@sixrings Without any context to what that technology actually does to improve the experience, that doesn't really reflect well on the gaming population. What's the moral of the story here? That people are suckers for tech buzzwords?
@Bolt_Strike
I think fundamentally you have it backwards. The question isn't what new experiences will new hardware allow. The question is why restrict developers and shortchange consumers by continuing to sell a product that is at this point an order of magnitude less capable than the hardware you could be selling
More powerful hardware may not excite people such as yourself as much as it does someone like me who enjoys making code go faster so much I made a career out of it. And that's fine. But even you have to admit that more powerful, more power efficient, more reliable and generally more responsive hardware? Those are all objective improvements that will result in a better gaming experience. And that's something worthwhile
Your constant refrain of complaining that it won't result in new gaming experiences? I mean maybe. But what's your alternative? Stick with the same hardware? Because that's certainly not going to be any better than "just a performance boost"
Reminds me of the politicians here when fibre internet was part of the public discourse who argued that 25Mbps was plenty because in 2010 there was no application that needed more. It wasn't that there were no applications that could use it. It was that there were no applications that required it because most people had <10Mbps
@skywake Sticking with the same hardware means they could sell it for cheaper to anyone that may not happen to currently have it. Whereas if you push for stronger hardware? Even the ones that already play the existing hardware are going to need to shell out a couple of hundred dollars. And you're trying to sell that several hundred dollar upgrade on marginally noticeable improvements like the ones you're mentioning? With a diminishing output of games resulting from the improved power that you consider oh so freeing to developers? These things may be beneficial, but are they worth the high price tag for the console and all of these studios continually laying off employees and shuttering their doors? It just comes off as so petulant. They're not taking into account if the hardware improvements actually make the games noticeably better or if they're financially viable. AAA third parties' push towards high end performance seems incredibly unsustainable, Nintendo would be wise not to follow them too closely and come up with additional selling points for their hardware in situations like these where they actually do need to upgrade their hardware.
Honestly a pure performance upgrade just feels like it's setting up for Nintendo to fail. If they do a smaller bump, then it'll be less powerful then competing hybrids and Nintendo will lose significant market share. And if they do decide to compete on power with the other hybrids, it'll be unprofitable because of the sheer cost (both to them and because gamers will be less likely to buy it because it's more expensive). This is why Nintendo stopped competing on power and started doing gimmicks since the DS and Wii. For Nintendo to succeed without that... they need to find the next big innovation. Something completely different and unpredictable that their competitors aren't doing. That's why the gimmicks are so important here.
With a diminishing output of games resulting from the improved power that you consider oh so freeing to developers? These things may be beneficial, but are they worth the high price tag for the console and all of these studios continually laying off employees and shuttering their doors?
I feel like these are different things.
Nintendo manages to spend over 100 million dollars and many years on certain single games (e.g. TotK) without slowing down their overall game output or firing people. Last year got a ton of games including TotK afterall. Nintendo makes faster and cheaper games also. I don't see that changing just because their hardware gets better. If they had better hardware to work with they certainly could have chosen to spend even more time and money to make TotK even fancier or they could have used that extra power to make the game the same but marginally more polished and maybe saved a few bucks also. Nintendo being able to port slightly more modern games doesn't mean they are suddenly going to be making hyper-realistic PS5-style games themselves. Better hardware is purely a positive unless the company chooses for it not to be by making bad decisions.
It's true the console itself will cost money, but as you said above, consumers will gravitate to the buzz words and new shiny things. Whether that new shiny thing is more power or a potentially un-needed gimmick. Plus hardware doesn't last forever so people need to buy something new eventually either way — may as well point them towards a new shiny Switch 2 rather than PS5 pro or whatever.
With a diminishing output of games resulting from the improved power that you consider oh so freeing to developers? These things may be beneficial, but are they worth the high price tag for the console and all of these studios continually laying off employees and shuttering their doors?
I feel like these are different things.
Nintendo manages to spend over 100 million dollars and many years on certain single games (e.g. TotK) without slowing down their overall game output or firing people. Last year got a ton of games including TotK afterall. Nintendo makes faster and cheaper games also. I don't see that changing just because their hardware gets better. If they had better hardware to work with they certainly could have chosen to spend even more time and money to make TotK even fancier or they could have used that extra power to make the game the same but marginally more polished and maybe saved a few bucks also. Nintendo being able to port slightly more modern games doesn't mean they are suddenly going to be making hyper-realistic PS5-style games themselves. Better hardware is purely a positive unless the company chooses for it not to be by making bad decisions.
