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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - I've changed my stance. Nintendo needs to go 3rd party

mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
fordy said:
mountaindewslave said:

if you're seriously suggesting that portability for a console that can be played on a TV is not a massively attractive thing for consumers then you're crazy. I hated the Wii U conceptually because I saw no purpose for a big tablet controller to walk around the house with.

However- to be able to play games at beyond Wii U graphics (Breath of the Wild is looking gorgeous) on the go? on the train? sitting by a tree? I think almost universally people would agree that the Vita itself was a great system, and the Switch's power will be well beyond that but ALSO be able to be docked when you're at home for big screen gameplay

You claim that you've been gaming for decades, but act almost as if the hybrid concept is nothing. CONCEPTUALLY its nothing new, its been talked about- but its completely new as far as actually being employed because until now no one has been able to come remotely close to getting home console-esque graphics levels to be functional on a portable

Its an incredibly exciting prospect. Bear in mind 60 some million people bought the 3DS and it both was LESS Graphically powered AND obviously not a hybrid. 

 

There's already articles stating "no discernable difference" between the WiiU and Switch Zelda, but I digress, since it is in fact a port. However, for a port, it runs at 900p max. How will it go when some serious power is being requested of it? 

You know what bugs me? Playing outside under a tree for 2.5 hours on an adventure game (made to draw out lots of time) before having to rush in to plug it in again. I'm glad somebody brought up the Vita, because that proves that the Switch will not get any console AAA titles. The Vita proved that people wanted games on portables tailored for portables (stop and go action). Mixing the two in one market isn't exactly what's called an effective marketing strategy. If anything, playing a game from say, a portable front when it's designed more for a home front would just alienate parts of the userbase.

If you've ever worked in any office, the idea of "docking" is not new at all. I actually dock my gaming PC between my friends and my place frequently, AND play it on the go with 5 hours battery. Can it be more seamless? Of course! Are people willing to care about seamless docking, given the premium price, and incentiveof something less portable but more powerful? 

Keep in mind how many LESS people would have bought the 3DS if it remained at its original price. If Nintendo don't sell slightly more than the 3DS base, it should be considered a failure. Why? Because they've sacrificed one of their markets for nothing.

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



Around the Network
fordy on 18 January 2017
Renna Hazel said:
fordy said:

 

So you're buying a console that (over here at least) is over twice the price of its competitors simply because you can take it anywhere? Please, do convince me how this is a great deal. Even from the 3DS, the aesthetics of it all is clearly a step back (and I'm not talking in generational hardware here) as I mentioned in the OP.

Inflation doesn't account to a $100 shift in the span of 4 years. that only happens in hyperinflated economies. That's also just the console side. The comparison on the portable side is even greater.

Oh this is saucy. Go ahead. Tell me how Nintendo having control over the PowerPC architecture that nobody else uses is classed as a strength, because if anything that is their biggest weakness. Their strength is actually building robust engines for their GAMES, and it's not like Sony or Microsoft have any rights to hide x64 architecture from Nintendo. It's only the architecture with the most software developed for it...

 

For Americans, the Switch is 300 dollars. This is the same MSRP for PS4 and Xbox One at the moment, though both of those do come with a game. On the other end, the Switch looks to be bundled with some pretty high tech controllers and some really nice mobile tech. If those features aren't worth it for you, you have every right to sit this one out. I think the Switch has unique aspects that will benefit Nintendo games, which is why I'd prefer the continue to design hardware around their own software. 

That's interesting. I paid AU$250 for an Xbox One S and a free game in December, and the AU$ is worth less than the US$. With the Switch coming here at AU$470 and no game...all for the sake of protability, and possibly no AAA 3rd party titles, how many do you think will be dissuaded?



mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
bdbdbd said:
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

The problem with the Wii U wasn't to have a tablet in your hand (off-TV play was a great feature), but the problems were that you did not know how a game would use a controller. It wasn't uncommon at all for you to have to use BOTH of the screens at the same time while playing, making the off-TV feature by itself useless. This is why Nintendo avertising for Switch emphases that when you take the tablet out of the dock, the TV is no longer in use. But yeah, the problems with gamepad were just problems with software in the end (just like all the other problems Nintendo have had lately).

those sound like issues as well and certainly kind of circle around to the fact that Nintendo marketed and explained the sysetm a bit poorly. But that's sort of what I meant as well, not many people are going to want to look up at their screen AND look down at their tablet to game.

