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

Forums - Gaming - Should Nintendo have delayed Switch until late 2017?

 

Switch should've been delayed until late 2017

yes 59 37.11%
 
no 100 62.89%
 
Total:159
Soundwave on 08 March 2017

I really don't like late year launches to be honest though. What was wrong with the old model of launching in September-ish?

That way early adopters could get theirs, you didn't have Christmas shoppers and early adopters and suck ass scalpers all trying the get in on the same shipment and lining up in freezing weather, etc. etc. etc. It sucks.

I think a August/September launch could've worked for Nintendo too, but the fact is the earlier you launch, the earlier you begin the cycle of building userbase, that can't be understated either.



Around the Network
Soundwave on 08 March 2017
HintHRO said:

The Switch's launch is a mess. Offers barely big games until the end of 2017 (unless you consider 50-60 dollar minigames/indiegames/direct ports to be big). Lots of hardware and software issues. No multimedia apps like Netflix or Spotify, no internet browser, goes back to friendcodes. It's also way too expensive for the technology and line-up it's offering. All these things could be solved if they waited until the end of 2017. They could make it on par with X1 by removing HD Rumble and therefore expect more support from other studios.

I think most Switch buyers are ignoring the future of Switch because of Zelda and most will be disappointed eventually. Splatoon 2, Mario, Fire Emblem and Xenoblade are mostly for the die-hard Nintendo gamer. You need to  offer a big variety of games to all sorts of gamers, not just one.

I think you're sleeping on Splatoon 2 ... wouldn't surprise if that becomes one of the biggest IP in Japan and really explodes with S2. The first game sold really well there but was held back by Wii U and had its legs cut off by Nintendo killing the system. 

To be honest I think Nintendo could have had Mario Kart 8 Deluxe for day 1 too ... they just chose not to because it would be too much. 

Don't assume what they launched with is all they could've launched or if they launched in fall you magically would've gotten Zelda, Splatoon 2, ARMS, Mario Kart 8, Xenoblade, Mario Odyessy all at launch. That's just stupid. 



superchunk on 08 March 2017
Turkish said:
superchunk said:

It would've been hotter, less reliable and more expensive?

Err, the new chip delivers 2x the performance at 15W.

"NVIDIA says the Jetson TX2 can either offer twice the performance of the older model… or twice the power efficiency."

So we'd likely get games at locked 1080p in docked.

ok, my point still stands. I retract my previous quote of this comment. You still will likely have a hotter, less reliable and more expensive solution or a lower heat, less reliable and more expensive solution. Meaning it still makes more sense to keep the tweaked X1 which has had years to improve production at a lower cost considering you wouldn't have gotten any performance improvement.

 

That means you have a choice of:

  1. Running the Jetson TX2 at 7.5 watts and offering performance that’s on par with its 10W predecessor
  2. Running at 15W for 2X the performance


Intrinsic on 08 March 2017

No, besides the people that could be burned by having nothing to play are people that would have already bought the console. Releasing now gives them a chance to not only isolate the teething issues common with every launch hardware but also set them up to sell it at its current price to the most die hard of fans then when there is more content available around the end of the year maybe even drop the price or bundle it with a game.