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

Let me give you my answer through an old Sonic meme.



Around the Network

Nope, not interest in portable gaiming... would probably buy one from Sony but not looking forward to it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

freebs2 said:

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).

This. Just like Nvidia Shield portable and Shield console. Switch hybrid and Switch home console. Make both the same price so the hybrid has the portable value and the console has the performance value. The console could also cost more depending on it's level of performance, but shouldn't be any more than $50 - $100 over the hybrid or it may lead to fans complaining the hybrid is too weak.



I totally read the title wrong and didn't read the OP.

I agree with the sentiment that Nintendo could/should have the line of Switch with HH, Console only and the hybrid making three options that can play the same game, cost a little different and please more demographics.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

freebs2 said:

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).

Not really man... there is one think called anchorage.

When you go the theathers and they have the small popcorn for 10 bucks and the giant for 12 bucks... you instead of thinking both are to expensive you think "why would I buy this smaller one for just this few bucks difference when I can buy this big one"... so people could actually be more interested in Switch thinking that for only X more they can have it portable.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
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.

well said, nothing to add



DonFerrari said:
freebs2 said:

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).

Not really man... there is one think called anchorage.

When you go the theathers and they have the small popcorn for 10 bucks and the giant for 12 bucks... you instead of thinking both are to expensive you think "why would I buy this smaller one for just this few bucks difference when I can buy this big one"... so people could actually be more interested in Switch thinking that for only X more they can have it portable.

I don't think popcorn and a game console are very comparable products.

Popcorn at theaters are an impulse purchase, you wouldn't a make an evaluation on utility for just 2 bucks and in that short moment of  doubt you'll likely go for the larger size.

On the other hand the decision to buy a console is mostly not immediate, it could take days or weeks. If a customer can choose an alternative Switch that is say $100 cheaper he will inevitably question the utility of portability. If the "only TV" version of the Switch would cost only 20$ less than a regular one, it wouldn't have any reason to exisit since, as you indicated, customers would inevitably choose the standard version.



freebs2 said:
DonFerrari said:

Not really man... there is one think called anchorage.

When you go the theathers and they have the small popcorn for 10 bucks and the giant for 12 bucks... you instead of thinking both are to expensive you think "why would I buy this smaller one for just this few bucks difference when I can buy this big one"... so people could actually be more interested in Switch thinking that for only X more they can have it portable.

I don't think popcorn and a game console are very comparable products.

Popcorn at theaters are an impulse purchase, you wouldn't a make an evaluation on utility for just 2 bucks and in that short moment of  doubt you'll likely go for the larger size.

On the other hand the decision to buy a console is mostly not immediate, it could take days or weeks. If a customer can choose an alternative Switch that is say $100 cheaper he will inevitably question the utility of portability. If the "only TV" version of the Switch would cost only 20$ less than a regular one, it wouldn't have any reason to exisit since, as you indicated, customers would inevitably choose the standard version.

The work of Nintendo is to see what price difference would most benefit them... If they can sell HH for all this time for a price that initially is almost the same as a console but much weaker and companies like Apple can sell several models of iPhone for a great price difference while only changing the internal memory I see no prohibition on Nintendo probing the 3 models of Switch, you can either buy the dedicated versions for a little less or buy the complete version.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

No, it would kind of defeat the purpose for me.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

No, but I would be interested in a Nintendo Switch ala DS-3DS, handheld only with dual screen and an actual d-pad.