Is a handheld device smaller than a WiiU gamepad, designed for portability thus having to be able to run off of a small battery, able to run the same games other machines with more room for larger console components, designed solely to run off of a seemingly limitless power source ie the power outlet on the wall, can? Is this your question?..

If so, no.

This. I expect it to run the same though. The Switch isn't powerful enough to run Titanfall or anything.

Most likely. Very very likely.

Thou art wise, sir.

Thank you sir.

They're not the only ones saying this so it sounds pretty good so far!

You can have both graphics and gameplay. As a consumer I desire both.

Plus, not all graphics effects/techniques actually increase development costs, some do the complete opposite and reduce costs.

Very true, you can have both, but the push for more pixels in the latest fifa/Cod remake are pushing prices up, games will be approaching £80 in the next gen. 

It cost $9m to produce the graphics for a ps3/360 title with the costs expected to double for the current gen, DS games on the other hand took $1m to produce. 

Gaming CEOs have said this is why games they cannot franchise are no longer profitable, reducing the likelihood they will take a risk on a new IP, with graphic costs it's incredibly risky to take a chance on a new IP. needing to sell over 1million copies to break even. 

That is killing innovation, at what point do we as consumers say the costs are getting ridiculous, the graphics are good enough, spend more on innovative game play, new story's and new characters? 

I've already seen estimations that on current trends the next generation of consoles will require £80 games. £60 this gen. 

All for more polygons which do little to actually cause more immersion, we need more innovation like VR to take gaming to the next level and leave the graphical quality where it is for a while in my opinion.

I'm hoping some CEOs will feel the same and look for an easier profit margin on the switch with roughly half the development costs, it just needs the user base to entice them 

Fifa/CoD don't have to concern themselves with development costs. They re-use allot of assets, engine technologies and online infrustructure every year... And those franchises rake in billions. Most of their budgets are actually advertising.
If Activision/EA increase the cost to buy Call of Duty/Fifa, then it is because they want more profit, not because they are doing it tough.

Odd. Because we had games with $100+ million budgets during the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 era with Red Dead.
And $70- million dollar budgets during the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox/Dreamcast etc' with the likes of Shenmue.
Square Enix sunk $145 million into Final Fantasy 7 during the PS1 era. ($45 million was soley development.)

If you wish to make a game with a lower budget, it is easily achievable, it is why we have 3rd party game engines, 3rd party middleware.

A large portion of costs are being sunk into things like motion capture and voice work, which can be avoided if that is the path the developer wishes to take.

If a publisher does not see a potential return on their investment, then you can rest assured that the budget would be decreased... A massive chunk of a games budget is advertising anyway, which does eat into the profitability.

I disagree. Such large budgets have allowed us to take some great strides in graphics and engine technologies that have benefitted the entire industry.

There will always be room for games with lower budgets, it is why the indie scene has exploded, why kickstarter has allowed for smaller studios to flourish.

It is great that we keep pushing forwards with innovation rather than stagnating and living in the past, I am a PC gamer, I hate how console hold back graphics for long periods of time.

I already pay upwards of $120 AUD for games. Which is about £75. It honestly doesn't bother me.

VR is a gimmick. It ain't happening, just like fetch.

No. What CEO's are doing is looking for ways to increase monetization, DLC is becoming smaller, cheaper and more of them, Micro-transactions are a thing that is getting bigger and bigger... And even leveraging the ability to advertise in the actual games.

They are looking for better bang-for-buck approaches in advertising, such as E-Sports and Sponsoring, they are consolidating development costs... EA did this by making all their games on Frostbite rather than licensing a 3rd party game engine.
They are having paid "rental" schemes such as EA's Access and Xbox Game pass.


As for the Switch... That is entirely dependent on how well it sells over the long term, if it flops like the Wii U, then it will probably not be worth anyone's time to release a game on it...
Remember the combined gamers of the PC, Xbox and Playstation is far larger than what the Switch will ever be, even when combined with the Wii U and 3DS  and thus more demanding multiplatform games will target those platforms primarily.

It's all well and good to think that the Switch will have half the development costs, but if it only sells a fraction of the amount of units, what's the point? You still loose economically.

Well I think everyone is aware it's a "second system" which I think is actually an unfair term because the games are so different to the other consoles.

Ultimately it will get games because the handheld developers are going to produce software for it, Nintendo started moving their handheld development teams over a while ago so they could produce more games for the switch.

Ultimately I hope it's a success, a strong Nintendo is good for the gaming industry.