Topic: Deal-breaking Things That Would Prevent Switch Purchase?

@Octane Yeah, the biggest issue with "NX is a Nintendo box" logic is why would the NX even exist then? Just give the Wii U an Xbox 360 length lifespan, that'll work just as well.

I'm clearly not fond with non-Nintendo games, I really didn't know Halo was an XBox exclusive.

Why buying NX then? It all comes down to software selling hardware. I don't buy a new console because it's a new console, I buy it because it will have all the new Mario, Zelda, etc. games that the old won't get.

I also suggest that what killed Wii U wasn't the nonexistent 3P support, but the GamePad. People simply didn't know what Wii U is and what it does and Nintendo didn't help explaining it at all. Again, there was a CoD on Wii U and it sold horribly.

Sure things could change, but Reggie has already made clear that NX won't be about specs, as is Nintendo in general (I have no problem with that). They also don't have the freedom of selling their stuff at a loss like the other two do, because they don't have houndreds of other ventures making money.

Of all the problems Nintendo has -crappy online services, poopy Virtual Console, bad marketing– 3P games and specs shouldn't be an objective imo. At least that's not why I buy Nintendo.

@ntdojoe - you tripped the profanity filter a couple of times yesterday. Please remember that profanity is not allowed at NL. Thanks.

@ntdojoe The 2 CoD games on Wii U didn't include the DLC and got the free preorder maps years after launch. A CoD worth buying must include the season pass and all DLC, by not having those there's no point in owning it due to an inferior experience.

@Project_Dolphin And they would go the same way as Sega. Having your own system give you a lot of legitimity in the eyes of consumer. I don't think they have finnacial interest going third party in the long run. There's a reason why they're still in the top 5 of biggest publishers without releasing any AAA game.

@Project_Dolphin Let's not pretend that Pokémon GO is something that is made by Nintendo. It's essentially Ingress made by Niantic with a Pokémon skin that was greenlit by The Pokémon Company. The last Nintendo game on mobile was Miitomo and nobody cares about that anymore. So, I wouldn't say there mobile presence is as strong as some make it out to be, let's wait and see how popular the AC and FE games will be, cause I reckon they won't.

Anyway, I don't get the complaint. The DualShock 4 is a pretty standard controller, yet it utilises touch and motion controls. There's clearly a way to do both, without restricting yourself to a particular control set-up.

The idea of ''becoming third party'' is just stupid. Going third party means a lot more than giving up on hardware. That means missing out on lisence fees, and having to pay them instead of receiving them. That's clearly not a solution for anyone, because the company wouldn't be the same anymore. They would never reach the same game output they have now on another console.

@ntdojoe But that's just milking their fanbase then, isn't it? If they only release a new system so that the fans have to buy another system to play their games, then it sure looks like they're doing that. If they have to intention of changing their image, hardware philosophy or relations with other developers, then there's no point in releasing a new system. Hardware isn't holding a new Mario game back. I'm sure that whatever they're cooking up could also be playable on the Wii U. So, if they're not going to change, why not continue releasing games on the Wii U instead?

@Project_Dolphin That would be true if those Sony and Microsoft consoles weren't machines made to sell AAA games. When you look at non AAA games sales on those consoles you realize they are much lower than Nintendo game. The audience of these machines is different from the audience Nintendo try to reach. And releasing games on them wouldn't increase the sales.

And then Nintendo would probably be forced to make games that aren't very "Nintendo"

@Project_Dolphin By that logic every console manufacturer would be better off as a third party. We know that's not true. Hardware makes them money, games do, and licence fees do too. Without all of this they have less resources to work with and we'll see less games from Nintendo. Franchises like Pikmin and Star Fox will be put on an even lower priority. I don't think that is what anyone wants. Competition is good and I don't see the problem in Nintendo competing with Sony and Microsoft. Sure, they and many Nintendo fans say they are there own thing, but they are already competing, they're just losing. 20 years ago Nintendo didn't have a problem competing with Sega and Sony, I don't see why today's any different.

Whether you are a Nintendo , Sony, Xbox or PC owner, everyone wants access to play everything. This argument is about who gets it. But I am still unsure as to why it never seems to be Nintendo getting it all. Do people just want to settle for generic iterations? Microsoft brought a lot of good to gaming with 360 and online features. I am still struggling to see what Sony actually ever brought to the table that wasn't a rip off of something else.

@GrailUK If you dig deep enough, you'll find that even Nintendo's ''innovations'' were nothing new. Are they all rip-offs? I don't think so, I surely wouldn't use the word ''rip-off'' at least. Some things have just become standard. Just because Microsoft made some pretty big leaps in regards to online gaming, doesn't mean that every console today is a rip-off of Microsoft's ideas for example.

@Project_Dolphin Your argument was that if people want to play Nintendo games without all the bells and whistles, Nintendo should go third party. My argument is; Why not release a traditional console instead? This has nothing to do with the fact that the Wii U is struggling and the PS4 and XOne aren't.

You also shouldn't be arguing for Nintendo to go 3rd Party. Nintendo wouldn't be able to survive as 3rd Party and still make "Nintendo" games. They would have to change their focus towards the Xbox, PlayStation, and PC audiences. This would change the types of games we see Nintendo develop and we would see Nintendo taking less risks in their software development, no way we would have seen Pikmin 3 or Star Fox Zero if Nintendo was 3rd Party.

@Project_Dolphin I guess that means Sony should put all of the handheld titles they developed on the 3ds then? They sure are struggling to sell those vitas.

@faint Nah, Sony should release all first party Vita titles for PS4. The Vita is designed in such a way that there's no reason it shouldn't be for PS4.

@Grumblevolcano I don't actually believe they should. I was just showing this guy up top how ludicrous his argument is.

@faint Well it wouldn't be much different from Xbox Play Anywhere. Crossbuy and cross-save would do wonderfully as well as maybe forcing Nintendo into the modern age where you don't have to pay for SMB for like the 5th time.

@Project_Dolphin Nintendo makes games people want, they just don't know that they want them until you see them.

@Project_Dolphin As long as you won't understand what a target audience is, it's pointless to argue with you. Sorry.

. If its less than 500gb, 500 should be the minimum and even that is to little imo
.If its too far behind Neo/Scorpio powerwise
.If most of its launch games are ports of existing PS4/XBone games
But if im toatally honest id gladly buy it without even seeing the thing.

@Project_Dolphin but you aren't looking at the full picture when applying that logic. They save a lot of development time by having their own hardware and they also are able to develop games the way they want. Their hardware offers them the ability to control their own store which gives them a lot of benefits. If you just look at software sales, you miss a lot of other benefits that Nintendo has vy having their own hardware.