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 ?

Fight-the-Streets said:

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.

It's plain hope on your part that there are millions of gamers out there the way you describe them. To me, your post sounds a lot like you are trying to come up with some kind of reasoning that would justify Nintendo doing something that you personally would want to play on Switch (more AAA third party games), but there's no evidence whatsoever to support your post.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Fight-the-Streets said:

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.

It's plain hope on your part that there are millions of gamers out there the way you describe them. To me, your post sounds a lot like you are trying to come up with some kind of reasoning that would justify Nintendo doing something that you personally would want to play on Switch (more AAA third party games), but there's no evidence whatsoever to support your post.

I think most console gamers play the one or other 3rd party AA-AAA game. Most just don't play them on the Switch. As a sportsmen I just say that a former Champion will never accept that others have become better than him. I was there when Nintendo had the best and most 3rd party support (NES and SNES), I was there when they started to struggle but still got some good chunk of 3rd party support (N64 and GameCube) and I was also there when they started their Blue Ocean strategy (starting with the DS and cumulating with the Wii) which brought them big success but it came at a price: 3rd party support on the Wii was bullshit (at least for me and many other core gamers). The WiiU initially had promising 3rd party support but unfortunately, Nintendo fucked up. Then came the Switch. In retrospective, looking back, it weren't the 3rd parties wanting to leave Nintendo, it was Nintendo who made the 3rd parties life difficult: The Wii was technically to inferior for triple A games, the WiiU was an economical disaster and therefore, the 3rd parties left the sinking ship and on the Switch the 3rd parties really try hard (some of them at least) but ultimately, it's too difficult/time consuming/expensive to port triple A games.

Coming back to the comparison with sports, lets compare it with Tennis: In Tennis you have 4 main goals: being No. 1, winning Grand Slams, winning Masters and winning lower tier tournaments. In gaming (for console manufacturers) the 4 main goals are: being No. 1 (= highest profit), most units sold in hardware/software (= Grand Slams), having the best 3rd party AA-AAA support (= Masters) and finally having the best Indie support (= lower tier).

Currently, Nintendo is on a streak to be No. 1, selling most units (hardware and software) and at least playing with the best of the best when it comes to Indie support. But they are losing the Masters, the 3rd party AA-AAA games. If Nintendo would have those games, they would bring huge amounts of additional licensing fees, Nintendo should not miss on that money. As a sportsmen, when you once were the king of winning Master titles, why should you suddenly abandon them? Maybe you can argue that with the Blue Ocean strategy they have left the sport and created their own new sport without competition but that's not true as still many of the same players are under your contract (3rd parties).

Of course there a significant difference between sports and companies: The only goal companies have is to make as much profit as possible, no matter how. But with nothing you will not make profit that's why a gaming company needs to do something to achieve profits: i.e. selling consoles, accessories, subscriptions, games and dlc.



What the hell is DLSS?

I don’t expect things. Why should I do that?



I am a Nintendo fanatic.

Fight-the-Streets said:

I think most console gamers play the one or other 3rd party AA-AAA game. Most just don't play them on the Switch. As a sportsmen I just say that a former Champion will never accept that others have become better than him. I was there when Nintendo had the best and most 3rd party support (NES and SNES), I was there when they started to struggle but still got some good chunk of 3rd party support (N64 and GameCube) and I was also there when they started their Blue Ocean strategy (starting with the DS and cumulating with the Wii) which brought them big success but it came at a price: 3rd party support on the Wii was bullshit (at least for me and many other core gamers). The WiiU initially had promising 3rd party support but unfortunately, Nintendo fucked up. Then came the Switch. In retrospective, looking back, it weren't the 3rd parties wanting to leave Nintendo, it was Nintendo who made the 3rd parties life difficult: The Wii was technically to inferior for triple A games, the WiiU was an economical disaster and therefore, the 3rd parties left the sinking ship and on the Switch the 3rd parties really try hard (some of them at least) but ultimately, it's too difficult/time consuming/expensive to port triple A games.

Coming back to the comparison with sports, lets compare it with Tennis: In Tennis you have 4 main goals: being No. 1, winning Grand Slams, winning Masters and winning lower tier tournaments. In gaming (for console manufacturers) the 4 main goals are: being No. 1 (= highest profit), most units sold in hardware/software (= Grand Slams), having the best 3rd party AA-AAA support (= Masters) and finally having the best Indie support (= lower tier).

