Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@link3710
I definitely think BC will be a thing from now on, though I'm not sure how much longer "now on" will be. I've always scoffed at people saying "this console generation will be the last." People have been saying that since the 360/PS3. But even I'm starting to wonder where this all ends. Aside from having a really unique gimmick like the Switch's mobility, what truly is the benefit of a home console? In a world where it's easier than ever to connect your PC to a TV, stream to a TV, etc., when do home consoles truly stop being... well, they're already kinda awkward? When do people start questioning paying 500 bucks for a gimped PC and generally more expensive games?

Case in point: I can get Borderlands on Epic Game Store on my PC right now totally for FREE. Or... I can pay for it on my Switch/Xbox/PS? Luckily Switch has the mobility aspect to set it apart, but uh... when does all this stop making any monetary sense whatsoever? If you can connect your favorite console controller to your PC (which you've been able to do for quite some time), kick back on your favorite couch, and play 99% of the same games at better specs, why? I hardly ever fire up my PS/Xbox anymore these days. It's just... not really worth it. Switch is easier and can go anywhere, and my PC is awesome..er. lol

The bit that makes least monetary sense is publishers giving their products away for free.

@Heavyarms55 They are starting to. That's what the XBSX and PS5 are to the XB1 and PS4. The issue is more historically, where sticking along the same lines like that would cause the consoles to be massively underpowered compared to the competition. Keep in mind, the old architectures had limitations, old systems had dedicated sound cards that produced their unique sound rather than being able to play any music. We saw the death of on the fly lighting and texturing, replaced by the far more powerful dedicated shaders that make modern GPUs possible. Not to mention, until Gamecube/360/PS3 had PowerPC, standardized architectures didn't weren't used across systems, rather custom architectures were developed. And then PowerPC was abandoned for X86-64, making the consoles functionally the same as PCs in that way. Considering X86 isn't going anywhere (it's what's used in all PCs since the 80s, save for the rare ARM laptops), and neither is ARM (used in all smartphones, and some laptops), the architecture is likely to be done changing for the foreseeable future.

Basically, doing that would cost the ability to use new features that make the system appealing in the first place. As computer development is maturing though, this is becoming far less of an issue, and long term BC is far more sustainable as an idea.

@rallydefault
And let's not forget gyro. Steam allows mapping gyro to any game for any controller and its accessible from a single button click in-game.

I was pro-console-benefits for a long time. Too many issues I personally experienced with PC on TV. But now that I have a proper gaming PC, most of those issues are gone, and I've come to realize a ton of benefits I didn't fully grasp before.

I have a slim keyboard with built in touchpad mousepad on the right side by the keys, perfect for living room navigation and solving the "mouse in the living room" issue. And then put my PC in sleep mode, set to wake whenever I touch the mousepad or press a key, and if Steam is left running in the background when put to sleep, the controller also wakes the PC, just like consoles.

And since my PC absolutely roasts, I never have to worry about which graphical settings to use. 4k 60 ultra across the board (with a few rare exceptions like Assassins Creed Odyssey which cant quite hold 60 on 4k ultra, so I do 1440p 60fps ultra. I'm confident I'll still be running games at 1440p 60fps high/ultra 10 years from now.

I never use PS/Xbox anymore. And after clearing my shelf of all PS4/X1 games I now have on PC or know is coming to PC, I barely have anything left! Over 100 games no longer needed. I have like half a dozen X1 games left I dont have on PC, and that's only because I dont want to use Windows Store. For PS4, I have maybe a dozen games left.

Bare bones empty shelves. Not only do I think I could just sell my PS4 pro and X1X and never even notice, I dont see needing the new consoles either. Except maybe PS5 down the road, for the small handful of exclusives it gets over the coming years that never go to PC (and that list is growing ever smaller) and BC for the remaining few titles I have on PS4 that have not and will not go to PC.

No gyro on consoles, with PC offering it for every game and free online and free cloud saves, with limited SSD space on consoles (I have 1.5TB of digital Switch games, 10TB almost all used on PC, so less than 1TB for PS5/XSX games is going to be a MAJOR problem) changes the game entirely. Switch + PC covers it all. Probably grab a PS5 down the line when a final revision releases with larger SSD and whatever Pro benefits they decide. Since it would only be for exclusives that never go to PC anyways, the limited space may not be an issue for me. But that's it. Aside from that, PC really has completely supplanted both Xbox and PS for me.

It would take implementing gyro on a system level, mappable to every game like Steam does (that or a complete paradigm shift where 95% of developers implement it themselves) for me to ever consider going back.

It is weird. They must have some sort of data that giving something away actually generates more money in the long-term. Perhaps players try their other games or buy expansion packs and stuff? I don't know. For example, I play Lord of the Rings Online, and they've made pretty much the whole game free from late March-August; it's been really awesome, and actually the company has made MORE money during this free period from people buying mostly cosmetic stuff.

They also must be getting some sort of kickback from Epic Games Store, I would imagine.

@JaxonH
Yea, PC-on-TV has never been easier. I remember 10 years ago running like a 10-foot HDMI cable clear across my apartment to hook my PC to my computer and struggling with Steam in its early days of Big Picture Mode or whatever they call it. I played the Tomb Raider reboot like that and it was... a struggle at times, but I did it. Fast-forward to today and it's so easy, practically anybody can do it.

