@EvilLucario "Anything beyond this argument is simply going to just play the semantics game or fuel paranoia, so this is just going in circles." Nice smug way of setting yourself high and mighty, but the Switch is sold off of quality console games on the go, aka handheld. It's dual-feature is but an optional, replaceable icing on the cake, nothing more.
@Ralizah Important to whome? The majority always matters the most, and the Switch's uniqueness is off of the quality console games on the go, not the dual feature. Home-consoles are around already, after all, and the vacancy in the market is in handheld games with quality, as the Vita is only alive in Japan, and the 3DS does not offer said quality.
Nintendo doesn't have much to gain in the home-console market. They cannot compete with Sony/MS, and have far more power in the handheld division. I believe that the Switch will ditch it's home-console esq feature and identity soon enough, when the time is right.
@UmniKnight I don't understand how that would make development easier. All I suggested is a regular Switch box that does not have the dock or cables in it. It's still otherwise the same product, but priced a little cheaper.
@UmniKnight Yes, you can play console-quality games on the go... and the Switch is also marketed as something you can play on the big screen. Or a mix of both portable or console. Or purely one or the other. No ifs ands or buts about it, it's marketed around choice.
That's the core design of the Switch: it's what you make it out to be - a hybrid that can satisfy both crowds. Going from console to handheld to back is an irreplaceable feature because nothing else in the market does what the Switch does as seamlessly. You may not want or need it but that's fine, there's plenty of other products to buy for your liking, or you can look past it and just enjoy it for what it brings.
And if you want to talk about the majority of Switch users and what stuff is important to them, you can ask people on their usage on docked or portable. You and I and most likely even Nintendo won't ever have exact data, but I'm very willing to put money on the majority of Switch owners using both ways, no matter how small one way is used, with only a minority strictly using either one or the other. With that I'm fairly certain that both parties will be happy with the options given to them.
You can argue all day that it's simply a handheld with optional console features, and that's fine. Others can argue all day that it's also just a console on the level of the Sega Nomad, and more power to them. The Switch is ultimately what you make of it due to its hybrid nature. But it also cannot fit in one specific category as it overlaps with others as well.
Metroid, Xenoblade, EarthBound shill
I run a YouTube/Twitch channel for fun. Check me out if you want to!
Please let me know before you send me a FC request, thanks.
@EvilLucario Then what do you argue of the Switch's future then? Nintendo stands strong in the handheld market, but has little to gain in home-console, since the Switch cannot compete in power with the competition, and hence, will lose out on similar games that require said power.
I just cannot bring myself to trust that this dual-nature is truly what Nintendo will uphold going forward. Even games like Severed and Voez tread a fine line of one feature being favoured over the other to even receive more games. I've been severely disappointed, after giving 100% trust and faith, and I won't be again.
If the Switch truly continues being both, and advances it, then that is absolutely phenomenal, but I cannot bring myself to trust Nintendo enough to believe it. After all, money changes everything, and it's the only thing companies are beholden to.
since the Switch cannot compete in power with the competition, and hence, will lose out on similar games that require said power.
They did alright out of the Wii, Wii U (could have been better, but I doubt they lost money in the end), DS & 3DS eras, despite being underpowered compared to the competition.
@shaneoh True, but never before did they muddy the waters as they did now. They're leveraging the might of their handheld in with home-console, and so the lines become unclear and it is hard to put a finger on anything.
@shaneoh I'm not questioning how well it will do, I'm questioning on if it will uphold equality and parity across modes. Games like Severed and Voez already bring this into question, for it is true that they can only be handheld due to touch screen, they're still more games for one mode versus the other.
Coupled with Nintendo being unable to compete with PS4/Xbox One on technical front has me question on whether they will remain in the home-console industry. They're strong in handheld, but can't hold up in home-console, hence my doubt.
@UmniKnight Ultimately it's too early to have a concrete viewpoint of the Switch's overall success among gamers. There's far too many variables to consider, and anything can go right or wrong. That said, on the topic of third-party support, I see quite a few multiple futures that hinge on a few things:
The success of the Switch in general
If the Switch sells massively, people will still end up porting their games to the system just for exposure. For example, for something like Resident Evil 4 and Viewtiful Joe, they were ported from GameCube to the PS2 with quite a lot of downgrades in performance and graphics, simply because porting it to the PS2 would give them more sales (though that didn't work out too well from what I remember, could be wrong though). Heck, even the Wii got CoD ports that tried to replicate the PS3/360 experience that weren't that bad considering the hardware gaps between the Wii and PS3/360.
Mario + Rabbids
I see Mario + Rabbids as an important title for the Switch and a potentially good first-stepping stone to a greater goodwill towards third-parties. If Mario + Rabbids does really well, that gives Nintendo more ideas to open up more third-party opportunities to use Nintendo's IP to make exclusive games. Imagine someone like Shin'en making a true-form F-Zero game (like Fast RMX), or From Software making a new IP like they did with Bloodborne with PS4. With a potential success story of Mario + Rabbids both critically and commercially, more third-parties would be interested in doing similar stuff. People tend to think that "Nintendo gamers only buy Nintendo games"... so if third-parties want the best shot on Nintendo hardware, get third-parties to make Nintendo-like quality games. That's not to say multiplatforms like
Anthem or Doom or etc shouldn't come to Switch, but it's something for third-parties to consider alongside ports of upcoming AAA games.
