Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Imperative for Pokemon to succeed?

Y'all didnt see how Lets Go sold eh?

@Link-Hero I doubt they would remove the docking ability entirely (there's no reason to). More likely, you'd need to purchase an extra pair of joy-cons for TV play due to integrated controllers. They probably also wouldn't sell it with a dock. But you would still be able to use it as a hybrid if you already have the extra stuff needed.

The cheaper price would be attractive for children and handheld-only gamers, though. It needs to happen.

Switch Pro can wait. The system probably won't be due for a refresh for another year at least.

@NEStalgia Pokemon would sell very well even if Nintendo did nothing on the hardware front, it's more like the cheaper model unlocks insane results.

@Grumblevolcano "Pokemon numbers" depend on every kid getting a copy, though. That remains why 2DS ever happened. Sure it would sell well to Switch owners, but that's not good enough for Pokemon numbers. LGP wasn't quite up to Poekmon numbers. It did well, and it wasn't intended to sell like a typical Pokemon game...but the hardware is part of the reason. I can't imagine they'll be content with only the Switch numbers...for a big Pokemon.

@Knuckles-Fajita It succeeded, but it wasn't "Pokemon numbers" in their usual sense. Especially in Japan.

If you were Ishihara and had two choices: Insist on a lower price point kid friendly SKU, or don't insist on a lower price point kid friendly SKU, which option would you choose?

@NEStalgia Let's Go did over 10 million. That's better than typical "Pokemon numbers" for any entry that isn't the beginning of a new generation. Only Yellow, HGSS, and ORAS have more.

This narrative of yours that Let's Go didn't do "Pokemon numbers" is false.

@NEStalgia If I were Ishihara I'd be questioning my business decisions.

Firstly, who expected a Pokemon game aimed at a different audience to sell as well as Pokemon normally does...when it's not aimed at the people who normally make those numbers?

Secondly, this is the man who said the Switch would fail. He has no right to insist on anything. For God's sake, much like Masuda once misunderstood, Pokemon sells systems. The system doesn't need to sell well to sell Pokemon.

What they WANT is it to sell well, more than usual. At that point sure, introduce a lower model. At the same time, who can say how many people will own a Switch by Sword and Shield's launch, especially given the lineup prior to it this year. They could be selling to an even bigger audience than they did when launching XY, just on one hardware SKU alone.

So to reach Pokémon's usual numbers, right now, Ishihara needs to do nothing. Sit back, let the game be made, release it at the right time.

Now to answer your question, as anyone informed on capitalism would attest, Ishihara would insist on a cheaper additional SKU. As would any developer of any game. But notice how they aren't.

But as your question was quite simply a "Would a businessman like to see a cheaper model and a more expensive one, or just the expensive one?"...well the answer is easy. Since the question lacks context as to WHY he would want it, well we just assume the basics.

Of course, this is all assuming a Switch Mini, or whatever the stupid name will be, even exists, given from what we hear it would remove a lot of features that make many games, or parts of games, far harder all in the name of a price point. Far more than removing 3D on a 3DS ever did.

Of course, what they could do, and what I would expect they do, is reduce the current Switch in price and allow a higher end model to take the £280 price point. That way R&D doesn't need to spent on a redesign that at the end of the day is needless, and additional production lines and staff don't need to be brought in to produce an additional SKU that isn't needed. Nor would it divide up the market by offering three models of one thing simultaneously, all with seemingly very different feature sets, all of which would need to be accounted for when marketing games, and be accounted for on existing games where features such as HD Rumble won't be available.

What if they made a 3DS-esque controller that slotted into the joycon slots and transformed a regular switch into a clamshell system.

It'd be gloriously ugly.

@IceClimbers Hmm, I thought it had performed below average, particularly in Japan. I hadn't seen that lofty number. Still, if that's what it can do without the normal audience, imagine if they could get it in every kids hands?

@Knuckles-Fajita All that aside, I still see a cheaper more portable model of Switch FAR more likely after the EOL of 3DS, than a magic "more powerful" Switch. There's zero need for a more powerful Switch at this point. Internet fans may want one, but there's zero business need for one, that would be inconsistent with Nintendo's history, presents new Android-like problems of fragmented user bases, and it's still not clear nVidia even has a "step up" ready to go. If it's not going to start cranking out 4k and playing Assassin's Creed MMXII....what would it give Nintendo? "More AAAs?" Hardly.

