Topic: Current Switch 2 line-up not good enough?

This whole discussion has just become so bizarre to me.

Some of the people here arguing Nintendo was wrong to “chase specs” are the same ones who have been first to complain when games run poorly on the Switch for the last eight years. Or when the Switch wouldn’t even get a game because of the low specs.

What are we doing here, people? This the epitome of nonsensical.

@WaveBoy
We’re only people, and I guess it’s just tough to be completely happy with… anything lol

It’s just so crazy to see people like compleeeeeetely switch what you’ve been reading them say for the last eight years and become so vehemently against the very thing they said they wanted.

We’re all just couch jockeys at the end of the day. @Bolt_Strike famously predicted that open-world Pokemon was going to be “laughable,” and Arceus turned out to be amazing and a pivot point for the entire franchise. I thought there was no way Nintendo would release “just another” Switch, but here we are. Still not afraid to boast that we’re right and everyone else is wrong. We’re human lol

And… honestly, I’m really digging my Switch 2 so far. I’m sorry others aren’t.

I hope you're not referring to me, because I have been incredibly consistent about my dislike of where AAA gaming has been going and my disinterest in Nintendo putting out a more powerful system. The number 1 quickest way for me to argue against someone on this forum is for them to imply Nintendo needed to pander to western AAA game companies, something obviously untrue to anyone who has actually paid attention to video games the past 8 years.

Yeah, I have certainly never vocally complained about specs. If you were to dig through my older posts, you might find some complaints about wanting next gen, but that's generally more within the context of feeling like the games releasing within the last few years were insufficient and assuming (perhaps falsely) that the reason why is because they were working on Switch 2 games behind the scenes. I wanted the transition over and done with because I thought we would get a steadier stream of games similar to the Switch's first few years. I may have said something here and there with some of the games that ran like crap on Switch 1, but to say I'm the "first one to complain" or think I'm vocal about specs? Blatantly wrong. I have always strongly preferred gimmicks over specs since this became a debate.

@Bolt_Strike
The entire premise of that reply was flawed. Some games don't need the higher quality assets or the larger scope. No argument there. But the higher spec only allows the higher quality assets and larger scope, allows, it doesn't require them. And where the higher spec is a nice to have not a core requirement there's nothing stopping them from making the game cross-gen. Which is what's happening. This is the thing you're not understanding I feel

Also you talk about the cost of asset creation, which is definitely a thing. But what about the other direction? How many multiplatform games got ported down to the Switch and released day and date? Not many right? A lot of them appeared at least a year later. I think if you were honest in your argument you'd make the connection as to why that would be

Newer hardware has no negatives other than the initial cost. The reason the generation shift happened is therefore simple. The cost of a significantly faster piece of hardware dropped to the point where it was viable. And the way hardware pricing works, eventually it'll cost the same to make a Switch 2 as it does to make a Switch. So this kinda has to happen eventually

@kkslider5552000
I didn't even know you were in this thread much, to be honest, so no, definitely not talking about you.

I don't want to name names or anything, but it's @Bolt_Strike lol

But like I said, I was also one of the biggest complainers. I was there the whole gen. I played Link's Awakening with all the stutters and stuff pretty early in the cycle, and then Echoes of Wisdom upped that even more. I played Hogwarts Legacy with the super-blurry textures and load times that gave you enough time to go make a sandwich. The "Switcher" was a miracle port, yes, but it was also a blurry miracle port lol. Scarlet and Violet, anyone? I was there when we missed out on game after game, some of which are now finally coming to Switch 2.

Specs do matter. It's nice to say that devs and publishers shouldn't be focused so much on diminishing returns in graphical fidelity or whatever, but reality says otherwise. To me, it (begrudgingly) makes perfect sense that they decided to stick with the successful hybrid format and up the power. It's what people wanted, even us forum trolls.

Now we're just doing this weird revisionist theory because we're mad about the prices. Honestly, that's why I think all these bizarre threads are here in the first place. It's the prices. If games were still 60 and the hardware was 350, none of this would be happening. @OmnitronVariant would probably still be hibernating in their cave. All of these new forum accounts (nothing wrong with that) wouldn't be popping in to chant "down with the aristocracy" or whatever. The lineup so far would magically (and rightfully) be deemed awesome. I would stake a lot on that. Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot with the money thing - it left a sour taste, and now it's spread its tentacles into every discussion around the system, discussions that wouldn't have even happened otherwise.

Money, man. It's one heck of a drug, as they say.

Personally I'm not going to bother engaging with Bolt Strike. I put him on my ignore list as he seems only interested in creating arguments.

@rallydefault well said (over various posts ) - I was going to type a bunch here, but it doesn't matter. I'm very happy with my SW2, the games, and what's coming next...so I'll continue to sit back, enjoy the silliness here, and go back to grinding through Silksong at 120 FPS (not that I can tell the difference).

