games to appeal to the masses and Sony has done great with the marketing to find the device appealing. I mean, the device that was even promoted as an all-in-one device, the XBO, isn't selling as well as the PS4, which pushes the games. So yeah, if the Switch is at a good price, appealing games, and just overall look like a worthwhile item to own, it should be fine.

Also, with the addition of 3G/LTE possibly just draining the battery quicker or adding more cost to the device, due to possibly needing fees for a data plan or something, and it not possibly being that great of internet speed, doesn't seem that much of a risk to me to have it included either.

In what way would it possibly be a hindrance?

Times have changed. If something was fine the way it was in the beginning, then we wouldnt have tech advancement in the first place.

Consistent online presence wouldn't be only for online play. Watch YT clips, look at FB feeds, etc. Of course for specific ppl these things ar enot required (like myself) but that doesn't mean the option wouldn't be greatly appreciated by a more casual audience, who these days want devices that can be as all-in-one as possible as opposed to multiple devices that function as different things.

This is partly why mobile gaming is such a big thing: you have your phone for messaging functionality and it can play games. 1 device, with everything you need to keep you entertained when you need to be. Besides, we live in a Smart world now. Aircons, lamps, kettles, rice cookers, bed sheets even: Smart functionality is everywhere.

So yeah, I agree not having 3G LTE is not important for me, or for you specifically. That doesn't change that such a feature could be important for countless other people, where mobile hardware is almost synonomous with phones/ tablets: the  very market a handheld has to compete with. 

I completely understand that 3G/LTE, and comunicating via a console/handheld is a foreign idea. However, if it was included as an option, and marketed well, it could be looked at as a great alternative to a phone for some people. There was a point in time when communicating via your iPod was not the norm either. Including an always online option for Switch would only expand the potential of the device. Honestly, if it came down to $299.99 for a wifi Switch, and $399.99 for a LTE Switch, I would buy the LTE model every time, even if I don't plan to use it, I at least have the option in the future.

As for the expanded features of the PS4 and XBO doing some heavy lifting. I can not show proof, I really don't know how big of an effect it has. What I do know, is just based off of the couple hundered people I know with consoles, about 97% of them only have one because of those features. I 100% know that the lack of Phone capabilities is why only, my brother, one friend, and myself have Vita's, compaired to nearly every one of my friends and family members having owned the PSP.

In the end, it comes down to this. LTE gives the potential for massive growth. Without this, the chance that Nintendo gains back a large portion of thier userbase is very slim, if not impossible. As someone who loves consoles/handhelds, talks consoles/handhelds everywhere, understands the need for more casual audeince, and thrives for great selling points to be able to plant a seed in people head. The lack of this gives me nothing to work with. With iPhone when people said, yeah, but it's just an MP3 player, I could say, but it is also a phone, and offers e-mail, texting, and internet everywher = Buys and Spreads the word. When I talk Switch, people will say, but it's just a game device, ... .... yeah, that's it = No Sale.