Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

I believe you are just making things up at this point. There are two counter-points based in fact that I'd point out to this statement you pulled out of nowhere. Firstly is the fact that the average gamer is in their 30s. Secondly is the fact that a home console pretty much always sits underneath the family TV. So having games that appeal to your partner and your kids if you have them is important. This is before you get to the obvious fact that there are people who like Pixar AND Tarantino

At least I don't make things up

What do you think the Kinect was? Why do you think the PS4 launched with Knack? I mean really, what do you think this console is? A console that appeals to all demographics is literally just a normal console that has a range of software on it. The only reason Microsoft and Sony don't cater to that market well is because Nintendo are the masters of it and so anything Sony/MS does looks lame in comparison.

And again, what is an "adult" console other than one that just happens to have the big third party titles? What reason is there for Nintendo not to be able to release such a platform. If as you say there is no overlap at all then even then, as delusional as that comment is, what's the issue? Why can't two different markets be buying the same console for different reasons?

I'd argue that such a console that had a healthy mix of family friendly titles and the mature AAA blockbusters did exist in the last two decades.

In fact, it existed twice, with both the PS1 and the PS2. Both of them had a very healthy mix and balance.

However, the market has changed since then. Sony and Microsoft have avoided family friendly titles for the most part because those games don't typically sell well on PlayStation and especially Xbox.

On Nintendo consoles the buying habits are completely different. Only Nintendo's first party games really sell well on them. The audience for the big western AAA multiplat blockbusters just doesn't exist on Nintendo, and there's not really a reason for them to switch to Nintendo either.

As great as Nintendo's games are, they don't have as much sway as they used to. There's a reason why Nintendo is doing mobile, theme parks, movies, etc after all.

Do third party multiplatform games not sell on Nintendo because it's user base doesn't care? Or is it because:

1. Nintendo platforms haven't been the best place to play those games. Lack of horsepower ect

2. The big third-party games never came. For example GTA, the only one that has been on Nintendo was Chinatown Wars. Games can't sell if they don't exist.

3. Even when they did appear on the Wii U it was seen as an afterthought. DLC didn't come and the games were often unoptimised.

Well all the evidence anyone has is anecdotal or sales figures. Unless you have some sort of massive survey that shows otherwise that's all we have. The burden is on you to prove that these people don't exist. You're the one making the claim that goes against the conventional wisdom.

Because I'm a gamer who enjoys "mature" and "kid friendly" games in equal measure. Every review site I follow, the vast majority of which are multi-platform, enjoy both game "types" equally. When I look at the best-sellers on Steam I see games like Stardew Valley, Rocket League and No Man's Sky sitting next to games like Dark Souls, Doom and The Witcher. I susspect most people on this forum fit that category. I know the people you're describing exist and I've never stated otherwise. I just think you're out of your mind if you think they make up the majority

The vast, vast majority of people aren't that picky. They'll get their entertainment in whatever form it is.

@Project_Dolphin I think the PS2 generation was when the transition happened. More family friendly titles were a thing towards the beginning of the generation. There was a shift towards more mature and violent games as the generation went on.

Keep in mind this is also the generation where GTA became popular with GTA3 and Microsoft joined in with the Xbox and flagship game Halo.

@IceClimbers
At the same time the PS2 also had quite a few "non-mature" games that did very well. Games like Crash Bandicoot, Guitar Hero, Kingdom Hearts and the Eye Toy. Even the Simpson's games which did well I'd say were more "Nintendo" than the stereotype suggested. Same deal with Final Fantasy. The PS2 definitely had a huge range of users, to suggest otherwise is to ignore how big a market it captured.

To the extent that a division does exist it's not because of consumers. The consumers haven't changed since the PS2. If anything has changed it's the size and budget of games these days. Studios think it's too risky to make a huge game that's also light hearted. They think that they have to be Game of Thrones to push their Metacritic rating up. But when something does come out that's well produced and "non-mature"? It still sells.

@Project_Dolphin If Nintendo appeal to the lowest common denominator with the NX, my main fear is that it isn't any console gamer (whether they like amusement or entertainment games!)