No, I get that exactly. But again, cross-gen games are only temporary. In a few years they'll stop supporting Switch 1 games and Switch 2 will be the new standard, you either buy a Switch 2 or you don't play new Nintendo games at all. And you're doing all of that for something that's simply nice to have but not necessary? It's a tremendous waste.

Why are the third parties working with that stronger hardware in the first place when as you've admitted it's not necessary yet more expensive? The whole dynamic is foolish. Again, it's a lemmings situation. The third parties are chasing power despite it offering no tangible benefits and far more tangible negatives and they're winning Darwin awards left and right because of it, and Nintendo is bending over backwards to cater to these people. Nintendo will eventually share their fate if they keep following them.

The problem is that hardware decisions don't work this way, it's the other way around. What positives does the hardware offer to justify that initial cost? The opportunity cost in dropping a $450 on hardware that doesn't do much of substance is very high, and you probably do not want to do that unless your existing hardware is naturally breaking down and not working anymore. If hardware is naturally getting cheaper all of the time, why not go the other way and say, give us a $100 Switch? That would be far more consumer friendly than charging $450 for a new console that does mostly the same things as your existing console.

Is it a waste to buy one early when the price is destined to hike because of tariffs? That's literally one of the driving decisions for me as an American. I don't want to pay more, even if it means I don't play anything for a while.

Hardware is being driven by better performance. Software is being made for those machines. Devs are going to target where people are. Nintendo is in an adapt or die situation when it comes to hardware. Without a more powerful Switch available, it would have gotten to a point where the only games coming out for it would be indies and first-party games.

There's no money in that at all, and you know it.

I will say nothing Bolt Strike has said in this thread is remotely as disagreeable as when he disregarded Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's new content because it was in Tour. I'd agree with everything he's said before I'd defend f2p mobile games even once lol.

I was talking more about it's a waste in a vacuum, in general that's not good value. The tariff situation, yes, that affects things, and I actually did buy one too and the tariffs were part of the reason. If it weren't for that though, I might've held off.

But if said performance is meaningless as we've established, what's driving it?

Why are they where they are is the question?

This is going to be a controversial take, but at this point I don't think this would be a bad thing because the western AAA market is becoming toxic and unsustainable. I don't think giving them the finger is a bad thing in the long term (short term yes, but long term I don't think the direction western AAAs is heading in is sustainable). I can understand why Nintendo didn't go this route, but I suspect it will backfire eventually if they don't change course.

Of course I know it, but the point I'm making is that there's no natural demand from the consumer side of things and this is a cynical, artificially driven move by the hardware manufacturers wanting to maximize their profits. It's solely for the manufacturers and doesn't benefit the consumer at all.

@kkslider5552000 To be fair the Tour tracks are mostly very bad quality, and not fun to drive on in MK8D. They're so far below the standard of the other tracks that it's akin to playing fan-modded content — except I had to pay for it.

Edit - I see your response, while I was replying - makes sense now - what you want

@Bolt_Strike I'm genuinely curious - I'm struggling to see what you want here? The average console generation is about 5 or 6 years. New consoles come out, hardware improves, and it gets more expensive as technology changes - all made by corporations that need to generate profits for shareholders. With inflation accounted for, the Switch 2 is less expensive than the NES.
What fate is Nintendo following? Nintendo is doing what they have always done...iterate and make something new. One could argue that this generation didn't have a new feature/gimmick/wasn't innovative enough...but did we not get exactly what the majority of SW1 owners wanted?

@OmnitronVariant I don't know about you, but by the time the original tracks and new characters got added, I felt like it was worth the money. Man, was it rough though for a while though.

Now you're starting to get into larger economic issues here talking about how corporate executives and shareholders want to drive technology more and more expensive. I don't want to get too far into things because it starts to become too politically controversial, but I will say that this is the root cause of the cost of living crisis and why so many are starting to feel priced out of the industry. We should stop caring about and supporting the profitability of corporate executives and shareholders and these companies should be run by the actual talent who know how to make the hardware and software, not C-suite tech bros that only know how to watch number on spreadsheet go up and take the biggest slice of the pie you can. The push for better performance feels much more driven by the latter than the former.

As far as what I want out of hardware instead? The reason I haven't been clear on that is because there's several options I would accept. One is to go the Wii route with a "sidegrade" hardware generation that improves in areas other than performance. I would consider that the ideal, but if that's not possible, I would also accept if they should just stop relying on new hardware in their business models altogether. There doesn't seem to be any profit to be made through legitimate, natural demand (i.e. the consumers and developers freely think they need new hardware for new games to run), it only seems to be driving profit through artificial means like planned obsolescence and manipulative marketing practices that make the hardware look more revolutionary than it actually is. The games are mainly what's driving the industry and they're largely doing so independent of hardware.

