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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What are your Expectations or Wishes for the new "switch" 2021 ?

Cobretti2 said:
Slownenberg said:

uhhhh wut?

You're gonna be waiting a lot longer than that if you are waiting for Switch 2. More like 3.5 to 4 years. Nintendo has zero reasons to kill off Switch anytime early, and 2 years would be extremely early.

Maybe, Nintendo tends to fall on their own sword towards the end of a gen. They like the pain I guess.

If they managed 4 years so be it. Happy to wait.

I cannot see any added benefit that justifies a new version of the console with the minor upgrade that they would possibly do now.

But they literally have done it with every single handheld they've ever had. There's never been a question about whether or not they will release an upgraded Switch model at some point. That's always been known. If anything Switch will have fewer different models than their previous handhelds. You may not be able to see the benefit, but Nintendo has clearly seen the benefit with every single handheld system they've ever released and continues to see the benefit today. Running games smoother, possibly 4k, bigger possibly better screen, bigger harddrive, possibly added features - a lot of people will see the benefit in that, both people who already own the system and want to upgrade and people who haven't bought the system yet and will be enticed into getting the premium version of the Switch.

As I said, the Switch 2 is still several years away, there is no doubt about that, to say it is two years away is laughable. It makes all the sense in the world that they will release one or two more models of the Switch (a premium hybrid and a Home version would make sense) in the intervening 3-4 years between now and when a Switch 2 comes out. Did you think it wasn't worth it for Sony to release the PS4 Pro, or Microsoft to release the Xbox One X, or Nintendo to release the numerous upgrades to GB, GBA, DS, 3DS??



Around the Network

Here’s another one, rather atypical of what I usually ask for.

ARM technology has increased WAY more than the CISC processors used in the Sony and Xbox lines. The Apple MacBook Air’s M1 chip is a thing of marvel, entry level Mac Minis and MacBook Air machines are outperforming more expensive PCs, and the battery life is insane - 20 hours. These entry level chips (8 core 3.2GHz ARM) are already stomping high end Intel chips in tests - as Intel chips can’t perform well for long due to heating problems - the MacBook Air doesn’t even need a fan. The only company who is going to compete with that line is Nvidia, and that’s where Nintendo gets their chips.

These chips are going to perform better, and they’re going to be much cheaper.

Nintendo bet on the right horse. Now I want to see them conquer.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

The only hardware I am missing is a mini dock to plug switch lite on TV. (even at 720 output). Also, with trails to charge extra joycon (cos lite users dont have ways to charge theirs.
Could also be used on regular switch (pretty handy when travelling).



The common argument against a substantially beefed-up Nintendo Switch is that there's no reason for it, 3rd party games aren't driving Switch sale (look at the charts, basically only Nintendo games are in the top-ten consistently) and Nintendo games themselves don't need the extra power as their strong points are fun, good gameplay and art designs based on creativity rather than technology. The argument thus goes further that even if after the release of PS5/Xbox Series S/X when less and less 3rd party AA-AAA ports will drop to the Switch, it doesn't matter because Nintendo only needs first party and indie games. So far, when an AAA game was ported to the Switch, it made Nintendo smile but ultimately, they don't require them!

I disagree with the above argument because Nintendo always talks about expanding the demography: games that attract more girls/females, non-gamers, senior people, etc. In fact, to expand and maintain new demographics is one of Nintendo's main business strategy. There are so many different demographics or to put it more accurately, player types, so that there are thousands of different reasons why a certain player type is buying a console or not (yet). It is one of Nintendo's core ambition to find out why certain player types haven't bought the Switch yet (leaving economy aside, of course if the Switch would be only $50 many would buy it even if they didn't even want one).

It just so happens that one very important and lucrative (because they usually spend lots of money for gaming products) player type is the so called (hard)core gamer. This is a very technophile player who wants to play his/her games in the best possible way. Therefore, naturally, this type of player is gaming on high-end PC and/or on the technically best available console(s). Naturally, this type of player probably will buy a PS5 and or an Xbox Series X at one point. But a Nintendo Switch? Not so much. unless portable gaming is important for them.

How can Nintendo catch these (hard)core gamers? Well, if the new Nintendo Switch is getting a substantial upgrade, so that 3rd party AA-AAA ports will become easier to make and will run and look generally good, Nintendo will get their attention and if they make enticing marketing campaigns they can bring them in. Of course, the question remains, why should they buy inferior ports of games they already have on their beefy PC and home consoles? Well, it's because the laziness of lying on the couch or bed while playing a fantastic AAA game is just too attractive. People are lazy! It's no secret. It's a strong selling point to sell laziness. Especially, adults in their 30' and 40' just appreciate it if they can come home after all the stress and just lay back and immerse themselves into a fantastic world.

I will never agree that 3rd party AA-AAA games aren't important for Nintendo. They always were and they always will be important for any console maker and streaming provider!

Last edited by Fight-the-Streets - on 13 December 2020

d21lewis said:
SKMBlake said:

The Wii U was basically a Wii model

And Nintendo always release new models during the lifecycle of their devices

The Wii was just a GameCube remodel.

So, what you're saying is, that the PS4 still hasn't outsold the Gamecube at 137M.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
Fight-the-Streets said:

The common argument against a substantially beefed-up Nintendo Switch is that there's no reason for it, 3rd party games aren't driving Switch sale (look at the charts, basically only Nintendo games are in the top-ten consistently) and Nintendo games themselves don't need the extra power as their strong points are fun, good gameplay and art designs based on creativity rather than technology. The argument thus goes further that even if after the release of PS5/Xbox Series S/X when less and less 3rd party AA-AAA ports will drop to the Switch, it doesn't matter because Nintendo only needs first party and indie games. So far, when an AAA game was ported to the Switch, it made Nintendo smile but ultimately, they don't require them!

I disagree with the above argument because Nintendo always talks about expanding the demography: games that attract more girls/females, non-gamers, senior people, etc. In fact, to expand and maintain new demographics is one of Nintendo's main business strategy. There are so many different demographics or to put it more accurately, player types, so that there are thousands of different reasons why a certain player type is buying a console or not (yet). It is one of Nintendo's core ambition to find out why certain player types haven't bought the Switch yet (leaving economy aside, of course if the Switch would be only $50 many would buy it even if they didn't even want one).

It just so happens that one very important and lucrative (because they usually spend lots of many for gaming products) player type is the so called (hard)core gamer. This is a very technophile player who wants to play his/her games in the best possible way. Therefore, naturally, this type of player is gaming on high-end PC and/or on the technically best available console(s). Naturally, this type of player probably will buy a PS5 and or an Xbox Series X at one point. But a Nintendo Switch? Not so much. unless portable gaming is important for them.

How can Nintendo catch these (hard)core gamers? Well, if the new Nintendo Switch is getting a substantial upgrade, so that 3rd party AA-AAA ports will become easier to make and will run and look generally good, Nintendo will get their attention and if they make enticing marketing campaigns they can bring them in. Of course, the question remains, why should they buy inferior ports of games they already have on their beefy PC and home consoles? Well, it's because the laziness of lying on the couch or bed while playing a fantastic AAA game is just too attractive. People are lazy! It's no secret. It's a strong selling point to sell laziness. Especially, adults in their 30' and 40' just appreciate it if they can come home after all the stress and just lay back and immerse themselves into a fantastic world.

I will never agree that 3rd party AA-AAA games aren't important for Nintendo. They always were and they always will be important for any console maker and streaming provider!

That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10.

This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out.

While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Discounts of older games, and maybe a proper Virtual Console instead of the one tied to the online fee. Though I cannot imagine this happening.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

RolStoppable said:
Fight-the-Streets said:

The common argument against a substantially beefed-up Nintendo Switch is that there's no reason for it, 3rd party games aren't driving Switch sale (look at the charts, basically only Nintendo games are in the top-ten consistently) and Nintendo games themselves don't need the extra power as their strong points are fun, good gameplay and art designs based on creativity rather than technology. The argument thus goes further that even if after the release of PS5/Xbox Series S/X when less and less 3rd party AA-AAA ports will drop to the Switch, it doesn't matter because Nintendo only needs first party and indie games. So far, when an AAA game was ported to the Switch, it made Nintendo smile but ultimately, they don't require them!

I disagree with the above argument because Nintendo always talks about expanding the demography: games that attract more girls/females, non-gamers, senior people, etc. In fact, to expand and maintain new demographics is one of Nintendo's main business strategy. There are so many different demographics or to put it more accurately, player types, so that there are thousands of different reasons why a certain player type is buying a console or not (yet). It is one of Nintendo's core ambition to find out why certain player types haven't bought the Switch yet (leaving economy aside, of course if the Switch would be only $50 many would buy it even if they didn't even want one).

