No need to push it so hard. As the dedicated console market has been going in the latest years, Nintendo will go third party someday. But while there´s still people playing on consoles, Nintendo will keep making them.
And... I doubt that many people who plays only on PS4 or XBO are interested in Nintendo games at all. Maybe a portion but not definetely the majority
| mountaindewslave said:
I will say that the Wii U is not really indicative of THAT much. Conceptually it was a mess (expensive tablet controller) |
As opposed to the switch, which has more motion, gyros, kinect-like input and a more expensive screen than the WiiU tablet controller?
Do you see now why many are worried that Nintendo are painting themselves into a corner with this? They CAN NOT incur cost savings on this by die shrinking. They'll be stuck on the same price it relases for, just like the WiiU was, for better or worse.
Renna Hazel said:
Vita tried a variation of this yes, but ultimately it led to inferior portable console games on the go. I don't believe people want this which is why I don't think Switch will see much success with multiplats that are superior on PS4/XBO. However you do get your full Nintendo games on the go, you don't have to buy two devices to do so either, which is a big plus. Vita was a great piece of hardware that mostly ended up with smaller Japanese games and hand me down PS3 titles. Nintendo will have to use their first party software to avoid the same fate as Vita. |
Nintendo games are great, but they need to appeal to 3rd parties to release games during the drought times when Nintendo's games are in development. This is why they keep failing to establish a large enough userbase. Doing so benefits Nintendo, too, as they'll have more potential customers for their own software, but they seem intent on just going with what they want and screw 3rd parties. their arrogance is why they need to exit the hardware market, or be doomed to generation after generation of only 1st party titles, and a lot of potential buyers opting for other systems, until they go broke. Then they'll be just like Sega was when they were forced to go 3rd party.
mountaindewslave said:
it wasn't 'portable' enough? it wasn't portable AT ALL. It was portable down your hallway in your house. That's not a big perk. That's nothing new. Again, the Vita and Playstation do that already. sorry but if the Wii U had had a tablet that was ALSO a handheld console it would have done much much better. In fact conceptually that seemed like what it SHOULD have been. the Wii U has plenty of problems, but its #1 problem is that it offered pretty much nothing people wanted. Most gamers don't want a tablet in their hands while they game on a TV. also the biggest problem with the Wii U software wise wasn't third party support, that's always a problem with Nintendo platforms, it was a lack of FIRST party support. No Zelda. No Metroid. a divided software library between it and the 3DS. The concept of a hybrid device hopefully alleviates this and enables Nintendo to put out more titles more frequently on one device. Obviously this is still left to be seen if it will occur. Again, the 3DS is still selling well and the Switch is a hybrid but far more powerful than both the 3DS and Wii U (and Vita,for arguments sake). You act like like being a hybrid and by far the most powerful dedicated handheld device ever aren't selling points to consumers. Of course they are |
So you're saying the Switch is worth $Infinte just for the fact that it's the only portable? Quite a bargain at $299 then...
What you're failing to understand that while people would see it as a benefit, the majority will say "yeah, but is portability worth THAT much more?" in a world with something to occupy oneself with no matter where you are. I'm not saying whether or not I will buy it, or YOU will buy it. I'm saying if the market will accept it at that price. Personally, I have my doubts, and I don't want to be stuck with another system with a small userbase again. So my arguments have a degree of understandable logic behind them. I'm not diving in headfirst just because it's Nintendo.
I disagree with your WiiU analogy. It would have done better, but not significantly better, especially if the price could never have been cut. You'd have plenty of people saying "I'll get it when it's cheaper", which never happens.
The GameCube had Zelda and Metroid. It had significant first party support. How did it go again? The Wii had heaps of first party support and some 3rd party support. So why were there still droughts with the two consoles? The WiiU getting lacj of first party support is just the lack of userbase finally catching up with Nintendo. Hey, when the other consoles were failing, Nintendo cut the cost of the console. Want to guess why they didn't do that with the WiiU? Go on, guess...I've mentioned it a dozen times already.
