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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo hints at true 3DS successor

Lonely_Dolphin on 04 February 2017
Nem said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

It's portable because it's portable, you can take it out of the house. It's portability isn't the greatest sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't portable. Original 3DS also has crappy battery life and the 2DS doesn't fit in your pocket, but they're still portable.

Anyone with eyes can also see that it's portable and that one could use it purely as such.

Those are two seperate systems. The PS4 itself isn't portable.

You don't take the system out. You take a part of the system. It's not at its main power on portable form.

Yeah, sure, it has a fun option that lets you underpower it and take it with you for a bit. But it IS still a home console at its primary function. It's portability is a secondary function.

Say if you consider the Vita a controller for the PS4 cause its what i can do, its the same thing. So... yeah... PS4 confirmed portable with that logic.

 

Yes you do, the dock isn't the Switch, the screen is the Switch itself. That it doesn't run at full power while portable doesn't mean anything, the screen is a less demanding 720p and all games are playable in both modes.

Call it what you like, that's all just scemantics. What matters is that it can be used as a handheld, that's all it needs to make another handheld redundant. You've also admitted that it is indeed portable, thus can function as a handheld.

Yup, needing two seperate devices is exactly the same as what the Switch needs to be portable. How does the Vita remote play thing even work anyway? I find it hard to believe that you can play it while far away from the PS4 much like how the Wii U gamepad has limits.



Around the Network
Wyrdness on 04 February 2017

This is debunked already it's a translation error, his actual statement was the following

"He concluded by saying that there is a different demand and market for 3DS as a portable system from Switch, and for a next handheld, Nintendo will keep considering it as always.

Nintendo's Shinya Takahashi chimed in as well. About a new portable, he explained that Nintendo is always thinking about its next game device, so the answer is "We are always thinking about it" rather than there is or there isn't a 3DS successor."

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/02/official_financial_results_qanda_clarifies_kimishimas_3ds_successor_comment

As you can see it's a general statement that didn't even come from the President either.



Nem on 04 February 2017
Einsam_Delphin said:
Nem said:

You don't take the system out. You take a part of the system. It's not at its main power on portable form.

Yeah, sure, it has a fun option that lets you underpower it and take it with you for a bit. But it IS still a home console at its primary function. It's portability is a secondary function.

Say if you consider the Vita a controller for the PS4 cause its what i can do, its the same thing. So... yeah... PS4 confirmed portable with that logic.

 

Yes you do, the dock isn't the Switch, the screen is the Switch itself. That it doesn't run at full power while portable doesn't mean anything, the screen is a less demanding 720p and all games are playable in both modes.

Call it what you like, that's all just scemantics. What matters is that it can be used as a handheld, that's all it needs to make another handheld redundant. You've also admitted that it is indeed portable, thus can function as a handheld.

Yup, needing two seperate devices is exactly the same as what the Switch needs to be portable. How does the Vita remote play thing even work anyway? I find it hard to believe that you can play it while far away from the PS4 much like how the Wii U gamepad has limits.

It would be nice if it was semantics but it is what it is. Games won't be design to play on the go, they will be designed for a TV experience. You just have the option to underpower it and take it with you for a bit. The fact that it's underpowered is an important factor here as, again, experiences will be designed with that power in mind and the portable form as an nice extra option. Just like the PS4 games running on the Vita are not designed for Vita.

And btw just cause you need to separatly buy the devices or them coming in the same bundle does not affect the fact that they are two separate objects that need to be used in unison for this purpose.If they were sold separatly would that make it clearer for you?

Vita remote play uses an internet connection. You can play it anywhere you got a reception on.



craighopkins on 04 February 2017

not gonna happen anytime soon. switch hits the portable market



Hynad on 04 February 2017

Thread title should have been changed by now...



Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin on 05 February 2017
Nem said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

 

Yes you do, the dock isn't the Switch, the screen is the Switch itself. That it doesn't run at full power while portable doesn't mean anything, the screen is a less demanding 720p and all games are playable in both modes.

Call it what you like, that's all just scemantics. What matters is that it can be used as a handheld, that's all it needs to make another handheld redundant. You've also admitted that it is indeed portable, thus can function as a handheld.

Yup, needing two seperate devices is exactly the same as what the Switch needs to be portable. How does the Vita remote play thing even work anyway? I find it hard to believe that you can play it while far away from the PS4 much like how the Wii U gamepad has limits.

