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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why I think Nintendo Switch is set for another Wii U disaster.

Pemalite on 02 January 2017
Goodnightmoon said:

If the console manages to have 3/5 hours of battery, without overheating and making too much noise being like 7 times more powerful than Vita, yes, is definitely rightas qa handheld, the size is not an argument when people this days are used to carry bigger tablets around. 

Also I dont see how is inadequate for a console, that thing is like 3 times the power of wiiu when docked.

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Volterra_90 on 02 January 2017

I don't really think multiplats are key for Switch's sucess. They need to cater the casual market and keep a large percentage of its actual user base, and that'd be massive.

And to attract part of the casual market, a cheap device, with all Nintendo IPs and third party exclusives are enough imo. We'll see in 3 months though. 



curl-6 on 02 January 2017
Pemalite said:
Goodnightmoon said:

If the console manages to have 3/5 hours of battery, without overheating and making too much noise being like 7 times more powerful than Vita, yes, is definitely rightas qa handheld, the size is not an argument when people this days are used to carry bigger tablets around. 

Also I dont see how is inadequate for a console, that thing is like 3 times the power of wiiu when docked.

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.

Serious question; if Eurogamer's specs are accurate, would Switch be weaker or stronger for its time than Vita was?



Veknoid_Outcast on 02 January 2017
Pemalite said:
Goodnightmoon said:

If the console manages to have 3/5 hours of battery, without overheating and making too much noise being like 7 times more powerful than Vita, yes, is definitely rightas qa handheld, the size is not an argument when people this days are used to carry bigger tablets around. 

Also I dont see how is inadequate for a console, that thing is like 3 times the power of wiiu when docked.

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for high-end hardware, and respect your consistency when it comes to that topic.

But there are just no compelling commercial reasons for Nintendo to invest in high-end tech. None of its studios or partners need it. The third parties that require it don't have an audience on Nintendo systems. And it would make the system more expensive, more timely and costly to develop for, and far less desirable as an impulse buy.



Pemalite on 02 January 2017
curl-6 said:

Serious question; if Eurogamer's specs are accurate, would Switch be weaker for its time than Vita was?

The Vita was able to give Tablets a good run for it's money when it released with it's PowerVR GPU, even if it lost with it's CPU, RAM and Display.

The Switch (If Eurogamer specs are accurate.) is weaker relative to the competition than the Vita is on release.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Kai_Mao on 02 January 2017
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Pemalite said:

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for high-end hardware, and respect your consistency when it comes to that topic.

But there are just no compelling commercial reasons for Nintendo to invest in high-end tech. None of its studios or partners need it. The third parties that require it don't have an audience on Nintendo systems. And it would make the system more expensive, more timely and costly to develop for, and far less desirable as an impulse buy.

Yeah you don't think of Game Freak, EAD, IS, Good Feel, HAL, and others and think of them using high-end tech. They have beautiful games respectively, but mostly through design and aesthetics, not power. And for the most part, it's not in their DNA to spend $50-100 million on ALL of their big projects. BotW is not necessarily the new norm in terms of Nintendo making big games. You can still be ambitious without spending so much in production. I mean fans ask Game freak to make a Pokemon MMO when they haven't really experienced developing HD gaming yet and the main series is far from over (do you really want to create a cluster;$&@ of Pokémon that could eventually go to the thousands?). They could do eventually but it's probably not in the cards at the moment since they've put the main games on handhelds since the franchise started.



Pemalite on 02 January 2017
Kai_Mao said:

 And for the most part, it's not in their DNA to spend $50-100 million on ALL of their big projects.

You don't need to spend that much for a game to be big, bold and beautiful.
A massive percentage of the development budgets for AAA games is actually advertising anyway.

Kai_Mao said:

BotW is not necessarily the new norm in terms of Nintendo making big games. You can still be ambitious without spending so much in production. I mean fans ask Game freak to make a Pokemon MMO when they haven't really experienced developing HD gaming yet and the main series is far from over (do you really want to create a cluster;$&@ of Pokémon that could eventually go to the thousands?). They could do eventually but it's probably not in the cards at the moment since they've put the main games on handhelds since the franchise started.

And that is fine. I don't expect BotW to be a norm for Nintendo.

But just because you have the power to push better graphics doesn't mean you are required to sink millions extra into development, sometimes better hardware can reduce development costs as you aren't required to sink as much time and effort into R&D to push the hardware to it's limits to meet a degree of quality.

Plus, if the Switch used a full-rate Tegra it would have attracted 3rd party developers so you could get franchises that have sold 10's of millions of copies, but it didn't, so you miss out on those amazing games and thus 10's of millions of potential consumers.