Currently, Nintendo is on a streak to be No. 1, selling most units (hardware and software) and at least playing with the best of the best when it comes to Indie support. But they are losing the Masters, the 3rd party AA-AAA games. If Nintendo would have those games, they would bring huge amounts of additional licensing fees, Nintendo should not miss on that money. As a sportsmen, when you once were the king of winning Master titles, why should you suddenly abandon them? Maybe you can argue that with the Blue Ocean strategy they have left the sport and created their own new sport without competition but that's not true as still many of the same players are under your contract (3rd parties).

Of course there a significant difference between sports and companies: The only goal companies have is to make as much profit as possible, no matter how. But with nothing you will not make profit that's why a gaming company needs to do something to achieve profits: i.e. selling consoles, accessories, subscriptions, games and dlc.

Sounds like you don't remember what NES and SNES support was really like. You'll have a hard time finding any gamers goshing about NES and SNES games from today's AAA third party publishers. It's one of the most faulty premises that is making its rounds on gaming forums, that once upon a time Nintendo had all the third party support and because of that, they are supposed to gain it all back. The vast majority of noteworthy NES and SNES games came from Japan while the vast majority of today's AAA games is not coming from Japan. The landscape changed drastically because Sony and Microsoft drew PC game developers to consoles, something that Nintendo had never achieved before, primarily because they never really went for it.

Your sports analogy doesn't work because you add two premises (AAA third party support and indie support) that are entirely false to begin with. Another premise (most units sold in hardware/software) is only partially correct. While high unit sales usually correlate with high profits, unit sales aren't an essential goal like profits. The most obvious case in point is Nintendo keeping their software prices high; that's something that is detrimental to unit sales because cheaper software would sell more copies, but it's beneficial for profit. Another good example is selling hardware at a profit or a loss; selling at a loss improves the chance to sell more units, but it can become quickly detrimental to profits in both the short and the long term. That's why at the end of the day the bottom line is the only thing that matters.

The bottom line is what you struggle with. You only see a potential for a huge amount of additional royalty fees if Nintendo went for more AAA third party support, but you completely ignore the money Nintendo would have to spend to get to those royalty fees. Furthermore, when you compare the launch-aligned tie ratios of Switch and the PS4, you'll see that the PS4 hasn't been doing much better than Switch (the difference is under 1 game per console sold), which in turn means that Switch software sales wouldn't see any significant boost from more AAA third party support because there are only so many games that gamers buy (unless you believe that Nintendo console owners would buy many more games than PS console owners). So the most likely outcome of more AAA third party software on Switch would not be additive sales, but rather a shift in sales from more profitable software (what Switch currently has) to less profitable software (what AAA third party games are). I already told you before that Nintendo's approach brings in higher profits than Sony's approach and you have to remember that Sony benefits a lot more from free money* than Nintendo due to more subscribers who also have to pay higher yearly fees.

*Free money refers to online subscription services. It's a means for console manufacturers to charge gamers a second time for something they already paid for. The simple reason why online multiplayer is free on the PC is because there is no necessity that something so basic needs to be charged for. Console manufacturers began to do it because their business was mightily struggling to generate profits.



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

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Mine is an extremely hopeful dream, I wish that instead of a new version of the console, we get a new type of controller, with a small touchscreen, I would use this to enable people to get together and play board games and each controller can provide each player with their cards or whatever they might use in the game. 

I love the idea of local multiplayer but it is tough to expect to have 5-6 people with a switch to play a boardgame, but with maybe $40 controllers with small screens you could be able to purchase a few for game night.



Around the Network
tack50 said:

Am I the only one who thinks that "upgraded" versions of consoles are pretty much never worth it? The extra power will only be used by a handful of games and it is not really a huge reason to upgrade. Exclusives will be extremely few games, if any. The Game Boy Color is a huge outlier here, born out of a lot of particular circumstances that are not applicable 20 years later.

If I was in charge of Nintendo I wouldn't really release any upgrades and just concentrate on making sure the "Switch 2" or whatever is a success; giving gamers what they want and what not. Granted it will be hard for the next generation of Nintendo to be as successful as this one but no reason not to try.

If they do have to release an upgraded version I'd just keep it simple, call it the "Switch plus" or whatever. Give it a 1080p display and the possibility in theory to run games in 4k (in practice the Switch probably lacks the power to run games at that resolution). Give it a small power boost (to at least run games at 1080p and beyond, even if full 4k is impossible) and keep the upgraded battery/processor from the "red box" Switch.

Price it at the same price as the old standard Switch (which gets discontinued).

Release a similar upgrade to the "lite" model in 2022 as well. Larger screen, with a 1080p screen and maybe an even longer battery life if that is possible, with no price hikes or drops.

interesting throughts. We see the first official infos maybe in june ?!