How are we still arguing over this. Of course people still want Family Friendly Titles. The Lego series is still a hige money maker. Shovelknight is a pretty huge success. Nintendo has been able to make a profit off of a system that bombed according to most people. Mobile games jave been focusing on Family Friendly games and been making more money than "Mature" games on console. There are people that want those games, and there are many articles written how it is these "Hardcore" gamers that are also enjoying these "Family Friendly" games. Harthstone is widely popular, super successful, and Family Friendly. To say there is only space in the market for "Mature" titles is ignorant. To point to companies that focus on the "Mature" audiences and claim that they are evidence that no body wants "family friendly" games is ignoring most of the gaming industry and ignoring some of the most profitable games ever. Now that we all know just how popular "family friendly" games are, can we focus on the NX? That is the reason for this thread after all.

The NX can address an audience that is largely dorgotten by Sony and Microsoft while still providing competition to the type of games Sony and Microsoft push. If the NX has 3rd Party support and Nintendo continues to/improves the quality of their software, which continuing to make deals for "Mature" games (like Bayonetta and Hyrule Warriors) then they could be a real contender in the Market. Mix in a few Nintendo features: Free Online, Improved VC support, More Miiverse and My Nintendo intergratuon; and you have a pretty stong system. I don't see a reason to exclude 3rd Party support again. I don't see a reason not to support the same architecture as the PS4/XB1 (and this is coming from someone expecting Backwards Compatibility in some form)

EDIT: Wrote this all on my phone, so it might be a bit messy lol

Nintendo does care about their ip as it's easily more valuable than their nearest competitors have. As for how they will use it is anyone's guess.

Describe smash bros to a pre smash family focussed gamer: "you'll be able to smash picachu's brains out with ganondorf".

Shock and awe. I know our basis for speculating nx is history, yet that same history shows Nintendo is keen to surprise people. Never forget that.

@Project_Dolphin Nintendo can have 1st Party be the "main attraction," that doesn't mean they get a pass on not having 3rd Party support. People want/expect a system to have 3rd Party support. The Nintendo only box failed, I don't know why they would be interested in trying again when they can't save the Wii U. There is no reason to release a new console if it isn't going to change the situation of the Wii U. Why release the NX with the market in its current state (Sony owning everything lol) if they aren't going to do anything new with it? If they aren't going to attract 3rd Parties? If they are going to only be a Nintendo Box?

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nintendo-nx-console-not-wii-u-s...

No real details inside, but the suggestion that the final feature-set still isn't finalised is interesting. I've always wondered about how late they leave it to decide.

@DefHalan Def...is this your micro console theory?
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xlugPJ8svY

@DefHalan Attracting 3rd parties isn't the problem. It's getting them to stay. That only happens with software sales. That won't happen without the audience for those games. Until Nintendo can prove that the audience for those third party games is on their console, third parties will always jump ship. A large enough install base does not mean the audience is there either.

This is a vicious chicken/egg situation. To fix it (assuming it can even be fixed), they either need to somehow magically change market tastes or start making western-style 1st party games. Otherwise they will always be "just a Nintendo Box."

@IceClimbers For a company whose main source of revenue is its software sales and not so much the actual console sales, I think their priority would be to increase the number of people interested in "just a Nintendo Box". Someone was saying Nintendo will struggle making movies because they will be releasing along side Disney / Marvel IP. I am sure that can be applied to games too. Sure, third party software would appease droughts, but so too would Nintendo managing to increase productivity. The Wii U did not prove Nintendo cannot go it alone, it proved they need a kick up the you know what to do it (which incidentally is what usually happens to companies that have recently enjoyed dominating a market). Wii U was a reality check I am sure, but they are a company making the right noises. Edit* This view point is not opposed to third party relationships lol!

@IceClimbers That is why it makes more sense to have hardware that minimizes difficulty fir 3rd Party Developers. It removes obstacles and encourages publushers to try the new hardware. Wii got lots of 3rd Party support but because of the hardware differences from the other major consoles, the 3rd Party support was lacking quality compared to 360 and PS3 3rd Party.