Layoffs and studio closures. Because of the obsession with performance and higher resolution assets, it's raised the bar for how successful a AAA video game needs to be and a lot of developers and IPs simply can't keep up. Continuing in this direction will just continue to raise the bar higher and higher until absolutely NO ONE can achieve it. That's why this is unsustainable business.

@Bolt_Strike Thank you - fair points! I'm with you, not wanting to get into the politics...and I agree that the corporate structure is disheartening, and hopefully Nintendo can continue forward without layoffs. All of what you have to say is legitimate, and I appreciate you sharing a bit more context. Personally, I'm happy that they went the direction they did, but at some point, it seems that we'll enter a point of diminishing returns (if we're not already there). And I'd much rather see lesser graphics + boundary pushing if it means more studios stay solvent, fewer layoffs, more games.

FWIW, and much to the annoyance of certain posters, I've been arguing for years that people have misunderstood the "Nintendo does hardware gimmicks" bit. I would argue that the Wii, DS and the Wii U at a stretch are really the only consoles Nintendo have made that fit that description. And even with the Wii U it was still somewhat evolutionary (basically a merger of DS and Wii). Nintendo don't make hardware gimmicks, they make software toys, and they build hardware for that software. And with the Switch form they had already found a very versatile hardware form

With that said, I personally don't consider the Switch to really bring much new in terms of actual game innovation. Not in the way @Bolt_Strike wishes for. There's not much Switch can do that Wii U couldn't. The Switch was basically just a refinement of what they had already landed on with the Wii U. In this sense Switch was even more iterative than Switch 2 is because at least with Switch 2 there's this vast power jump. Which, despite the whine, very clearly opens up options for developers

And I think this is where @Bolt_Strike is kinda being deliberately selective in what parts of my posts are taken in. Whether or not a developer needs the new features of a console is dependant on the game. Some games won't need it, these games can and probably will be cross-gen. This is a good thing because in previous generations that would not have happened. But some games will need the new features and/or can take advantage of the extra power. We lose nothing in having that option

As I've said before in this thread or elsewhere, in the Wii U/3DS transition to Switch we saw games like Arms not appear on Wii U even though there's no obvious reason why it couldn't have run there. We saw Samus Returns and Rhythm Heaven land on 3DS late but not come to Switch. And while a lot of Wii U games were ported we had to wait for them, and then pay full retail. Meanwhile big third party titles either released heavily compromised Switch versions sometimes years after the original release or skipped Switch entirely

I think the advantages of the Switch 2 over the Switch is pretty clear here. And if posters were honest with themselves and weren't so obsessed with winning their arguments they'd recognise this

@skywake I mentioned the Switch and technically yes, it doesn't do anything new over the Wii U. However, it was releasing games that the Wii U COULD'VE released (and I argue it should've, I was waiting the entire generation to see those types of games and they simply didn't come) and they were still an upgrade over the 3DS too. We did not see anything like Mario Odyssey on 3DS or Wii U (they were all gung ho on linear Mario games and gave sandbox Marios the finger). Pokemon was a 3DS exclusive and the games were smaller and more linear than the Switch Pokemon games. We didn't see any kind of open world game period (aside from the very niche XCX) until Wii U/Switch cross gen when everyone was looking for a reason to jump ship. No Metroid whatsoever except for a remake on 3DS (and right after the Switch released). No main series Animal Crossing or Fire Emblem on console. No main series Kirby game on Wii U and Switch had the first 3D Kirby game. Switch was the generation when Nintendo really went bigger and more open. The Wii U was the first generation where this would've been possible but they passed on the opportunity so the credit went to the Switch instead.

Now you're probably thinking, couldn't they do the same on the Switch 2? Well maybe. But it's not going to be as easy this time. Going EVEN BIGGER isn't going to work because that doesn't have the same impact, plus some people are overwhelmed by the size of the worlds already and they feel sufficient (see for example, the people that are overwhelmed in finding the Korok Seeds in Zelda, or the P-Switches and other collectibles in MKW) and there's others saying they're sick of games condensing into an open world singularity. There may be a few other IPs that haven't gone bigger/more open might benefit and gain more appeal (particularly games like 3D Mario, Splatoon Raiders and/or 4, a 2nd Yoshi game after the Mysterious Book, Kirby could build on Forgotten Land by opening up more, Star Fox feels like it could use a No Man's Sky/Starlink style open space game), but for the most part I think they'd have to go in other directions at this point. And I struggle to imagine what that could be. If Nintendo pulls this off and proves me wrong, I'd be happy to put Switch 2 in the same category as Switch 1 here. But with minimal differences other than power I'm struggling to see it right now.

As for the cross-gen games, you're kidding yourself if we're getting that all generation. They don't support the past gen device forever, just for a few years. It doesn't make any business sense, if they have a new console out they want to eventually kill off the old one to pressure you into upgrading and getting more money. Highly likely that by 2027-2028ish we'll stop seeing Switch 1 cross-gen games and everything first party will be Switch 2 exclusive from that point on.