Nintendo wont be pipng out new titles as much as you might like to think. The 3DS development teams would need to be amalgamated and increased in size, and ALL teams would need to start developing with portable AND home console in mind. That includes dev costs, testing costs etc, and that's best case scenario. If Nintendo decides to downsize dev teams to alleviate the cost incursion from cartridges, you'll find possibly 1 extra title per year? The number will be less than WiiU + 3DS combined, for sure.
Renna Hazel said:
Well like I said, I like that Nintendo offers something different. I have a PS4 and Xbox One, so the Switch getting third party ports does nothing for me. To answer your question, the majority of developers do not use motion controls on either of those platforms. They did on the Wii, and I think the form factor on the Switch is more welcoming to motion controls. I don't really like using the gamepad as a motion controller, not nearly as nature as using the Wiimote was. Joycons are the evolution of the Wiimote. |
Really? Even if they're plugged into the sides of the screen? What if you're playing on a bus? Surely they have to come up with some kind of alternate controller scheme, even if motion control is the preferred option.
This is exactly why motion controls should have been an option (even as another joycon, but PLEEEASE not at the expense of the Switch's base cost!) and not a necessity. Every orientation of the switch FORCES any idea of motion to have a 2nd non-motion option.
Consoles have always been a rip off though in Australia. This is no different.
The biggest and only concern that is worth a complaint is seriously the lack of future the device has.
If the switch had 40 3rd party game announced in the works and 10 at launch (serious core games that are not gimped), would any thing else matter at that point if there was great support?
| Renna Hazel said: And before I go for the night, I just wanna say that Nintendo offers a nicer user experience in my opinion than Microsoft does. I really can't stand the updates and installs and UI lag on Xbox One. I don't think Nintendo should drop out to jump ship to that platform. Sometimes, specs in reality are different than on paper. For example, my 32 gigs of space on Wii U went much further than my 500 gigs on Xbox One, which can be used up with forced installs and 40+ gig game updates. Nintendo certainly offers a different experience there. It's a give or take deal, but having the options is best. |
My main worry about the 32GB is that, given my library, I used up a bit over half of that. It wouldn't be hard to assume that even the average enthusiast on the Switch might end up using up all that space. As games get bigger in size, so too do the fixes.
I agree with the Xbox one updates. If it weren't for my FTTN connection I got the day after I bought the console, I'd be swearing so much at it.
mountaindewslave said:
I was watching some footage of "Arms" earlier today and the Joycons do look like they work killer for that game. I am not usually a huge fan of motion controls, but the idea that its totally optional (something that wasn't the case for many Wii games) and simply conveniently the control pieces regularly connected to the normal main controller make it more convenient and handy to try. With a Wii Mote it was like "herre you go, you have to use this". with the Joycons they look intuitive in the hands and and are just detachable pieces that look to function well as just part of the normal assembled controller AND potentially on their own for optional types of games gives gamers choices |
Glad to see you're advocating for making motion controls an OPTION, so how about we petition Nintendo to make the motion joycons an optional extra and lower the base price of the unit itself? That might help.