Ehh, no it does feel like releases have slowed down on the Switch. Sure, maybe if you compare it to the 3DS and Wii U individually it does alright, but remember that the 3DS and Wii U were supported simultaneously, and when you compare the Switch's lineup to the 3DS and Wii U's combined lineup? The comparison isn't so favorable. IPs are going a good 4-7 years between entries now whereas because of the staggered releases between home and handheld consoles you might've seen more along the lines of 1-3. And the Switch has more ports/remakes/remasters too, further diluting the output. If you think Nintendo's output hasn't dropped because of the push for higher end hardware you aren't paying attention.
It's true the console itself will cost money, but as you said above, consumers will gravitate to the buzz words and new shiny things. Whether that new shiny thing is more power or a potentially un-needed gimmick.
Well first of all I was being sarcastic. And if that was true, well that doesn't say anything good. It means they're scamming themselves.
But no, eventually there's a limit to how much consumers will be suckered. And there's signs we are reaching that limit in the tepid reaction to 9th gen and the inability for these AAA studios to grow their audiences to make up for the more expensive graphics.
Plus hardware doesn't last forever so people need to buy something new eventually either way — may as well point them towards a new shiny Switch 2 rather than PS5 pro or whatever.
Hardware doesn't last forever but it doesn't die naturally after 7-10 years. Gamers don't need new generations that frequently.
@skywake Sticking with the same hardware means they could sell it for cheaper to anyone that may not happen to currently have it.
That's now how pricing for hardware works. A lot of components of the total price don't get cheaper over time like the screen, battery, assembly, housing, shipping etc. Some other components like storage, RAM and the SoC do but they have a price floor due to raw materials, assembly, foundry time etc
Over time the gap between what they are selling and what they could be selling grows. They could comfortably be selling hardware significantly better than the Switch at a price similar to the Switch
It's not unlike how if I went out laptop shopping $500AU would get me a dual core Celeron with 4GB RAM and 128GB of eMMC storage with windows home. $1000AU doesn't get me twice the spec, it gets me a LOT more than twice the spec. It jumps you upto an i7 with 8 efficiency cores and 2 performance cores, a 512GB nvme SSD, and 8GB of faster RAM. Why? Because the bulk of the price of the $500 laptop is the windows licence, screen, battery, assembly, shipping
If they were still making the 3DS it would cost a similar price to the Switch Lite. If they were still selling the Wii U it would probably cost more than the Lite. Because, again, you're paying for more than just the GLOPS and GB
@skywake Pricing involves both supply AND demand, just because you can provide that stronger hardware at a similar price point doesn't mean that people want it. Look at things from the consumer perspective, you may be getting more than twice the spec, but is more than twice the spec giving you more than twice the impact to justify being twice the cost? Pricing isn't just about how much you can provide at that price point, but how much people want at that price point.
These arguments would make such an amazing podcast
Can I do a completionist run of video game history? (It's still being made so we'll see)
Currently Playing: Unicorn Overlord (Switch)
Next Up: Sand Land (PC)
Panic (Reality)
Read the new rumor article about the backwards compatibility. I just think it's so silly. Most people don't use it; just buy the old console if you're into it that much. Tons of people in the retro community prefer playing on original hardware and controllers anyway.
Use that time and energy for stuff that actually matters on the new console instead.
If the rumors are correct and the Switch 2 is backwards compatible, that will be a major selling point for me, more than any other time I have been gaming. Especially if there is a performance boost. I have such a massive backlog, with "miracle ports" that I still need to play through, I'm at the point now where it is worth the wait to see if the new system will improve the performance of the games/ports that I haven't had a chance to invest time into. I only game on the Switch, other console/PC games are not an option - which is driving my excitement for the eventual announcement.
Read the new rumor article about the backwards compatibility. I just think it's so silly. Most people don't use it; just buy the old console if you're into it that much. Tons of people in the retro community prefer playing on original hardware and controllers anyway..
