Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@DefHalan: I fail to see how that's relevant. Are you saying they'll buy a Nintendo system if it's a dedicated home console? I'm strictly talking about Nintendo's market, not the gaming market as a whole.

@Octane: Sorry, I forgot to clarify, the NEW 3DS XL. And no, it isn't two systems, it's one; and because it's split, no one is "forced" to buy anything. What it does do, however, is make it where ALL games made can be bought and played by everyone. So recourses no longer have to be split between two different consoles. And people who can't afford the whole thing at once, can still play every game at the start, and then "upgrade" later. And people who don't need/want the "home" part, aren't "forced" to buy it either.

@Paulthevgnerd:
They did. They said the next handheld and console would be like brothers

@Xenocity: Oh, I know that they said they would be brothers in a family of systems. I wasn't sure about my first claim, however.

But we aren't just talking Smash, a guaranteed success almost. We are talking about every game being release on the platform. That means the small and big games. Not every game has the selling power of Smash. Some indie developers already release their games on both 3DS and Wii U, however they aren't released at the same time. Many take the money made from selling it on 3DS and use that to port it to Wii U. Requiring developers to eat that cost before a single version can be released will hurt production costs. The easiest thing to do would be just develop games for the portable side and not use the power of the home console side, which means there is less reasons to own the home console. It also means 3rd Parties wanting to target Home Console power without worrying about portable console restrictions don't get to release one your system.

The 2-in-1 idea only works as optional. Trying to require it causes to many issues. This is actually where my Micro-console idea comes from. A micro-console that acts as the unified gaming system that can be purchased separately but is also built-in with the handheld and home console. It gives customers a easy entry point to the Nintendo Market and allows developers a set hardware to develop for that can be released on both systems. Then having the extra power in the other systems to run games specifically design for it. Developers are not forced onto certain hardware but are given the option for multiple hardware. Throw in a couple more features for the Micro-Console (ability to stream your Handheld or Console games to the TV, like if the Console is in the living room but you want to play games in your room, hook up your micro-console in your room and play your Console games. kinda like the Steam Link but for your console and it can do stuff on its own) Wow, that was one hell of a rant lol sorry.

@FattyWhale_42: That is exactly where your idea fails. If Nintendo only wants to sell to people who already have their hardware, what is the point? They are looking to expand and get new people interested in their hardware.

@FattyWhale_42 I'm assuming that you are saying that the console would need the handheld to function (i'm not looking through paragraphs of text) in which would be stupid, in the sense that if you lack the handheld, then you lack the console as well. If you are saying that the console doesn't need the handheld and can function on it's own, then it isn't a fusion and would be stupid to bundle together.

As many have said, it's forcing two markets together when they don't need to be, yet still can reach by making a family of devices (as confirmed by Iwata).

Nintendo: "Come and make some games for Wii U".

3rd Party developers: "Yeh, good one. 10 million hardware units sold after 3 years on sale? No thanks"

Nintendo: "Didn't you know - all games developed in accordance with our streamlined process will run on 3DS too. And 2DS. That's 200 million hardware units - 100 million unique customers".

3rd party developers: "Oh. Ok then."

Mobile gaming has eaten into that 100 million unique customers, but there's still 50 million out there who would be tempted by a Nintendo system that could do that. And when the 3rd party developers come back there'll be the Sony and MS converts too.

That only works on games made to work on the lower hardware. If the game requires the bigger hardware, then it doesn't matter how big the install base of the lower powered hardware.

I've said twice already that each device could be optional.

When designing software for with hardware designed from the outset to have its software be compatible with another piece of hardware, it would be easier/cheaper than it is now because 3DS and Wii U were not built from the ground up with that in mind. The Shovel Knight developers only said the other day how inexpensive porting games is. Get in the habit of writing scaleable software and it becomes even cheaper, and more profitable.

@gcunit:
Not the same thing.

Feature (standard) cell phones still sell as much as smartphones because you cannot get data plans necessary to use smartphones in the majority of countries (or the apps are banned).
The majority of Android phones sold aren't full smartphones.

Apple and others still produce dedicated MP3 players still selling millions each year.
You can still buy professional PDAs that have the features smartphones lack. These are used in industries where the software isn't usable on smartphones. Also security issues are a part of it.
There still is a market for dedicated professional cameras and non professional cameras.
There is still is a market for watches.
The smartwatch market is barely 3 years old.

Smartphones have yet to kill a market that wasn't already struggling.
Smartphones did kill Blackberry, Windows Phones (2.8% global marketshare), Palm, and a few other struggling manufacturers (who would have died in time always).
If you wanted to be generous you could give smartphones the credit for killing Zune.