It would be nice if it was semantics but it is what it is. Games won't be design to play on the go, they will be designed for a TV experience. You just have the option to underpower it and take it with you for a bit. The fact that it's underpowered is an important factor here as, again, experiences will be designed with that power in mind and the portable form as an nice extra option. Just like the PS4 games running on the Vita are not designed for Vita.

And btw just cause you need to separatly buy the devices or them coming in the same bundle does not affect the fact that they are two separate objects that need to be used in unison for this purpose.If they were sold separatly would that make it clearer for you?

Vita remote play uses an internet connection. You can play it anywhere you got a reception on.

It is scemantics. What difference in design is there from say MK7 and MK8, 3D Land and 3D World, Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U? What gameplay or design differences are there when you play BotW on TV versus handheld? To answer all, none. Games are perfectly and completely playable in both modes as I just said, rendering what set-up you think they're supposedly designed for moot as it doesn't affect anything, certainly doesn't stop the Switch from being used as a handheld.

They are two seperate products, thus a poor comparison against a single streamlined device. Whether you want to believe the PS4 is portable is irrelevant anyway, we're talking about the Switch here, which is portable, again you've admitted this, so that should be the end of it unless you can explain how Nintendo supporting two portable systems makes sense.

Even less the same then, as the Switch's portability isn't limited by internet connection and will never have lag issues. No portable local multiplayer or tabletop mode either. 



Nem on 05 February 2017
Einsam_Delphin said:
Nem said:

It would be nice if it was semantics but it is what it is. Games won't be design to play on the go, they will be designed for a TV experience. You just have the option to underpower it and take it with you for a bit. The fact that it's underpowered is an important factor here as, again, experiences will be designed with that power in mind and the portable form as an nice extra option. Just like the PS4 games running on the Vita are not designed for Vita.

And btw just cause you need to separatly buy the devices or them coming in the same bundle does not affect the fact that they are two separate objects that need to be used in unison for this purpose.If they were sold separatly would that make it clearer for you?

Vita remote play uses an internet connection. You can play it anywhere you got a reception on.

It is scemantics. What difference in design is there from say MK7 and MK8, 3D Land and 3D World, Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U? What gameplay or design differences are there when you play BotW on TV versus handheld? To answer all, none. Games are perfectly and completely playable in both modes as I just said, rendering what set-up you think they're supposedly designed for moot as it doesn't affect anything, certainly doesn't stop the Switch from being used as a handheld.

They are two seperate products, thus a poor comparison against a single streamlined device. Whether you want to believe the PS4 is portable is irrelevant anyway, we're talking about the Switch here, which is portable, again you've admitted this, so that should be the end of it unless you can explain how Nintendo supporting two portable systems makes sense.

Even less the same then, as the Switch's portability isn't limited by internet connection and will never have lag issues. No portable local multiplayer or tabletop mode either. 

So, you never noticed that portabe games usually have shorter levels and mission structures designed for small bursts of play, while console games are designed for long cinematic sessions? Ok...

You are not telling the truth. I did not admit the Switch is a portable.I admited that it has a secondary function that lets you take it with you for a while. It's main function is Home Console. And no the PS4 isn't a portable console, just like the Switch isn't. That was the point.

We are not comparing the quality of the services but the fact that the services exist and by themselves don't change what is the main purpose of the device. 



Lonely_Dolphin on 05 February 2017
Nem said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

It is scemantics. What difference in design is there from say MK7 and MK8, 3D Land and 3D World, Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U? What gameplay or design differences are there when you play BotW on TV versus handheld? To answer all, none. Games are perfectly and completely playable in both modes as I just said, rendering what set-up you think they're supposedly designed for moot as it doesn't affect anything, certainly doesn't stop the Switch from being used as a handheld.

They are two seperate products, thus a poor comparison against a single streamlined device. Whether you want to believe the PS4 is portable is irrelevant anyway, we're talking about the Switch here, which is portable, again you've admitted this, so that should be the end of it unless you can explain how Nintendo supporting two portable systems makes sense.

Even less the same then, as the Switch's portability isn't limited by internet connection and will never have lag issues. No portable local multiplayer or tabletop mode either. 

So, you never noticed that portabe games usually have shorter levels and mission structures designed for small bursts of play, while console games are designed for long cinematic sessions? Ok...