mountaindewslave said:
false. There are literally screen comparisons all over Youtube currently of the Wii U version looked considerably less detailed and having more framerate issues, but whatever. The game looks gorgeous in the live demos (which there are a plethora of people who recorded at the New York public testing event the other day). You can throw out numbers all you want, but 900p is plenty good unless you're playing on a gigantic TV your 'gaming PC'. AKA your gaming laptop. Obviously everyone is fully aware that a laptop can be used on a battery. But unless you rig it up with cords, a laptop isn't seamlessly connected to your TV like the Switch. Also generally speaking, gaming laptops aren't that small. YES people are going to care. also awful comparison. a gaming laptop capable of playing things well is easily more than double the price of the Switch, laptops carry a premium. however if you have been talking about a regular PC with a tower though then that's just bizarre as those are awkward as hell to move around the Vita is not comparable. Its just a portable and got destroyed by the 3DS because Sony did a terrible job supporting it with first party (not shocking, they don't have the strongest handheld franchises). Anyone who has actually played a graphically demanding game on EITHER the Vita or 3DS should know that neither is lasting 5 hours, that's hogwash. more like 3 or 4 hours for the most demanding things at best. Someone posted a diagram on Neogaf, apparently the Switch actually does have one of the best batteries it could hypothetically FIT inside of its guts for the pricepoint. I can't emphasize enough- the Vita does not last THAT long for highly demanding games like some suggest. And a tablet or phone are lasting a lot longer battery wise because they will never run a program that's as demanding as, say, Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Just like you won't be able to open editing software particularly well on a tablet (unless its an expensive one, far outside the Switch price point). dude. the 3DS is a portable ONLY system. I don't understand the not differentiating it. Yes, I think a lot of people would pay an extra 120$ over the 3DS (in the USA) to get a hybrid system that is vastly better than the 3DS. Hell, again, the 3DS sold out over the holidays and its numbers were pretty high based on the guesstimates (not far from Xone numbers despite the upcoming Switch) despite being a 5 year old system with what you would claim are absolutely terrible specs at like 250p |
And this is the number one problem I have with these people. This is EXACTLY why Nintendo slips further and further behind in the hardware department, because of attitudes like "It's good enough". When is catering for a TV standard that's OVER 10 YEARS OLD still deemed "good enough"? Heck, it can't even REACH those levels, and it's a damn port! Imagine if it was the full thing, developed on the Switch? We'd be seeing what? 720p? 640p? How much constitutes "good enough" to give Nintendo a pass, hm?
To be fair, yes. A lot of people do have gigantic TVs, in 4K...and the figure is only rising. Sony and Microsoft saw this, and knew they were screwed, hence the PS4 Pro and Scorpio. What's Nintendo's excuse? They didn't see it coming? Seriously, they're shunning perfectly capable hardware because of people giving them passes like "it's good enough". NO IT'S NOT! IT'S A LAUNCH TITLE THAT CAN'T DO 1080P!
Uh, excuse me? You do realise the Switch is connected via USB type C to the dock, and the dock via HDMI right? Look up laptops with wireless docking stations. As I said, the concept isn't new. In fact, many have already surpassed it. My laptop docks with no cords, thank you very much.
People will care, but are they willing to pay an inflated cost, reduced power and potential loss of 3rd party AAA titles for the privilege of it? Be honest. you might think the tech is the bees knees, but that's not the average consumer base's sentiments.
Stop right there....did you admit that the Vita failed because of lack of PORTABLE FRANCHISES? Then....WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK A HYBRID SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE THE ANSWER FOR NINTENDO?! You just destroyed your own argument right there! Right there!
The average consumer doesn't get moist over playing home console games on the go. I'm sorry, but those are the facts. The majority work or learn. The majority drive. The majority spend their free time either at home, or somewhere where a portable system is not viable. The majority have a house mortgage and are VERY SUSCEPTIBLE TO ONLY BUYING ONE CONSOLE. It sure as hell isn't going to be a Nintendo system if there's a lack of affordable games.
Get it, yet?
| Hynad said: Nah. I think you should simply adopt an other console brand, and let other people enjoy the Switch and Nintendo's games. No reason for Nintendo to go third party when they're still a profitable company despite the Wii U's blunder. |
So how many potential buyers are you denying to Nintendo with that kind of attitude?
Like I mentioned before, the majority of buyers buy one system. Increasingly, that is no longer a Nintendo console, since only Nintendo support it.
If the Switch fails, it will be more than just a blunder, it will be a disaster for Nintendo, which will bite a HUGE chunk of their assets off.
If you like Nintendo that much, are you willing to let them take that road?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