Nintendo having hardware for easy 3rd Party support, while still pushing its own Software, maybe making deals for 2nd or 3rd Party support if possible, could help Nintendo a lot. I just don't see a reason not to make it easier for 3rd Party support.

@Project_Dolphin The Wii and Wii U were difficult to develop for when 3rd Parties made games for the 360/PS3 and XB1/PS4 respectively. It was difficult to port a game to Nintendo systems leaving it forgotten.

Having hardware closer to PS4 and XB1 will make it easier for 3rd Parties to support the system if they want, and Nintendo should try to make it easy for them. If Nintendo makes a system that is attractive to 3rd Parties but 3rd Parties don't find success on it and stop supporting it, how would that be different than releasing a new system without 3rd Party software?

Having hardware similar to PS4/XB1 gives Ninten do opportunity to get 3rd Party software while not doing anything real negative to them. They would either get 3rd Party Support or be in the same boat as if they didn't have similar hardware. What is the downside to having similar hardware? (This doesn't mean they can't have certain unique aspects to their system, just that they offer developers similar hardware option to make development easier)

@GrailUK finally got through to watching that video. My Micro Console idea isn't about streaming over the internet. Streaming from a Home Console to the Micro Console. I don't think we will see streaming over the internet for games for a while. We still can barely stream 1080p video consistantly, I get drops in quality fairly often on 100Mps internet

My original point was that the NX could compete with the "PS4 clones" by having third party games. Which they'd do by broadly matching the spec and making it easy to port to. That it could do this while still maintaining their first party appeal and that their own IP would be the point of difference. It's not a crazy argument. I would have assumed it was an obvious point to make. I mean it is literally what the competition are doing and doing well.

The counter argument is that the people who want both are such a small group that they basically don't exist. And that therefore a console that appeals to both would be doomed. Because appealing to a wide audience breaks the neat fanboy stereotypes...... or something...

I think I made the mistake of falling into this nonsense trap. Instead of asking an even simpler question. Even if said group of gamers (of which I am one) does not exist? Then even so, what's the problem with a console that appeals to "both markets"? Why can't a console have both Platformers and shooters? RPGs and Kart Racers? Even if those consumers are somehow to entirely separate groups, why can't a console appeal to both? And how is appealing both both somehow such a bad idea that it's being shot down without consideration?

The other mistake I made was responding to the idea of "kiddy vs mature games". As if Nintendo somehow didn't have any IP that would appeal to "mature" gamers. Which is an argument that kinda misses the point. Because I can't see how someone who is interested in Tomb Raider wouldn't be also interested in at least the idea of Zelda. Or how someone who's buying into a current-gen console for Mass Effect: Andromeda could not be swayed to Nintendo if Nintendo also has a new Metroid Prime. And maybe someone who's into cartoon-ish shooters like Overwatch could be swayed by a console that has that game and also a sequel to Splatoon.

The ball is in your court doomsayers. Have at it!

@Project_Dolphin you didn't address anything I said. You talked about how 3rd Party wants to make big bucks and I said how the Wii and Wii U made it difficult to port, it would cost more than they would make. Having hardware similar to PS4/XB1 would make it easier to port, so easier to make money.

You didn't talk about the downside of that type of hardware, you talked about how people don't want family friendly games and stuff. What would be the downside of Nintendo having similar hardware? Like I said, they can still implement unique features, but similar hardware for game development would be a plus. If they aren't going to have similar hardware, why upgrade from Wii U? You said it yourself, the Wii U isn't difficult to develop exclusives for, so why would Nintendo want to introduce new hardware that 3rd Party isn't interested in?

@Project_Dolphin
The Gamecube didn't have GTA, Final Fantasy, Battlefront or Dragon Quest. It didn't have Elder Scrolls, KotOR or Doom. It was also during an era where most of the big titles were not multi-platform, they could afford not to be. So it was an entirely different ball of wax to what the NX could be in 2017 and beyond. Instead what I'm saying is that if Nintendo made a box that was similar to PS4/XBOne/PC? There's no reason why third party devs wouldn't release on it. And that would be a good thing.

So are you going to actually make a counter-point or are you just going to waffle some more? Because that post just then? It was a waffle buffet for strawmen and their ad-hominems