Eventually they will do so as they always do, but not this early in the life, and it will be mostly to improve minor things, not a PS4 Pro kind of situation. Even Microsoft hates the X1X type situation. They were just backed into a corner that Nintendo is not.

@Morpheel Now THAT sounds like a Nintendo idea!

Edit: Corrected "EOL Switch" to properly say "EOL 3DS."

Halo 5 these past few weeks has made it very clear that dedicated servers isn't enough just by itself as a solution to Nintendo's terrible online. The lag has been so bad, Smash Ultimate's online seems good in comparison.

1. Handheld only Switch is a dumb idea just on the basis of confusing consumers. After Wii U, Nintendo you'd think would be careful about that. That just seems confusing when it is literally called the Switch if a parent buys it for their kid and then realizes it can't do the actual "Switch" ing part of it.
2. Switch pro is ok but I hope it isn't an excuse for Nintendo to not have their games run as well on the normal Switch. It's Nintendo and I remember the New 3DS so I'm not sure that'll be a thing for most of their games anyway, but it's still a slight worry. I love that Nintendo has often prioritized 60 FPS, so taking that away just because you don't get a 2nd version of the Switch would be a real shame.

Remember that Let's Go was $60 too. Compare that to $35 of Gen 4-5 and $40 of Gen 6-7. So it most likely brought in more revenue overall, especially with that Pokeball Plus, which unlike the Pokewalker got some extra revenue.

Also, dedicated servers became just another buzzword for idiots to use. It's more than just that. But people won't get that because they're ****ing stupid.

@ReaderRagfish I mean that's certainly a simplification (The more players in a single lobby, the better off dedicate servers tend to be after all), but yeah, the amount of buzz around it is stupid. ESPECIALLY when it comes to 1v1 fighters. I hate seeing all the people asking for dedicated servers on fighting games. It's basically never going to be worth it in that scenario (and I say basically because of course there are conditions where it's an improvement but still)

Dedicated servers are about consistency. If it lags, it lags for everyone. The time it takes for actions to actually happen is theoretically the same for all participants. This isn't necessary true in a peer to peer network. If I connect to your switch, your button presses might be already be registered before mine has even left the switch. You will have an unfair advantage.

Another problem is the security aspect. Nintendo expect you to port forward every single port into the switch otherwise you will never be able to play against anyone that haven't opened up their Network. I won't let an appliance have full access to both my lan and internet. I simply do not trust Nintendo in that regard.

But I am actually perfectly fine with peer to peer. But why should I pay extra for something like that?

1 Nothing is ever needed. Nobody needs a handheld only Switch. But nobody needs a hybrid Switch either. Many people want a hybrid Switch, and you can bet there are millions of people out there who would want a handheld only Switch.

2 The name is a problem, but not one that can’t be overcome with adequate labeling on the box in big giant letters, “HANDHELD ONLY, SYSTEM DOES NOT DOCK TO TV”. We all know how much Nintendo likes giant warnings on the front of their packaging. Don’t think for a second they wouldn’t leverage that skillset to skirt the issue of the name.

3 Switch has many purposes to many different people. Switching is one major purpose to a majority of gamers. But playing on the TV only is a purpose to millions of gamers as well. As is playing handheld only. The strength of the system is being whatever you want it to be. It’s a fact that a significant portion of the market would buy a cheaper, handheld-only Switch. There’s no reason not to capitalize on that.

I disagree with NEStalgia more times than not. But in this case I do think he’s right. They’ll want a $200 sku out for Pokémon.

Nintendo Direct was trending higher than PlayStation Direct LOL

https://i.imgur.com/tGUevTV.png

That Samurai Showdown on Switch. We heard it leaked months ago though. Also that King of Fighters XIV was coming to Switch and one other fighter... can’t remember. Guess that means it’s true though. Get ready for KoFXIV

I’m all about Samurai Showdown though. Oh yes indeed

@EvilLucario That’s not really hard when the PlayStation equivalent forgot to include any announcements outside of a few VR titles. If this was Sony’s answer to skipping E3, then they really must have nothing in development worth showing anytime soon. Likely until the PS5 announcement.

It’s the same with Xbox, the Inside Xbox really doesn’t need to exist until they’re in a position to really start announcing lots of big games. And even then the style just doesn’t work unless they really feel 5 new coloured controllers is big enough for a show.

Apple Arcade?