I suppose my suggestion is more or less that the Nintendo Wii U did not really bring anything to the table that even the majority of NINTENDO fans wanted. The tablet seems like a big miss. The off-TV play seems like a natural evolution to the Switch and what consumers would prefer though, a hybrid home/portable system



bdbdbd on 18 January 2017
KBG29 said:
I 100% believe Nintendo needs to go 3rd party. They are leaving 10's of millions of sales of Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, and many other titles on the table, because they are locked to high priced devices with very small userbases. Releasing Nintendo games on PS4 and XBO would massivly increase the sales of all of their titles, and make revenues and profits explode. They would be looking at Wii level sales of all of their big franchises all the time.

I think they're aiming sales higher than that.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

bdbdbd on 18 January 2017
mountaindewslave said:

those sound like issues as well and certainly kind of circle around to the fact that Nintendo marketed and explained the sysetm a bit poorly. But that's sort of what I meant as well, not many people are going to want to look up at their screen AND look down at their tablet to game.

I suppose my suggestion is more or less that the Nintendo Wii U did not really bring anything to the table that even the majority of NINTENDO fans wanted. The tablet seems like a big miss. The off-TV play seems like a natural evolution to the Switch and what consumers would prefer though, a hybrid home/portable system

At least it's not worse than that. I don't think it's a natural evolution, to me it looks like Nintendo doing a 180 and letting the customer to decide on something for a change. This, however, may just be an illusion caused by marketing, as with the multiple control methods Switch theoretically offers, can still be forced on you. I'd be excited for example if I finally could play Splatoon with a pointer device, like the Wii Remote or the Joycon camera. On the downside, they're porting Mario Kart 8, which is a game that illustrates Nintendo's problems perfectly.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
KBG29 said:
I 100% believe Nintendo needs to go 3rd party. They are leaving 10's of millions of sales of Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, and many other titles on the table, because they are locked to high priced devices with very small userbases. Releasing Nintendo games on PS4 and XBO would massivly increase the sales of all of their titles, and make revenues and profits explode. They would be looking at Wii level sales of all of their big franchises all the time.

Nintendo made a lot of money from selling accessories on the Wii, A LOT. They always make money from that. Also since when is a 60 some million 3DS a low userbase? the Wii U was a low userbase indeed, but the concept that Nintendo going third party will equal gigantic sales for EVERY game of theirs and tons more profit is an absurd thing to assume

A) They will have to shart some software profit with the hardware manuafacturer, B) they will no longer be making money from accessory sales (which, again, Nintendo probably makes more money from historically by far than any other hardware provider), and C) Nintendo will no longer, most likely, have things for easy cash like the Virtual console.

Bear in mind that a certain percentage (probably a big percent) of people interesting in Nintendo games DO buy their systems, at the very least their handhelds. Their software sales would obviously go up most likely but it might not be by the sort of amount you imply. I honestly don't see a game series like Mario Kart or Pokemon, that can trend all the way up to 10 MILLION sold as it is, magically doubling that or something like that. There is a limit. If anything the one thing Nintendo still has been killing it at, are software sales for their first party titles.

Also keep in mind that Nintendo going from a hardware company to a software company would drastically change the company. I mean drastically. How its structured, how they develop, how much funds they'd feel comfortable putting towards certain things. It would be unlikely to be the same company in terms of output compared with historically. 

Lastly- as much as it would benefit the average gamer- why would Nintendo bother going third party? the only fiscal year in which they've lost money was 2015 and things like Pokemon GO and the 3DS still show massive hunger for their properties. They probably have by far the best IP in the industry to leverage success and customers. And they have billions of dollars.  I just don't get the recommendation.

Stating "omg they'll have 10s of millions more people buying their games) is a silly argument. if that were the case then you'd expect some multiplat IPs on Xbox/PS4 would be pulling awesome numbers, but its very rare for ANYTHING on those systems to pass like 5 million sales.

