Now, having the Switch in my hands, I can assuredly say it's going to be my preferred way to play for the games that get released on it. I'd really prefer to not be tethered to my TV for my gaming experiences, and gaming laptops have never ended up being as convenient as this thing is. I'll take medium settings with optimization over ultra settings any day, if it means my game can go anywhere with me. Zelda looks a little 2014 on my projector, but in portable mode it looks ace. Sacrifices can be made in fidelity without cheapening the experience when your play screen is six inches and travels with you. It's not like the games are totally fugly on the big screen either - it's still an improvement over the Wii U and thus a large improvement over the PS360 as well.

That's another question to ourselves.

Would Nintendo call Sony and Microsoft to say: "Whoever gives me the biggest cheque, will get my games, fight!"

Or would they release some franchises for Sony and others for Microsoft?

Why? I'd like to hear you elaborate. They sell tons of consoles.

Be nice .

Probably the same reason you said you want Nintendo to go 3rd party a few posts back, so he can play all the games on one device.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

It's not so easy to change production quantities - costs money both to increase and decrease them. So, even if this is a gamble on Nintendo's part, there's likely a reason they're so confident.

I don't really get the thesis that Nintendo and consumers are better off if Nintendo quit the hardware business.

Nintendo would lose money from sales of hardware and accessories, and lose out on licensing fees. It would have to start paying them instead. Plus it couldn't control its own OS or general gaming ecosystem. It would have to conform to the standards of a different manufacturer. For a company strongly dedicated to the idea of self-determination, it doesn't make much sense.

Consumers would lose out, too. Divorced from the hardware game, Nintendo would most likely fall back to a select few highly profitable franchises or perhaps quit the industry altogether. There aren't many examples of a hardware manufacturer diversifying and innovating after it stopped making hardware. There are several examples of the complete opposite happening. Moreover, the lack of competition in the industry would be bad news for consumers. If anything we should ask for more console makers, to drive down costs and keep manufacturers honest.

Really, the only way to justify Nintendo going third-party is because you simply want Nintendo to fail or submit to Sony, Microsoft, the PC master race, etc. If you really want to play Nintendo games, suck it up and pay $200-$300. If you don't like Nintendo games, who cares what they do? If you like one or two Nintendo franchises, don't wish for Nintendo to exit the hardware business. Those franchises might not survive the transition, or might suffer as a result.

Nope.

I have not felt this way about a console since the GBA. Switch reminds me of a console made during a time where manufacturers cared about individuality/flavor in their hardware design vs just dumb PC's in a box with the manufacturer name written on it.

Maybe merge with Microsoft games division. You know, Xbox has no exclusives, Nintendo has no thirdies or top hardware. That would work. Nintendo going all third wouldn't be good because I don't see much of a future for Xbox right now and Sony needs competition.

It's an expensive hobby, I get that. But $200 or $300 is not that steep a price. Cut out a couple limited editions or online fees here and there and you'll have enough to buy a 3DS or Switch or whatever. Then you can play all the Nintendo games you like without fundamentally restructuring a company and making a lot of loyal fans miserable.

I'm sympathetic to the folks who can only afford a single device and want to play everything on it, but the people usually requesting Nintendo go third-party are dropping a lot of cash on high-end graphics cards and $60 games with $30 season passes.