Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Would you be interested in a different Switch ala PS Vita TV?

caffeinade said:
RolStoppable said:

Why can it only stream and not do anything on its own?

It can play games too.

Remember that news story a month or so ago about Gamecube and Wii games getting ported to Nvidia's device.
This is the device the games are getting ported too.

It can also play Tomb Raider (2013), Half-Life 2, Portal and more.

But aren't the games just being streamed? I am pretty sure they are.



Around the Network
Baddman said:
caffeinade said:

It can play games too.

Remember that news story a month or so ago about Gamecube and Wii games getting ported to Nvidia's device.
This is the device the games are getting ported too.

It can also play Tomb Raider (2013), Half-Life 2, Portal and more.

But aren't the games just being streamed? I am pretty sure they are.

Nvidia offers a game streaming service, where people can rent game-time on powerful servers from Nvidia.
The games I listed run on the console itself (though you could probably stream the games if you wanted to).



From a commercial point of view a cheaper "only docked" version would probably backfire. It would only make the regular switch look more expensive a less convenient, thus making pressure for Nintendo to lower the price. At the same the "only TV" model should still cost less since it lacks the main feature of portability. In the end it would only be a vicious cycle.

Imo, an "only TV" model could have more chances to work if priced the same as the regular Switch. In that case it should offer better graphical quality to compensate the loss of portability (higher resolution and the likes).

Last edited by freebs2 - on 04 January 2018

SegataSanshiro said:
Normchacho said:

Nope. There are those of us who are interested in Nintendo games but aren't interested in their gimmicks.


You would be in the severe minority and not enough people to justify it just like Vita TV. Just because thousands of retro SEGA fans say they want a Dreamcast 2 doesn't mean overall there is enough real demand to make it happen. Your voice along with a few others in the minuscule percentage are irrelevant.  The idea is still stupid. So yep.  If you don't want to take it on the go...you don't have to. You can leave it in the dock. Really hard I know. You were never going to buy one anyway.  Anytime people like you who toss the word Nintendo and gimmick in the same sentence and a few others show up demand they change this or that are people who never planned to buy anyway. You won't be missed as a noncustomer. It's not happening so get over it. It wouldn't be worth the effort for them and it seems the Switch is selling an alarming rate so it's pretty clear they don't need to change a thing.

Get me understand this, the idea it's stupid, but using the switch the way the idea describes it it's not stupid. OK. So i have to pay for a screen, battery,  detachable controllers, motion sensors and what not just for the option that I will never use... OK, that is not stupid at all...



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Nope. Maybe if released as a late system life revision or my dream retro console that plays every Nintendo home and portable console but a box that plays Switch titles goes against the entire point of the concept.



Around the Network

It'd end up costing close to the same amount, and I'd probably feel like I was missing out on a key aspect.

Jule like with Vita TV, several games wouldn't even work like that.



sergiodaly said:
SegataSanshiro said:


You would be in the severe minority and not enough people to justify it just like Vita TV. Just because thousands of retro SEGA fans say they want a Dreamcast 2 doesn't mean overall there is enough real demand to make it happen. Your voice along with a few others in the minuscule percentage are irrelevant.  The idea is still stupid. So yep.  If you don't want to take it on the go...you don't have to. You can leave it in the dock. Really hard I know. You were never going to buy one anyway.  Anytime people like you who toss the word Nintendo and gimmick in the same sentence and a few others show up demand they change this or that are people who never planned to buy anyway. You won't be missed as a noncustomer. It's not happening so get over it. It wouldn't be worth the effort for them and it seems the Switch is selling an alarming rate so it's pretty clear they don't need to change a thing.

Get me understand this, the idea it's stupid, but using the switch the way the idea describes it it's not stupid. OK. So i have to pay for a screen, battery,  detachable controllers, motion sensors and what not just for the option that I will never use... OK, that is not stupid at all...

It's stupid for Nintendo tp put in the effort for something almost no one will buy because as proven with Shieeild TV,Ouya and Vita TV the demand is not there. You don't matter. Sorry but it's true. Either buy one or don't. Nintendo isn't missing you.



SegataSanshiro said:
sergiodaly said:

Get me understand this, the idea it's stupid, but using the switch the way the idea describes it it's not stupid. OK. So i have to pay for a screen, battery,  detachable controllers, motion sensors and what not just for the option that I will never use... OK, that is not stupid at all...

It's stupid for Nintendo tp put in the effort for something almost no one will buy because as proven with Shieeild TV,Ouya and Vita TV the demand is not there. You don't matter. Sorry but it's true. Either buy one or don't. Nintendo isn't missing you.

Once again, why are you so pissy about this? He's not saying it would be a good idea for Nintendo, he's saying that there would be people who would rather have a verison of the Switch that was just a normal home console.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

caffeinade said:
RolStoppable said:

But Shield can't do anything worth of value, so it's obscenely expensive.

The Switch cannot play Portal or Half-Life 2.
I cannot stream games from my PC to the Switch.
I cannot stream video from a range of platforms on the Switch.


The Shield TV cannot play Super Mario Odyssey.

Off-topic - What if Switch will eventually be enabled to do such things? It would add a lot of value to the package for PC gamers.

What would Nintendo lose by doing so? I would be a very bold move but I wouldn't rule it out completely.

Last edited by freebs2 - on 04 January 2018

freebs2 said:
caffeinade said:

The Switch cannot play Portal or Half-Life 2.
I cannot stream games from my PC to the Switch.
I cannot stream video from a range of platforms on the Switch.


The Shield TV cannot play Super Mario Odyssey.

Off-topic - What if Switch will eventually be enabled to do such things? It would add a lot of value to the package for PC gamers.

What would Nintendo lose by doing so? I would be a very bold move but I wouldn't rule it out completely.

It depends.

If Nintendo started advertising the feature, then it would be a really big deal.
It would be sort of like extending an arm out to an untappable consumer base, from a console perspective.
By allowing and endorsing the use of the Switch as a companion device Nintendo gains access to a market who potentially would not otherwise buy their device.

Comparing the Switch to the Steam link or Nvidia's attempts is a bit flawed.
Nintendo is a very powerful brand name, and they have IP that are unmatched in the industry.
I could see many PC gamers picking up a Switch to play Odyssey, BotW and other such exclusives whilst also planing to use the device for streaming.
The Switch has a sort of gravity that Nvidia's devices lacked.
The Switch feels like it has a reason to exist; it is an item that could be purchased, with that purchase being justifiable.

As a streaming device, I cannot say it is well suited to the task.
The Joycon attach to the device a bit to loosely, the screen isn't the best and the battery life is pretty poor (though it may be much better whist streaming).
The Switch has support for decently high quality video encode / decode via hardware, so that is nice and should reduce battery drain a bit.

Overall, it is more of a 80/20 thing.
Most people won't use it, but those who do will love it, and will be a positive force for the Switch's ecosystem.
It would not take too much for Nintendo to allow PC streaming, so I say go for it.

Last edited by caffeinade - on 04 January 2018