The same argument could go with not needing ports and remakes.... considering that is a pretty large percentage of all game sales on Switch, the proof is in the pudding in terms of people wanting old games on new hardware. You may not want it yourself, but a large percentage of people do.
I think there are two different use-cases:
1. The person buys the new device and doesn't own the old device. Why shouldn't they get access to all those old great games without waiting for ports? They definitely don't want to buy an old device when they have a new one.
2. Inconvenience of swapping between too many devices. My current tv doesn't even have a port for yet another device and it also just seems unnecessarily inconvenient to swap devices if I want to play one of my recent favorite games while also playing a new game. Since most games on Switch now are digital anyways (and many are ports of pc or mobile or xbox or older Nintendo consoles), 'original hardware' doesn't mean as much with the current generation as it used to.
For me personally, Switch 2 is a day-1 purchase with back compatibility and probably not even a year-1 purchase (conceivably a no-purchase) if it doesn't have it. I've simply built up too much of a library on Switch and it's not really worth it to me right now to start over unless the new console is completely different than Switch which sounds like is not the case.
@Novamii - 100% agree. I really enjoyed The Witcher 3, Doom, Nier Automata (and many more) - on the Switch, and if they get a performance & graphics boost, I will 100% be diving back in. The backward compatibility is what makes this a day 1 purchase for me. If the system is powerful enough to bring games like Elden Ring to the Switch 2, which it really should be, then I foresee my backlog growing pretty rapidly. There are so many games that have come out in the past 5-10 years that I would love the opportunity to play...
@Bolt_Strike
You've misunderstood my point. The $1000AU laptop was decent, the $500AU laptop is a toaster, the $300AU laptop is a Chromebook with a mobile processor and the $250AU laptop does not exist.
Nintendo is currently charging $530AU for the OLED and $329AU for the Lite. There would be a floor to how cheap they can reasonably go and it's certainly above $200AU. The rumoured price for the Switch 2? People are talking $399US. That tracks and would be around $600AU
So riddle me this. What sane person would buy the OLED model for $530AU when there's a product significantly improved that's only $70AU more? The price of one game. And I can tell you now, that $600AU product couldn't have sold at that price 5 years ago. But more importantly, the OLED will never be something like $300AU new
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
@skywake How about instead of spending that extra money on a meaningless upgrade you buy an actual game? Or spend that money on something you actually do want? The demand matters here. If the upgrade doesn't do something desirable, it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is, it's still a waste of money because you're spending money on something that has no value.
@Bolt_Strike You definitely need demand... but it exists. The entire mobile phone industry has been living off the demand of 'a little bit better' for decades. You could argue that that demand is lessening, but it is lessening while I type this on a phone which in some metrics is much more powerful than Switch-- even though it basically has zero reason to be. There are of course somewhat cheaper devices than Switch or Switch 2 for those who want to play games super cheaply but most who buy consoles at all are a little flexible in precise cost they are willing to pay as long as it doesn't get too high. And of course those people going for the bargain bin won't get to play Nintendo games. In the end, the 'new shiny improvement' is part of the pull to initially buy a console, but it only works in combination with new games people want. The second part of the demand Nintendo will artificially create by making Switch 2 exclusives. One could argue that Nintendo shouldn't do that.. but they certainly will.
@skywake How about instead of spending that extra money on a meaningless upgrade you buy an actual game? Or spend that money on something you actually do want? The demand matters here. If the upgrade doesn't do something desirable, it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is, it's still a waste of money because you're spending money on something that has no value.
That's an absurdist's argument. The new system does do something desirable, it gives the consumer new, more ambitious games, unlike the current Switch, which will likely be a dead platform within a few years. The majority of people who wanted a Switch have one at this point and have played all the biggest releases. Sticking to the same platform simply stifles innovation. The limitations of the technology mean games continue to have the same limitations in textures, resolution, framerate etc. It's boring for both developers and consumers/fans! You can continue to make this argument ad infinitum but there's a clear and obvious trend of declining sales for both the current Switch and new software which will likely continue until a new system finally releases.
Games like a new 3D Mario or Mario Kart 9 need enhanced hardware as well as new gameplay mechanics/ideas in order to make them compelling. Releasing them on the same hardware simply wouldn't differentiate them enough from their predecessors to make them an essential purchase. Sales would inevitably be weaker. It would be a very unwise move on Nintendo's part to embrace these weaker sales rather than give fans and developer's what they want. Releasing more advanced hardware keeps the company relevant both financially and culturally, as the competition continue to advance their hardware going forward.