Point I'm making is the risk isn't worth it and its not a magical thing where Nintendo sells double the games and makes double the profit. Because at the point of being third party and losing some of their other streams of revenue they would most likely need to SELL double the software. Its a circular problem to make that sort of move



mountaindewslave on 18 January 2017
bdbdbd said:
mountaindewslave said:

those sound like issues as well and certainly kind of circle around to the fact that Nintendo marketed and explained the sysetm a bit poorly. But that's sort of what I meant as well, not many people are going to want to look up at their screen AND look down at their tablet to game.

I suppose my suggestion is more or less that the Nintendo Wii U did not really bring anything to the table that even the majority of NINTENDO fans wanted. The tablet seems like a big miss. The off-TV play seems like a natural evolution to the Switch and what consumers would prefer though, a hybrid home/portable system

At least it's not worse than that. I don't think it's a natural evolution, to me it looks like Nintendo doing a 180 and letting the customer to decide on something for a change. This, however, may just be an illusion caused by marketing, as with the multiple control methods Switch theoretically offers, can still be forced on you. I'd be excited for example if I finally could play Splatoon with a pointer device, like the Wii Remote or the Joycon camera. On the downside, they're porting Mario Kart 8, which is a game that illustrates Nintendo's problems perfectly.

what's your implication about Mario Kart 8? the only problem I have with the Mario Kart 8 port is I think they would have been much better off releasing an entire new chapter in the series, the concept of them porting Wii U titles over to the Switch potentially in abundance concerns me. I would have thought they would have been far along on a new Mario Kart a this point for the Switch (it's been a few years since 8 launched right?)



fordy on 18 January 2017
mountaindewslave said:
fordy said:

 

So you're buying a console that (over here at least) is over twice the price of its competitors simply because you can take it anywhere? Please, do convince me how this is a great deal. Even from the 3DS, the aesthetics of it all is clearly a step back (and I'm not talking in generational hardware here) as I mentioned in the OP.

Inflation doesn't account to a $100 shift in the span of 4 years. that only happens in hyperinflated economies. That's also just the console side. The comparison on the portable side is even greater.

Oh this is saucy. Go ahead. Tell me how Nintendo having control over the PowerPC architecture that nobody else uses is classed as a strength, because if anything that is their biggest weakness. Their strength is actually building robust engines for their GAMES, and it's not like Sony or Microsoft have any rights to hide x64 architecture from Nintendo. It's only the architecture with the most software developed for it...

 

don't know where you are, but currently in the USA all of the three consoles are around or close to 300$. Maybe PS4 and Xone are now at promotional price for like 280$, I don't know. but a hybrid debatably provides more value than a standard home console (again, obviously if you're not someone specifically just prioritizing graphics).

If you want to find somewhere to bitch about prices then maybe you should pick the Vita, which with its memory card ends up being not far from even the Switch price, despite vastly inferior spec wise.

and you're sort of arguing in a circle- you claim you bought the Wii U AND the 3DS. If that's true then more than likely you paid a total for them OVER what the Switch will cost you. So obviously people, including yourself, do find value in both a portable console and a home console that have certain advantages that may not be spec wise equal to their competitors

the difference here is its a COMBINED device and more convenient. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time. You're welcome to your opinion by the way, but the problem is when in the original post you put a lot of speculative nonsense about the battery life, the online services, the third party support- none of that is known for certain yet.

and the $100 shift might be in your market (where the hell are you?) but in the USA the Wii U is still being sold for $300, the 3DS still for like $180. My point being is that the Switch is perfectly in line with the prices for Nintendo systems in the past.

When I bring up inflation I mainly point out that the Wii at 250$ at launch or whatever comes close, something like the N64 at launch in 1996 at like 200$ would end up coming close (in fact it would be over 300$ inflated), etc. etc. etc.

any good PHONE or tablet (and they don't have the fans or capability to run Switch likes games) at new price is going to be over what the Switch costs. 

 

I understand debates about the expensive accessories or the Joycon components being unecessary (or not liking them) but the price is just not that unrealistic, especially when comparing with last gen prices.