It just so happens that one very important and lucrative (because they usually spend lots of many for gaming products) player type is the so called (hard)core gamer. This is a very technophile player who wants to play his/her games in the best possible way. Therefore, naturally, this type of player is gaming on high-end PC and/or on the technically best available console(s). Naturally, this type of player probably will buy a PS5 and or an Xbox Series X at one point. But a Nintendo Switch? Not so much. unless portable gaming is important for them.

How can Nintendo catch these (hard)core gamers? Well, if the new Nintendo Switch is getting a substantial upgrade, so that 3rd party AA-AAA ports will become easier to make and will run and look generally good, Nintendo will get their attention and if they make enticing marketing campaigns they can bring them in. Of course, the question remains, why should they buy inferior ports of games they already have on their beefy PC and home consoles? Well, it's because the laziness of lying on the couch or bed while playing a fantastic AAA game is just too attractive. People are lazy! It's no secret. It's a strong selling point to sell laziness. Especially, adults in their 30' and 40' just appreciate it if they can come home after all the stress and just lay back and immerse themselves into a fantastic world.

I will never agree that 3rd party AA-AAA games aren't important for Nintendo. They always were and they always will be important for any console maker and streaming provider!

That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10.

This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out.

While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality.

You are falling for the bullshitting of the 'AAA'-industry if you believe all the DLC, microtransactions, ultimate editions and whatnot is to finance the games. At the same time they extract increasing amounts of money from the customer (as is evident in the growth of the industry as a whole), they fire workers and make more and more cost cutting things. That is why you have more multiplayer, because single-player usually needs more handcrafted content which is more expensive. That's why you have more run-of-the-mill missions and content, because it saves money to copy the content and just change the level of the enemies and recombine some other visuals (not make new ones for the mission, no, recombine other visuals already existing). The result is something like Marvel's Avengers, very much a game that just simply is repeated content. But still they want more money. That is not to finance the games, it is to finance the CEOs and shareholders.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:

You are falling for the bullshitting of the 'AAA'-industry if you believe all the DLC, microtransactions, ultimate editions and whatnot is to finance the games. At the same time they extract increasing amounts of money from the customer (as is evident in the growth of the industry as a whole), they fire workers and make more and more cost cutting things. That is why you have more multiplayer, because single-player usually needs more handcrafted content which is more expensive. That's why you have more run-of-the-mill missions and content, because it saves money to copy the content and just change the level of the enemies and recombine some other visuals (not make new ones for the mission, no, recombine other visuals already existing). The result is something like Marvel's Avengers, very much a game that just simply is repeated content. But still they want more money. That is not to finance the games, it is to finance the CEOs and shareholders.

You are trying too hard to find a flaw in my post. The game industry can only sustain their games because of all the nickel and diming. It can only be lucrative if the most deplorable practices are employed. That's the point.

What you are responding to is something along the lines of "it's not possible to make games without all that rubbish, so gamers have to accept that all the rubbish has to be in games." But that's not what I am saying nor implying, hence the sentence right after the one you highlighted in bold in my post.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:
Fight-the-Streets said:

The common argument against a substantially beefed-up Nintendo Switch is that there's no reason for it, 3rd party games aren't driving Switch sale (look at the charts, basically only Nintendo games are in the top-ten consistently) and Nintendo games themselves don't need the extra power as their strong points are fun, good gameplay and art designs based on creativity rather than technology. The argument thus goes further that even if after the release of PS5/Xbox Series S/X when less and less 3rd party AA-AAA ports will drop to the Switch, it doesn't matter because Nintendo only needs first party and indie games. So far, when an AAA game was ported to the Switch, it made Nintendo smile but ultimately, they don't require them!

I disagree with the above argument because Nintendo always talks about expanding the demography: games that attract more girls/females, non-gamers, senior people, etc. In fact, to expand and maintain new demographics is one of Nintendo's main business strategy. There are so many different demographics or to put it more accurately, player types, so that there are thousands of different reasons why a certain player type is buying a console or not (yet). It is one of Nintendo's core ambition to find out why certain player types haven't bought the Switch yet (leaving economy aside, of course if the Switch would be only $50 many would buy it even if they didn't even want one).