In otherwords you could have had your cake and eaten it too.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

GhaudePhaede010 on 02 January 2017
Pemalite said:
Goodnightmoon said:

If the console manages to have 3/5 hours of battery, without overheating and making too much noise being like 7 times more powerful than Vita, yes, is definitely rightas qa handheld, the size is not an argument when people this days are used to carry bigger tablets around. 

Also I dont see how is inadequate for a console, that thing is like 3 times the power of wiiu when docked.

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.

Wii U came out 6 years after XBOX 360, not ten years.

You cannot say hardware enthusiast and Ouya together. And if you like buying horrendous hardware (like Ouya), then I wish you nothing but the best but you are keeping yourself handily out of this conversations integrity lines.

However, that tablet you listed cost 400 dollars... dead on arrival. There is no market for that thing and you know it. I get that you may like it, but that does not mean there is a sustainable market for the thing. Buying things because you want tech things is good for you, but in no way are you a represenative of the casual or even core gaming market. Nintendo's decisions do not fit you... but then you seem OK with a crass product like Ouya (at any price... that thing was complete ass it is offensive that people paid for it) which alone places you way outside this product's measures. It seems quite silly to say you want a Wii U without the features in 2017 (even for 99 dollars) knowing that a console like that would have no market today (especially since it had no market five years ago) but then say you are a hardware enthusiast. That screams of hypocrisy... just like your stance on Oyua.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

Illusion on 03 January 2017
ICStats said:

What do you think that Switch has that may be new and unique about the way people play games?  I'm not trying to be negative but Switch seems to have fewer gameplay features than it's predecessors.

A few things 3DS & Wii U have which Switch doesn't seem to:

 * Dual screen functionality.
 * Touch input.  It's not clear how Switch will feature touch input, since games have to operate in docked mode.
 * Backwrards compatibility.

I am not sure, but I am curious to see if Nintendo has some special gameplay elements in mind for the Switch when it is being played in portable mode versus console mode for some of their 1st party games.  Ie. do we get a full 3D Pokemon RPG when playing on the console versus the traditional 3DS style game experience when in portable?  Does a traditional console style mario game play more like a smartphone game while in portable and then new gameplay elements (and graphics) get introduced to that same game when it is docked.  In the past, console games have not always transitioned well to handhelds and so I see an opportunity for innovation if Nintendo can really leverage the Switch to create truly different gameplay experiences when it is docked versus in portable mode.

In my opinion, the gameplay of the Switch is the last remaining opportunity for Nintendo to do serious innovation with their next console.  Don't forget that the Nintendo 64 wasn't an especially innovative piece of hardware either (minus the introduction of the analog stick), but amazing games like Super Mario 64 really defined the console and showed us a whole new way to play games.  I am hoping (possibly in vain) that Nintendo has something like this up their sleeves for the Switch since the Switch appears to be a fairly lackluster piece of hardware in itself.  That said, I agree with you that the Switch could very easily turn into another Wii U if Nintendo doesn't succeed with doing something innovative here.



oniyide on 03 January 2017
Pemalite said:
Goodnightmoon said:

If the console manages to have 3/5 hours of battery, without overheating and making too much noise being like 7 times more powerful than Vita, yes, is definitely rightas qa handheld, the size is not an argument when people this days are used to carry bigger tablets around. 

Also I dont see how is inadequate for a console, that thing is like 3 times the power of wiiu when docked.

Vita is old and inadequate in 2017. It's not a good comparison point to use.

Mobile Phones (Cell Phones for the Yanks) are not only more powerful than the Switch but can get competitive battery life. - Decent handsets can avoid thermal issues.
This is why the Switch is terrible from a hardware perspective, I can do a technical breaddown for you if you desire?

***

And how is it not inadequate for a console? The Xbox One when it released was already trending towards the lower-end of the mid-range market in comparison to the PC.
It's been years since that device launched and it was ridiculed for it's lack of power.
The Switch is going to be a fraction of that capability. A fraction. Think about that for a moment.

The WiiU whilst a large jump over the Wii was only marginally better than the decade old Xbox 360, having it better than that isn't some kind of achievement, mobile eclipsed that level of performance a long time ago.

JXD has the S192 "Gamepad Tablet" with a Tegra K1, I wouldn't be surprised if it was faster than the Switch, yet also gets 6-10 hours of battery life like my older JXD Gamepad.


The point is, I am displeased with Nintendo's terrible hardware choices, I am a hardware enthusiast, I want companies to give their best.
Nintendo could have made better hardware choices... And that fact cannot be disputed.

If they can give it to me cheaper without the screen, battery, detachable controls, dock, all at a super-low Ouya-like price point? I will be happy with that. I don't want to pay hundreds for such a low-powered device when my Phone is clearly superior in every single aspect.

@bolded, hell you couldve said the same thing since N64