Trying to argue price through deflection to a competitor's portable isn't really a vaid argument, considering I've chewed the Vita out for EXACTLY THAT THING when it was relevant. Pleas,e don't say that Sony deserves criticism while Nintendo's totally immune. I critisize both. 

Yeah great argument there. I payed a little more for both the WiiU and the 3DS, despite:

1. Getting two physical systems

2. Getting a console with console games and a portable with portable games

3. In terms of the generation cycle, the Switch underperforming on a console base

I think you're mixing up my reasoning here. The personal expense is one thing, but  I'm not getting one because I believe the base will be shunned BECAUSE of the expense. See the difference? As mentioned before, same with the WiiU, and the 3DS BEFORE it got its price cut...the sales for both of those cases were dismal.

You realise the 3rd party support list was bigger for the WiiU than it was the Switch at the reveal, right? I have a right to be skeptical because of HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. What's your reasoning that 3rd parties will be flocking to this?

Nintendo themselves have stated the battery life as 2.5-6 hours. You're waiting for some more evidence?

If I'm stating prices in AU$, where do you think I'm from? Barbados?

The Switch will get the same uncertainty from the average consumer, due to it's uniqueness. They're either going to see an underpowered, expensive console, or a portable that's more expensive than the 3DS was at its original price. That might be an injustice, but that's the way the market goes. It happened with the WiiU too, with the average consumer not knowing if it's a standalone, or a Wii addon.

 The inflation thing is very irrelevant, considering that Nintendo's competitors on average have decreased in price comparison between generations, taking inflation into account, while Nintendo's has remained stable, but the power of the system itself is falling further behind. You need to realise that all these little trinkets to cater to the 5% of games do add up for a console's base cost. Motion controls, gyro, kinect-like detection....they don't come free, nor do they help when it comes time to try and cut the cost of the console.

What you're missing between phones and the Switch is that phones are deemed a NECESSITY nowadays, whereas a dedicated portable is a LUXURY.



Kerotan on 18 January 2017

I'm sorry to hear that but I have to agree.

It would be better for their fans, the market and Nintendo's profits.



fordy on 18 January 2017
mountaindewslave said:
Soundwave said:

I know some people are upset, and that's their perrogative, but honestly do you really think Nintendo could compete with a traditional home console?

They can't anymore, even if they had tried to, they would have gotten blind sighted by the PS4 Pro and XBox Scorpio which likely would've been more powerful than whatever "a little better than PS4" console that Nintendo would've made.

Nintendo honestly just doesn't have it in them to make a great home console anymore and compete in that space. Every console they've made since the NES has seen declining sales aside from a 4 year stretch of the Wii, and even the Wii illustrates they have no idea what they're doing home console wise as they some how managed to lose 85% of that audience in a matter of 2-3 years.

They're just not good at home consoles, in the 90s/2000s they mismanaged things so badly and allowed Sony/MS to take over the marketplace, and it's just too hard to play catch up for a company that has as many problems as Nintendo.

Merging what was left of their console market into the more friendly confines of the portable market (which even with phones/tablets is still far more cozy for Nintendo ... see: 63 million 3DS' vs. only 14 million Wii Us, 3DS will have sold more than every Nintendo console except Wii).

I will disagree that the Switch is really a 'portable' move, but rather that it is indeed a hybrid, combining everything together. Bear in mind Nintendo has been split down the middle in terms of producing games for both of their platforms in the past, much more so than their competitors (well Sony). I think its less an aim at just doing the portable market as much genuinely wanting a combined platform for home AND abroad that will let them focus their software onto one device.

Obviously their portables have been more consistent and the backbone of the company, but in the end Nintendo's software sells great on both home consoles and portables so the hybrid concept just seems like a no brainer. I'm not sure how someone could label the Switch as a 'portable' priority device when a lot of users will probably basically permanently leave it in the dock and play on their TV

Incorrect. Sony's Vita showed that consumers will not buy long, drawn out AAA titles on a portable. They'd prefer to have it on a bigger screen, from a MUCH MORE POWERFUL CONSOLE. Console and portable were split for a reson, and Nintendo knew why, until now.