@skywake How about instead of spending that extra money on a meaningless upgrade you buy an actual game? Or spend that money on something you actually do want? The demand matters here. If the upgrade doesn't do something desirable, it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is, it's still a waste of money because you're spending money on something that has no value.
That's an absurdist's argument. The new system does do something desirable, it gives the consumer new, more ambitious games, unlike the current Switch, which will likely be a dead platform within a few years. The majority of people who wanted a Switch have one at this point and have played all the biggest releases. Sticking to the same platform simply stifles innovation. The limitations of the technology mean games continue to have the same limitations in textures, resolution, framerate etc. It's boring for both developers and consumers/fans! You can continue to make this argument ad infinitum but there's a clear and obvious trend of declining sales for both the current Switch and new software which will likely continue until a new system finally releases.
Games like a new 3D Mario or Mario Kart 9 need enhanced hardware as well as new gameplay mechanics/ideas in order to make them compelling. Releasing them on the same hardware simply wouldn't differentiate them enough from their predecessors to make them an essential purchase. Sales would inevitably be weaker. It would be a very unwise move on Nintendo's part to embrace these weaker sales rather than give fans and developer's what they want. Releasing more advanced hardware keeps the company relevant both financially and culturally, as the competition continue to advance their hardware going forward.
You're missing my entire point, you might want to take a look at some of my other posts in this discussion. Of course new hardware that does new things is ideal to keep people engaged. But things like resolution, framerate, and textures... don't actually seem to be opening up new gameplay ideas. They've been constantly pushing those every gen but the consoles that do push those things and nothing else, like your Xboxes and Playstations... the shiny new next gen games don't really seem to be doing anything noticeably different gameplay wise from the previous gen games. The specs bump doesn't seem to open up new mechanics for the games, new abilities for the characters, or anything tangible that changes how the game is actually played. All the specs bump seems to do is make the games look flashier and more detailed (and I'd even argue they don't even do that well because games already have so much graphical detail that adding even more is increasingly difficult to notice with the naked eye) but it's otherwise pretty much the same and I'm not convinced in the slightest that most if not all of these game concepts couldn't have worked on previous gen hardware at lower settings. So that kind of upgrade feels boring and pointless. I'm not opposed to the Switch 2 in general. I'm opposed to a Switch 2 that's purely an Xbox/Playstation-esque graphical upgrade. It'd be very dull and un-Nintendolike to basically copy/paste the Switch's design and turn up the graphical settings, they don't really do that sort of thing anymore. If they iterate on a concept like we expect them to in this case, they usually don't just up the power, they also add some kind of twist on the concept. What I want and expect is something more like a DS -> 3DS jump, something that does add power but also does something extra to play around with genuinely new technology that could open up new gameplay possibilities (granted the stereoscopic 3D of the 3DS didn't exactly light the world on fire, but in terms of providing both power and a gimmick the 3DS is probably the best example of this). That would be the more Nintendoey way of making a next gen version of a popular console.
EDIT: Another example I just thought of, but this one's a bit funkier because it involves a mid-gen Pro version. You could consider the DS to be a more powerful version of the GBA SP. It has a similar form factor and even uses the same type of charger. But in addition to being a more powerful SP, it also.... has a second screen for touch controls. Again, they didn't just take the past gen version and make it more powerful and call it a day, they added a unique feature that added completely new functionality.
@skywake How about instead of spending that extra money on a meaningless upgrade you buy an actual game? Or spend that money on something you actually do want? The demand matters here. If the upgrade doesn't do something desirable, it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is, it's still a waste of money because you're spending money on something that has no value.
I'd argue that a gaming console that can run games better is a more valuable upgrade than one that simply has a newer screen technology. And yet people happily upgraded to the OLED, myself included (eventually).
All I'm arguing is that if they are to continue to sell hardware, and why wouldn't they, that it is reasonable to expect that the internal spec would improve over time as the price of a higher spec SoC relative to the base price shrinks
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Rumor and Speculation Thread
Posts 4,101 to 4,120 of 4,933
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic