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

Forums - Nintendo - "Nintendo switch is too expensive"

Hynad said:
Alkibiádēs said:

If you don't have an argument don't respond. Dragon Quest Heroes looks bad, even on the PS4. Koei Tecmo and Team Ninja are notorious for being poor developers and having killed one of gaming's most beloved franchises. Facts are facts. Super Mario Odyssey also looks better and more ambitious than Super Mario 3D World, with huge open levels. This is at least twice as powerful as a Wii U. So no excuse for bad ports like Dragon Quest Heroes. 

This game runs at 1080p/60fps, even during splitscreen multiplayer. So tell me, what's Dragon Quest Heroes' excuse? Weak console or incompetent developers? I know the answer. 

Please explain to us what you know about the different requirements for rendering a racing game compared to an action game with tens of characters on screen with their own [albait simple] AI and move sets, an explorable map, many sub-systems, etc.

I'm supposed to be impressed by a bunch of braindead enemies thrown on screen? The Dynasty Warriors are some of the worst, cheap and bland games I ever had the displeasure of playing. I have no idea why people keep buying them, every single year. They're hardly sophisticated... I guess it's just the famous third party brands that sell the franchise nowadays. I didn't even bother with Hyrule Warriors, and I'm a pretty big Zelda fan. I'm curious to see how Fire Emblem Warriors will end up looking though, compared to Dragon Quest Heroes. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Around the Network
Alkibiádēs said:
Hynad said:

Please explain to us what you know about the different requirements for rendering a racing game compared to an action game with tens of characters on screen with their own [albait simple] AI and move sets, an explorable map, many sub-systems, etc.

I'm supposed to be impressed by a bunch of braindead enemies thrown on screen? The Dynasty Warriors are some of the worst, cheap and bland games I ever had the displeasure of playing. I have no idea why people keep buying them, every single year. They're hardly sophisticated... I guess it's just the famous third party brands that sell the franchise nowadays. I didn't even bother with Hyrule Warriors, and I'm a pretty big Zelda fan. 

So you don't know the requirements for such games. That clears things up.



One point that onion makes really makes all the other opinions kind of worthless. If people expect devices that are even mildly powerful and are handhelds in nature...to cost the same or less than more powerful stationary hardware...they're insane.

That being said, Switch could have been $250...if Nintendo didn't put so much effort into the Joycons and dock... :(



Hynad said:
Alkibiádēs said:

I'm supposed to be impressed by a bunch of braindead enemies thrown on screen? The Dynasty Warriors are some of the worst, cheap and bland games I ever had the displeasure of playing. I have no idea why people keep buying them, every single year. They're hardly sophisticated... I guess it's just the famous third party brands that sell the franchise nowadays. I didn't even bother with Hyrule Warriors, and I'm a pretty big Zelda fan. 

So you don't know the requirements for such games. That clears things up.

Copypasting enemies and allies that don't do much is probably not very hard. The AI in racing games is more sophisticated then that. Although Fast Racing Neo is infamous for rubberbanding AI, so it doesn't get a pass from me in that regard either. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

curl-6 said:
zorg1000 said:

idk man, individually its a bunch of small stuff but eventually a lot of small things add up.

And like I said, its a customized chip that Nintendo has to pay for so its that part is obviously going to make it cost more than Shield TV.

One other thing i forgot to mention in the last post is retailer cut, from what i understand Shield TV is not sold at retail so there is no retailer cut associated with it while Switch will have that along with the cost to ship them all to stores.

but overall i agree that $300 is a bit on the high side and $250 would be the sweet spot.

If this really going to be Nintendo's only system going forwards, I have a feeling they opted for a very high profit margin. I suspect if they'd wanted to, they could have sold this at $250 without taking a loss.

At any rate, my main concern regarding the price is that I worry that it will dampen Switch's sales and land us in another Wii U situation where it doesn't get the games because it doesn't have the install base.

I dont think the post-launch drop for Switch will be as bad as Wii U for a few reasons.

1. I believe the concept will be far more intriguing for the average consumer.

2. Assuming that no delays happen (i know, its a big if) Switch has a solid lineup of post-launch, 1st party content. Zelda in early March, followed by Mario Kart in late April, ARMS in Spring (May/June) & Splatoon in Summer (late June-August). So a new 1st party title every 1.5-2 months. Then the Fall/Holiday lineup of FE Warriors, 3D Mario, Xenoblade 2 (i have a feeling this one will be delayed) and probably 1-2 more unannounced titles will give it a pretty steady stream of Nintendo IP this year.

3. The third party content seems to be the type of games that the Nintendo audience is more receptive of. Small-medium sized indie, Japanese & kid/family titles have done pretty well on 3DS/Wii U and Switch seems to be getting pretty solid support from these types of games while Wii U initially had a strong focus on recieving ports of mainstream western titles.

So while I don't necessarily think Switch will initially light the world on fire, i think its post launch sales will be much higher than Wii U and 3DS for that matter.



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

Around the Network
zorg1000 said:
Bandorr said:

That isn't a d-pad. That is 4 buttons in each direction. It would be impossible to play a fighting game like street fighter on that.

ummmm im pretty sure PS controllers are the same way, 4 buttons in each direction.

Also, impossible to play a fighting game like Street Fighter? That must be why Street Fighter is coming to Switch, right?

100% not the case. It's a plus internally. When you push down one portion of the d-pad the other partions move with it. It's one large button with four contact points that appears separated as it comes through the shell.



When was the last time a home console had a cheaper launch price than the Switch has?



zorg1000 said:
curl-6 said:

If this really going to be Nintendo's only system going forwards, I have a feeling they opted for a very high profit margin. I suspect if they'd wanted to, they could have sold this at $250 without taking a loss.

At any rate, my main concern regarding the price is that I worry that it will dampen Switch's sales and land us in another Wii U situation where it doesn't get the games because it doesn't have the install base.

I dont think the post-launch drop for Switch will be as bad as Wii U for a few reasons.

1. I believe the concept will be far more intriguing for the average consumer.

2. Assuming that no delays happen (i know, its a big if) Switch has a solid lineup of post-launch, 1st party content. Zelda in early March, followed by Mario Kart in late April, ARMS in Spring (May/June) & Splatoon in Summer (late June-August). So a new 1st party title every 1.5-2 months. Then the Fall/Holiday lineup of FE Warriors, 3D Mario, Xenoblade 2 (i have a feeling this one will be delayed) and probably 1-2 more unannounced titles will give it a pretty steady stream of Nintendo IP this year.

3. The third party content seems to be the type of games that the Nintendo audience is more receptive of. Small-medium sized indie, Japanese & kid/family titles have done pretty well on 3DS/Wii U and Switch seems to be getting pretty solid support from these types of games while Wii U initially had a strong focus on recieving ports of mainstream western titles.

So while I don't necessarily think Switch will initially light the world on fire, i think its post launch sales will be much higher than Wii U and 3DS for that matter.

The day Nintendo stops delaying games is the day Satan drives a snow plough to work. XD

As for third party, even Wii U and Vita had indie support, it's hardly a selling point.



Alkibiádēs said:
Hynad said:

So you don't know the requirements for such games. That clears things up.

Copypasting enemies and allies that don't do much is probably not very hard. The AI in racing games is more sophisticated then that. Although Fast Racing Neo is infamous for rubberbanding AI, so it doesn't get a pass from me in that regard either. 

The AI is only one aspect of the game. This isn't the only thing that strains the hardware. Far from it. Racing games can look as good as they do because they are very linear in nature. If GTAV could look like Uncharted 4, for example, you bet R* would have made it happen. But the open world nature of the game means the developers had to optimize and prioritize things differently. Every game comes with its share of requirements unique to its type. 



potato_hamster said:
zorg1000 said:

ummmm im pretty sure PS controllers are the same way, 4 buttons in each direction.

Also, impossible to play a fighting game like Street Fighter? That must be why Street Fighter is coming to Switch, right?

100% not the case. It's a plus internally. When you push down one portion of the d-pad the other partions move with it. It's one large button with four contact points that appears separated as it comes through the shell.

yep he explained that to me earlier.

but one thing im curious about is have we gotten confirmation that they are 4 seperate buttons on the Joy-Con? i havent heard.



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