It just so happens that one very important and lucrative (because they usually spend lots of many for gaming products) player type is the so called (hard)core gamer. This is a very technophile player who wants to play his/her games in the best possible way. Therefore, naturally, this type of player is gaming on high-end PC and/or on the technically best available console(s). Naturally, this type of player probably will buy a PS5 and or an Xbox Series X at one point. But a Nintendo Switch? Not so much. unless portable gaming is important for them.

How can Nintendo catch these (hard)core gamers? Well, if the new Nintendo Switch is getting a substantial upgrade, so that 3rd party AA-AAA ports will become easier to make and will run and look generally good, Nintendo will get their attention and if they make enticing marketing campaigns they can bring them in. Of course, the question remains, why should they buy inferior ports of games they already have on their beefy PC and home consoles? Well, it's because the laziness of lying on the couch or bed while playing a fantastic AAA game is just too attractive. People are lazy! It's no secret. It's a strong selling point to sell laziness. Especially, adults in their 30' and 40' just appreciate it if they can come home after all the stress and just lay back and immerse themselves into a fantastic world.

I will never agree that 3rd party AA-AAA games aren't important for Nintendo. They always were and they always will be important for any console maker and streaming provider!

That's just wrong. Sony, Microsoft and AAA third parties have found that the only way to make that demographic lucrative is by slapping additional fees on just about everything. Online multiplayer costs nothing on the PC, but a paywall is mandatory to have a chance at profitability with such a console. Third party games are full of microtransactions, DLCs and commonly release with 3+ editions. The latest initiative is the rise of the cost of the base game by $/€10.

This is what puts the wants of core gamers and the so-called hardcore gamers at odds with each other. If Nintendo chased after hardcore gamers, it would be very detrimental for their business because core gamers would turn away in disgust at the new pricing structures to finance all the nonsense. One key aspect of the appeal of Switch is that much of the game industry bullshit gets left out.

While it's factual that Sony has had much higher revenues than Nintendo, it's also factual that Nintendo has earned higher profits than Sony. That's why it's short-sighted of you to only look at money spent by customers when it's equally important to consider the money spent by manufacturers. What Nintendo has done is and will be more lucrative than Sony's approach, so advocating for Nintendo to pursue a direction of less profits is, quite frankly, stupid of you. As is your closing paragraph, because you proclaim that you will deny reality.

At bold: Very true, that's one big thing why I love Nintendo, they leave most of the bullshit out. I mean they even sold Super Mario Run for $10 with no additional costs - but obviously people are too stupid to see the good deal in it. During the whole PS3 era I never paid for PS Plus and for PS4 it was not before this year that I paid for it (because I thought Fall Guy would be a game my girlfriend would like, you got it for free with a PS Plus account, but it was no game for her - back to Super Mario Party).

Back to topic: Obviously we have a different opinion about core and hardcore gamers and the difference between them. Let me try to explain it from another point of view: There are player types who don't like Nintendo games at all, simply none of their IP's. But they like AA-AAA 3rd party games. Some like Action-Adventures with realistic graphics like Assassins Creed, Tomb Raider, GTA, Red Dead Redemption..., some like shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Destiny, Rainbow Six: Siege,... others prefer racing games like Dirt 5, F1 2020, Project Cars, Need for Speed,... and others like RPG's like Final Fantasy, Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout, Persona 5,...or fighting games like Street Fighter 5, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, The King of Fighters IV,... or realistic sports games like NHL, NFL, UFC, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 1+2,...and many more. All these games are not available on Nintendo Switch. If they were, some (and we're talking about millions) would buy or at the very least be tempted to buy a Nintendo Switch. Again, why should they buy one if they already own a superior version of the game on PC/PS4/PS5/XOne/Xbox Series S/X? The answer is the same as before: Because it's lazy and therefore attractive to play those games comfortably on the couch or bed, plus as an additional bonus you can play it on the go.

Granted, if it would be possible (and in reality it's not possible) to have a super high-end hybrid console with all the bells and whistles, good battery life but without overheating and ports from PS5/Xbox Series X/S would technically be easy and cheap to port, surely Nintendo would bring out such a hybrid and surely virtually all 3rd parties would bring out virtually all of their games to the Nintendo Switch (assuming that it would continue to sell like hot cakes). Certainly, Nintendo feels no bitterness against 3rd party AA-AAA games.