You are not telling the truth. I did not admit the Switch is a portable.I admited that it has a secondary function that lets you take it with you for a while. It's main function is Home Console. And no the PS4 isn't a portable console, just like the Switch isn't. That was the point.

We are not comparing the quality of the services but the fact that the services exist and by themselves don't change what is the main purpose of the device. 

The games I mentioned, no, and even if that were true to a significant degree it has nothing to do with whether or not the Switch is portable.

The bolded is you admitting it's portable. That you think it's a secondary function doesn't change the fact that it can be played on the go.

Again, terms like "main purpose" and "secondary" n "primary" are irrelevant. It's playable on the go, that's all that matters in terms of whether or not the system is portable. Though, seeing as the whole point of the Switch is to be played anywhere, it's portability is definitely a big part of it's main purpose. You can't play anywhere if a TV and wall outlet are required.



oniyide on 06 February 2017
Nem said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

It is scemantics. What difference in design is there from say MK7 and MK8, 3D Land and 3D World, Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U? What gameplay or design differences are there when you play BotW on TV versus handheld? To answer all, none. Games are perfectly and completely playable in both modes as I just said, rendering what set-up you think they're supposedly designed for moot as it doesn't affect anything, certainly doesn't stop the Switch from being used as a handheld.

They are two seperate products, thus a poor comparison against a single streamlined device. Whether you want to believe the PS4 is portable is irrelevant anyway, we're talking about the Switch here, which is portable, again you've admitted this, so that should be the end of it unless you can explain how Nintendo supporting two portable systems makes sense.

Even less the same then, as the Switch's portability isn't limited by internet connection and will never have lag issues. No portable local multiplayer or tabletop mode either. 

So, you never noticed that portabe games usually have shorter levels and mission structures designed for small bursts of play, while console games are designed for long cinematic sessions? Ok...

You are not telling the truth. I did not admit the Switch is a portable.I admited that it has a secondary function that lets you take it with you for a while. It's main function is Home Console. And no the PS4 isn't a portable console, just like the Switch isn't. That was the point.

We are not comparing the quality of the services but the fact that the services exist and by themselves don't change what is the main purpose of the device. 

Yup the most popular games on 3ds lately have been like that, Fire Emblem, Pokemon, Monster Hunter...wait a second



Nem on 06 February 2017
Einsam_Delphin said:
Nem said:

So, you never noticed that portabe games usually have shorter levels and mission structures designed for small bursts of play, while console games are designed for long cinematic sessions? Ok...

You are not telling the truth. I did not admit the Switch is a portable.I admited that it has a secondary function that lets you take it with you for a while. It's main function is Home Console. And no the PS4 isn't a portable console, just like the Switch isn't. That was the point.

We are not comparing the quality of the services but the fact that the services exist and by themselves don't change what is the main purpose of the device. 

The games I mentioned, no, and even if that were true to a significant degree it has nothing to do with whether or not the Switch is portable.

The bolded is you admitting it's portable. That you think it's a secondary function doesn't change the fact that it can be played on the go.

Again, terms like "main purpose" and "secondary" n "primary" are irrelevant. It's playable on the go, that's all that matters in terms of whether or not the system is portable. Though, seeing as the whole point of the Switch is to be played anywhere, it's portability is definitely a big part of it's main purpose. You can't play anywhere if a TV and wall outlet are required.

If its irrelevant then the PS4 is a portable cause it has the same function with the Vita. That logic = zero sense.

Sure, if you want to get fooled by the advertisement, even though Nintnendo themselves say the Swtich is a home console. Go watch the Fire emblem direct, they say it. So, this is your opinion vs what Nintendo themselves recognised.

oniyide said:
Nem said:

So, you never noticed that portabe games usually have shorter levels and mission structures designed for small bursts of play, while console games are designed for long cinematic sessions? Ok...

You are not telling the truth. I did not admit the Switch is a portable.I admited that it has a secondary function that lets you take it with you for a while. It's main function is Home Console. And no the PS4 isn't a portable console, just like the Switch isn't. That was the point.

We are not comparing the quality of the services but the fact that the services exist and by themselves don't change what is the main purpose of the device. 

Yup the most popular games on 3ds lately have been like that, Fire Emblem, Pokemon, Monster Hunter...wait a second

I get the impression you are trying to just throw dirt in the air here. Yes, Fire emblem, pokemon and monster hunter ARE designed for short bursts of play. I don't even know how you can say such an outrageous thing.