If you haven't noticed 2015 is the first year on record where smartphone sales will contract... Yes total number of smartphones sold for 2015 [/b]will end up being less than 2014[/b], unless people go full on crazy for iPhone 6S+ and 6S+. If the new iPhones hold their current rate of sales, the market will be down YOY while iPhone growth over last year will be marginal at best.

Smartphones are at saturation point.

Tablet sales are down now for the 3 year straight, including iPad sales.
PC sales are down for the 7 year straight with Windows 10 doing nothing to stimulate sales.
PC market is expected by current projections to shrink by 7.3% total for 2015 with no stabilization until 2017 at the earliest (I posted this stuff on another site).

Are Smartphones, PCs, Tablets at the point where users no longer need to upgrade or is something killing them?

NX as already stated will be a unified OS and development architect where you scale everything up and down.
This means develop one set of assets, one engine, reuse most of the same code (or all depending on the game), and easily use it on two systems.

This means you want Smash NX, the console version would probably be the main version.
You download it the NX handheld, it will feature hardware specific features that will turn on and/or need you to download a patch to activate them. It would then shut off the NX console features such as same unit multiplayer and others.

Same would go for Mario Kart NX.
The core games and core features would be the same on both systems, with hardware specific features for each as in the console version would have the main multiplayer modes, while the handheld would have a different multiplayer mode. They could also have specific modes and features on top of it.

To put it this way: you download an app to your iPhone, you will download the iPhone version because the store will recognize you are logging on from you iPhone.
You download that same app on your iPad and it will recognize it and give you the iPad version.
Each version has hardware specific features.
You can also download the update which contains the  Watch version too.

At the core they are the same app with about 5% code difference (it could be greater or lesser depending on the app).

In the end we can agree to disagree...

Sheesh - you're not following me: the game would run on either hardware, performing at that hardware's native level.

@Xenocity: Smartphones are a success. They don't have to kill the older markets to be deemed so.

What you've described, and what I've described, re. NX, are pretty similar.

Put smartphone capability into the portable device and there's an even bigger market.

@gcunit:
Games have to be coded to work with each piece of hardware.
You could in theory code the hardware to upscale the game much like Blu-ray players upscale DVDs to HD.

Developers always target the base model, rarely coding their games to work with better hardware.
This happens on PC too for the most part.

@gcunit:
It depends on how you define success.
Most products/markets are defined as successes as long as they have growing sales.

Analysts are worried that smartphones are coming to an end with their rapidly cooling sales.

Except I never said that. I gave one example of why the handheld part should be the focus of Nintendo's effort — because that's their largest market.

The whole reason for a "hybrid" console, is to consolidate resources. Consider, someone who only owns a Wii U cannot play 3DS games, and vise versa. This business model is unsustainable within the current market climate. Because since games are the main source of income for all gaming companies, making games that millions of your customers cannot play, is an inefficient use of limited resources.

@Paulthevgnerd: It's okay, all my ideas are stupid.

You're taking 'rules' that apply to current hardware situations and applying them to hardware designed specifically to minimise the difficulty in overcoming those 'rules'.

PC games allow for variants in hardware. Cut those many potential variants down to just 2 (or 3) variants and it gets easier. They'll not rival PC ultra settings of course, but they'll be applied easily.

@gcunit:
There is no guarantee that would change on consoles.

The selling point of dedicated gaming systems is plug and play, with no settings required.
If people wanted to deal with graphical settings, they should get a gaming PC or an impending Steam Box.

3rd parties already hate having to develop for the 3 consoles, they don't want to have to develop for more variance.

Is there a power difference between the handheld and home console? Lets say the home console is more powerful to match Sony and Microsoft's systems. If a game is created to run at that power level then how will it run on the handheld? Requiring games being able to run on either handheld or home console would mean a developer not wanting to make a lesser version of their game wouldn't want to create on that system, there are many developers not willing to do that. That is the problem with requiring that. Having it optional isn't much different than the way things work now, just making porting easier in the future, which we already know they are going to do.

@FattyWhale_42: You were asking for a reason why a hybrid console wouldn't work. It won't work because you are having to sell two systems to someone that may only want one. It won't work because you are targeting a smaller audience than just making two devices that have the option to work together. Such a small audience would not be profitable.

@Xenocity The extra effort would be minimal. In time developers would find ways to automate it, if Nintendo didn't already provide such a method. The opportunity to target portable and home console devices in one hit would be attractive to them.

The user wouldn't have to adjust any settings. The software would detect which of the two devices it was being played on and adjust the settings automatically.