But there will always be console people and people who will just never use a PC to do more than work. To me it's crazy that some people just won't give it a try, but they are out there and they are still supporting home consoles. And I'll admit I'm a typical person and I'm afraid of change. Gaming has been PC AND console for 30+ years; it's a little sad to think of a future without traditional consoles. But then you start to think... what is a console anyway? It's really just a stripped-down PC tower with Xbox or Playstation branded on it.

@rallydefault I think the big issue with that claim is that the Switch exists. It's portability with dedicated buttons and AAA titles isn't something you'll be able to get from any smartphone or PC, especially since X86 is a giant power drain and will never be useful for portability. Meanwhile, it's possible smartphone gaming might take off but incredibly unlikely thanks to the market being how it is where only gatchas can survive.

@link3710 Then what you're suggesting is that going forward, devices could be built with this idea in mind? Could a more powerful Switch 2 or Switch Pro be made without needing a new system? Or is it more like old consoles with some atypical build?

@Heavyarms55 What I'm saying is that's what both the PS5 and XBSX already are. And there's little reason to think the Switch 2 won't have BC, assuming they don't change up the hardware too drastically.

Keep in mind, the XBSX is going to play not only XBSX games, but almost all XB1 (save a few that require special hardware), and maintain the BC library XB1 has of 360 and OG Xbox. That's basically the same as how PCs function, no?

@link3710 So my next question would be, can future games be programmed in such a way as to run on older hardware but be able to take advantage of newer hardware as it becomes available? Or is it too open ended to program that way?

@Heavyarms55 Well, they could. In exchange, you lose performance and require more time though. And on top of that, you don't have any alternative hardware to test on. It's not uncommon for PC games to basically be practically or actually unplayable on some rigs due to them not taking into account certain hardware flaws. The difference is they'll get patched in that case, since they have a huge amount of playtesting on different hardware. Console games on the other hand won't get playtested on any other hardware until it launches.

So yeah, BC may be here to stay, but I don't expect them to change how games are made. Just keep the hardware itself more consistent so it can mimic old configurations.

@Heavyarms55 I remember (many years ago) playing PC games (Red Alert was a culprit I think) on a brand new computer 5 or or 6 years after the game was originally released.

They took full advantage of the extra power... and ran at about 20x as fast as intended with no way to throttle! Completely unplayable!

Planning for forward compatibility might be harder than we appreciate.

@StuTwo That's a valid point.

@StuTwo
That's just characteristic of older games.

Nowadays game speed is no longer tied to framerate, and all games come with options to cap framerate at 30 or 60 (and sometimes 120 or 144).

So that kinda stuff isn't really an issue anymore.

@JaxonH You say that, but then Bethesda comes along with Fallout 76 with an engine so old and clunky, it still uses physics based on game speed being tied to frame rate.

@rallydefault @gcunit The thing about giving stuff away for free isn't directly tied to more profits. This is way how a lot of big companies operate; like Amazon, and even Uber and Deliveroo. They compete with the existing market with extremely low prices (or even free stuff in some cases). This completely crushes the competition. And when there is no competition left they can start to increase the prices again. They've effectively created a monopoly, and whenever a new business wants to enter the scene, they just lower their prices again, because at this point they company has so much value they can afford it.

This does mean that these companies lose a ton of money in the beginning. Uber reported a net loss of $8.5 billion last year. Logically this wouldn't be sustainable, let alone for several years. But they usually have big private investors that keep them alive during this time, and once the competition is gone and they've secured a monopoly, all of this can be earned back and more.

And it's a brilliant strategy too, because we, as consumers, only see the low prices in the beginning, and help them achieve this goal. Amazon for example wasn't available in the Netherlands until this year. Whenever I go shopping for games, I see that their prices are by far the lowest. I do fear that in 10 years or so from now they will also become the go-to online storefront, because right now there's no other online storefront in our country that can compete with the prices they offer. Jeff Bezos' net worth is one sixth of our entire GDP. It's mental. And we already have one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.

Anyway, it's clear that Epic is playing a similar strategy. They are fortunate that they already have a monopoly on game engines, because UE is pretty much the go to engine in the industry. And so they make money of nearly every game sale. Additionally they have Fortnite; somehow one of the most profitable games ever, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had other private investors as well. Money gets your more money in the end. So they can afford to give games away for free, or charge less. It's not profitable right now, but when there's no competition left, they can earn all of that right back.

@FragRed
Ya but that's a very rare exception to the rule. More importantly though, it doesnt run at unlimited framerate, it has caps, so the game is still playable regardless of whether you have a quantum computer 50 years from now.

But ya, Bethesda's engine is the laughing stock of the community for a reason.

@Octane
I don't dispute Amazon's strategy, but for Epic, it's more them willing to take a necessary loss now to gain a foothold in a notoriously hard to crack market. They're never going to monopolize the PC market. They'll never even get a majority if I had to guess.

It's just the fact that, without such incentives they'd never gain a foothold. Gamers would never choose to buy from them over Steam. People hate multiple launchers, and adding yet another to the ever growing list, that notion goes in one ear and out the other. Free games- notable ones, and lots of them, is about the only possible tactic they can use to gain marketshare and drive traffic.

@JaxonH @Octane
Yea, Epic is clearly doing this to try and enter the PC gaming arena, but like Jaxon said, even with the free games I'm not using their Epic Game Store. I'm still sticking to Steam because...well, Steam lol It doesn't make sense for me to turn down free games, but I just like/know Steam.

@JaxonH And we all know Bethesda will still have the same engine 50 years in the future

@Octane That was the point I was making to rallydefault. He was comparing console purchases to free PC games without (seemingly) considering that the free games are a lure.