CrazyGamer2017 said: Good for Nintendo, but not good for those who care to have better hardware. If one can expect flaws in one's system of choice to be improved on the next time they release new hardware cause they want to keep motivation of people to buy it, well Nintendo does not have to worry about that. Why improve hardware, just create new concepts (which is fine, don't get me wrong on that) Why improve current flaws? People are going to buy the machine anyways. Examples: Why better battery life? 3 Hours for games like Zelda is fine, people buy it regardless, Why choosing better CPU's and GPU's. The Tegra 1 chip chosen was already outdated by the Tegra 2 chip when the Switch was released. But Nintendo still went for the inferior Tegra 1 and did that stop the sales? Nope. Why making a home system, a dedicated one I mean? People don't seem to care about that, they seem to think some kind of cross system is the same as an actual home system. About chatting, everybody including some Nintendo fans agree that their solution to chat in online play using cables and a smart phone, is bad, really bad but does that stop the system from selling? Nope, so why even bothering to implement a simple chatting system as you see on PC/PS4/Xbox? No reason since people buy it anyway. Ok then at least this hardware means a cheap retail price? Nope, it's as expensive if not more expensive than other systems that are way more powerful like the PS4... Bottom line is that the only true winner here is Nintendo, fans not so much and hardcore gamers, not at all. Too bad cause I would have loved to one day explore the realms of BOTW or play Mario in his Odyssey or play that 4th episode of Metroid Prime as I really enjoyed the first 3 episodes back when I had a GameCube and later on a Wii. My hopes so far were that one day Nintendo would make better hardware that would bring their games to modern day graphics but Why would they do that? What motivation for them to do that? There's always a slim chance that they do cause no one can tell for sure what will be done in 5 or 10 years from now but the chance is small really small... |
Just a couple of points:
Nintendo had NO other option besides the Tegra 1 at the time. The Tegra 2 had just released as a 900$ developmentkit and to my knowledge not been used in any consumer electronics to date (not sure about the cars it was designed for).
The Tegra 1 at the time was a relatively new chip (newer than the hardware the OG PS4 had in relation to it's launch) and was at the time the strongest mobile chip on the market.
Teardowns show that Nintendo literally squeezed the biggest possible battery into the system, so a bigger battery life was just not feasable. That being said a Tegra 2 refresh, wich would double battery life and likely boost docked performance is likely down the road.
Nintendo went the route they did because they hit a roadblock with their home consoles and even their portable business with the 3DS was in decline. They had to do something to differentiate them in th market and that's what they did.
Lastly BoTW and Odyssey may not have all the shine they could have had had on a stronger, dedicated home system, but both look gorgeous on the big as well as the small screen and most importantly, play fantastic. The hardware did not restrict them in that respect. Nintendo utilization of stylization lends itself really well to the hardware as well.
Lastly, if you were fine with playing on the Wii at the time, the Switch should service you well.
fatslob-:O said: Not the best news since this indicates that the Switch is on track to do 3DS numbers for it's first year despite the Switch holding a noticeable lead early on but the performance of the Switch is OK so far ... |
The 3DS did 15million in it's first year and outsold the Ps4 with that. If the Switch is on track to do that without the pricecut that propelled the 3DS sales it is absolutely fine.