That said, the Switch has an advantage of its own with the portability. People are seriously considering buying FIFA 18 on the Switch instead of the PS4/Xbox One because of that, for example, and if that trend continues with more AAA games then I don't think there's too much of a worry. The Wii and Wii U both struggled because they didn't provide anything substantial of its own aside from them being Nintendo consoles, but the Switch brings the portability factor as a very strong factor to sway people.
Some more work and support to third-parties
Stories like how Rocket League is getting good support from Nintendo in supporting cross-platform play and etc. This shows that Nintendo is changing and starting to learn how to adapt, and hopefully this continues to develop more and more.
And that's only from the big "AAA games". Games that thrive on handhelds like Etrian Odyssey and etc are almost inevitably coming to the Switch as well, and it can easily get some of the best Japanese AAA games as well. With the recent hinting of Final Fantasy XV coming to Switch, I don't have much worries from the Japanese side. The Western side may take more convincing, but I don't see the Switch struggling that badly. I do see the Switch missing out on some multiplatforms, but I don't think it's too damning unless it's a very, very large number.
One more thing about those two games that could only be played in portable mode. I see them born out of necessity due to the unique control styles they bring. If we want to talk about the "power" aspect that could separate the two aspects, I again bring the example of the PS4 Pro/Xbox One X not having any games that absolutely require it. Yes, the New 3DS had games that are exclusive to it, like Xenoblade, and the Pro/X might have games that will eventually absolutely require it, but they are an extreme rarity compared to what is actually available. I see the same for games that might require the dock only - a rarity and anomaly. That said I don't see Nintendo ever releasing games that can't be played on portable mode, as they're making games based on portable mode first then worry about docked later. It's only third-parties that can decide what they want to do, but I'm not too worried since the portability is the main attraction to Switch versions.
I've already argued with someone who has a biased preference for docked mode, so this whole conversation is tiresome. Lol. How many times has this sort of talk escalated in the first year of a device.
Meanwhile, the only thing I want out of the Switch is a cloud saving feature.
since the Switch cannot compete in power with the competition, and hence, will lose out on similar games that require said power.
They did alright out of the Wii, Wii U (could have been better, but I doubt they lost money in the end), DS & 3DS eras, despite being underpowered compared to the competition.
Wasn't the Wii U the first time they had a yearly loss? And didn't it happen for, like, three years?
@Hitokage1
I meant that the Wii U was profitable. The profit may not have been enough to cover operating costs, but I think that as a product it did make money. R&D takes a huge chunk of dough.
@Ralizah So you're saying it's this route or nothing at all, and that those who have come to play home-console Nintendo machines are to consign themselves to the Switch route?
People should make informed decisions before buying. When the concept was leak by eurogamer and LKD, it was obvious it would never have PS4 level of power. In fact, I am impressed they managed to succeed in having more GPU power than the Wii U, despite Nvidia not being strong in the mobile space.
I am quite sure there will be more handheld only games coming to the switch. Because of the touchscreen many games only available on mobile is possible to release on the switch. This doesn't mean the majority of games will be handheld only though. This means there will be more games overall.
If a games developer really has a vision that their game should be handheld only for some reason - or docked only - or, I dunno, keyboard and mouse only (!) - and the Switch is capable of fulfilling that vision...why shouldn't that be allowed? I don't get it... (EDIT: Those choices might be mistakes on the part of the developer - if a game isn't hybrid, my guess is that it probably wouldn't sell as well as it would have if it were - but it should be the developers choice nonetheless...and those games shouldn't be ruled out just because they want to use the hardware in a different way)
The developers are constantly changing their vision to accommodate for the market/publishers. It is a myth that developers have some sort of grand unchanging vision. If someone wanted to do a keyboard only game on the switch, the publishers would shoot it down directly.
@Hitokage1
I meant that the Wii U was profitable. The profit may not have been enough to cover operating costs, but I think that as a product it did make money. R&D takes a huge chunk of dough.
I am not sure it was profitable if you factor in every cost and profit. Not only did it sell bad, it also didn't have an especially good attach-rate (=less licensing fees, less sales of first-party games). Nintendo would need to release a breakdown before we can be sure though.
It features loads of current games and some upcoming games like FIFA 18, Skyrim, Rocket League, Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle and Super Mario Odyssey.
@Therad@Ralizah I'm sorry, but I completely disagree - the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. As we've already seen, a couple of developers wanted to bring their handheld-only, touchscreen-only games to the Switch - they were given the green light - and now we have a couple of games (already) that don't fit the central hybrid concept you guys keep talking about...you keep making excuses but conveniently ignoring the facts: if the Switch was designed to be hybrid only, those games would've been 'shot down' - but they weren't - so Nintendo are clearly a lot more open minded about the possibilities than you guys give them credit for...
You say that keyboard & mouse games would get 'shot down' - yet we have the Jackbox games that ignore the Joy-Con altogether and instead use Smart Devices etc as controllers...again, the facts suggest otherwise - Nintendo have provided controllers, but if the developers have a different vision then Nintendo are open-minded to those possibilities also.
The hybrid nature of the Switch is what gives it a degree or two of separation from PS4/X1/PC/Tablet/Laptop/Mobile etc & is the big selling point - I get that - but it's not the only thing it can do...luckily, the evidence seems to suggest that Nintendo see the Switch as more than just a hybrid (even if you guys don't) - and we're already seeing that in certain games. To me, such games only enhance the idea that the Switch is a flexible, versatile gaming device - not diminish it.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 16,101 to 16,120 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic