Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@IceClimbers I am pretty sure Nintendo doesn't get many Japanese 3rd Party games compared to Sony, especially when it comes to Multiplatform games. I hope I can get the newest Tales of games on Nintendo systems in the future

@BiasedSonyFan then Nintendo isn't going to succeed. I don't think Nintendo can survive without 3rd Party games. You said Nintendo games aren't relevant to majority of gamers. If Nintendo isn't willing to get more support then how will they become relevant again?

I don't see how it would be confusing. The content across the platforms would be identical because internally they'd be basically the same thing. The issue Nintendo has currently is that they have to split their development between 3DS and Wii U. This would resolve that issue. Anyways, they already do this rather successfully on the 3DS line. There's the 2DS, 3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS and New 3DS XL.

And would it be such a bad thing if one of their SKU's failed? When the Wii U failed all that software development effort went down the drain. If the home console SKU for the NX fails? It's not a huge deal. They just slow down production for that SKU. They keep making content because all content made also works on the portable SKU.

Well, you basically just described this

Or maybe not, maybe what you're talking about is this

Just because I didn't praise the theory you're fond of doesn't mean I didn't acknowledge it. And for what it's worth I think the NX will be a portable system you can plug into your TV via a passive dock. Will games look better on the TV? Probably, but not much. They'll only scale up because of power saving modes when it's not docked. IMO. But I think it'll be a higher spec than the Wii U.

Except that is an entirely different thing. In the PC-world, you have loads of configurations, different versions of OS, drivers, direct X and even different hardware architectures. In the case of NX, the handheld and the home model would be nearly identical except for one thing, GPU-power. This is a relatively easy thing to test, since this is only about performance really.

Yeah, on PC you can have 4GB RAM or 24GB. 1GB of VRAM or 8GB. The latest NVidia bleeding edge GPU or Intel graphics. You can have one GPU or multiple GPUs. You can have a dual-core Pentum with a huge overclock, an octo-core AMD chip with far lower performance per cores or an intel i7 that has both and some. Ontop of that someone could be running Windows 7, 8 or 10. They might be using different versions of Direct X or want to use a different API entirely.

What we were talking about with a possible NX was not at all as complex as that. You'd have a portable SKU with maybe twice the power of the Wii U. And with a 720p display it doesn't need much more than that. Then a second SKU with the same basic setup. The same architecture, the same just about everything. The same cartridge slot. But you'd bump up the spec for the CPU, GPU and RAM and sell it as a kind of micro-console. One that had something closer to the power of an XBOne. Which you could use to push images to a full 1080p display. With better AA, effects, textures and framerates.

I'm not convinced that's what the NX is personally. But I can see how it would work. There would be issues with it. For example how much you could push the home console version would be limited by how much the portable could handle. You'd have to take into account how much the game would have to scale down for the portable. But that's far less of an issue than having to develop entirely separate pieces of content as they do now. It's also something that they're going to have to grapple with any kind of "hybrid" concept. And it's a far more sensible idea, IMO, than some of the other theories floating around.

@Grumblevolcano True true

@Therad it is still extra work put on the developers to test and to make sure it works correctly in both modes.

@MarcelRguez if testing a game on the more powerful system isn't mandatory then there will be cases where games are broken on the more powerful system. A patch would be able to fix that but if a company isn't successful enough with their product, then most likely they will just leave it broken.

Of course it is, but it would still be simpler than porting from xbox one to ps4 for example.

Also, we are talking about Triple-A in this case. If you are not building a game with top-of-the-line graphics, you can easily just target the smallest available target.

@Therad I am not talking about AAA, however the extra in development time and test (which may not seem like much) would still be a factor in if it is worth it to pirt a game. I am talking about smaller indies, ones where they survive based on how well each of their games do. They then have to make sure the game works on both piwer levels and that adds to the work and money they have to put into the project. For some it will be easier, for some it will be more difficult

With the setup we're talking about here indie games would just target the smaller platform. It'd only be the games where they really want to get every last frame out of it where it'd matter. Assuming the hardware was similar enough. And in any case, the same would be true for a hybrid concept where the base somehow adds to the performance. Both of which are less of a hassle than the 3DS/Wii U setup they currently have.

The only setup that would be simpler is if it's just one system.

@skywake having only 1 system would be simpler. I don't like the idea of having 1 system with multiple power levels. If developers target the lower end power, they still have to make sure the game functions properly on the higher powered level because it is the same system. Normally it has been that you only have to target 1 power level, then port to other systems of different power levels but times are changing and all it does is make it harder on the developers.

@DefHalan If it runs on the lower end device, it'll also run on the higher end device. Especially for indie games, there's usually no advanced lighting settings, shadow resolution and whatnot. So those games will probably be the same on both SKUs. It's really not big of a deal. You're making it sound as if two different SKUs means they have to do double the work. It probably won't even make a difference at all in development time. The potential extra amount of work is negligible.

@Octane It is a noticeable difference. Android games are generally pretty simple and some of that has to do with the amount of different devices with different specs that they need to keep in mind. This issue won't be as wide spread as with Phones, but this is the direction which consoles are heading. For the most part, android developers have a couple key devices they test occasionally that they target and wish anyone without one of those phones the best of luck. (based on my own observations when I worked for Disney Interactive) Now with smaller companies, who don't have as much money as Disney, they will be able to afford less devices and less testing. If a company can barely afford to do certain projects (look at how popular Kickstarter became because of that issue) then how likely are some of these indies (especially ones that couldn't have successful Kickstarters if they tried) then they are unlikely to be able to afford more testing and more development time. In the grand scheme of things, it may not seem like much, but when you look at companies like Atooi, how are they supposed to afford more development time and more testing. On phones it is more acceptable to have issues with certain devices, on consoles it is not. As someone trying to become an indie developer, I don't want to have to split my focus between multiple power levels trying to get my game on 1 platform. Sometimes (possibly most of the time) it won't be an issue, but even if it is occasionally an issue, that is more money, more time, and more work. I would rather not have this. I get the appeal from a consumer side, but I see more downsides than upsides overall.

@DefHalan Yeah, that's what happens on PC and mobile, they test the minimal requirements for the game. If it works on those, it'll work on anything that's more powerful than that. We're not even talking about thousands of possible configurations, we're just talking about 2 different SKUs, same architecture, same engine support, same everything really. Just a more powerful CPU, GPU and more RAM. If your game runs fine on the lower end device, it'll run fine on the higher end device. Indie devs don't even have to worry about this at all for the most part. Games like Hyper Light Drifter, Shovel Knight? That's no issue for the Wii U or PS4 to run. This mainly applies to AAA games. So unless you're planning on developing the next Breath of the Wild, it's really no issue. It works on PC, so I can't fathom how this will be a problem for just two different set-ups, and even those two are still more alike than two random PCs. This is some Artwark level of worrying here, there's absolutely no reason to be worried about this as an indie dev.

Why would a small developer like atooi even want to use most of the graphical power in a console? If they start doing that, they would soon go out of business. The more flashy graphics you do, the more time it would take to get it on the market.

Overall, forget about indies. Most are not graphics intensive.

If people don't want to believe that a game built on a lower spec machine can have issues on higher spec machines, then don't believe me. I have seen it happen and I think creating a system that can cause those issues is asking for trouble. I know as a developer, the NX rumors are not impressing me or making me want to support it. I would rather support the Wii U or 3DS at this time.

A Nintendo NX Delay Would Help It Dominate In 2017

According to Nintendo’s current, alleged timetable, we should be hearing an announcement about the Nintendo NX any day now, and the console itself will come out next March. The March release is the only official info Nintendo has given out about the NX to date, but increasingly, their plan to debut the console now and release it then seems increasingly unlikely.

There are three main issues with Nintendo’s plan here:

1. Announcing a console now during an incredibly busy holiday release window when that console does not come out for the holiday is a bad idea.

2. Announcing a console when there’s now less than six months until release is not that much time to promote the product.

3. Releasing a new console in March is a pretty odd time window by itself.

I cannot speculate about Nintendo’s motives as to why they’re remaining silent about the NX ten months into 2016 and this close to launch, but all indications point to a possible delay, and honestly, I think that’s that’s the best course of action for a few reasons.

My new theory? Nintendo should wait to announce the NX until January, and then debut the system in late June.

This solves at least few of the above problems in multiple ways. Nintendo should announce now that a “Nintendo NX Premiere Event” will be on a specific date in January (like, the 2nd, ideally) so that fans can stop sitting around and praying that a Direct magically pops into existence.

Why January? Again, it’s to get around problem number one. There are at least a half dozen major AAA game releases coming out this fall, and two new pieces of Sony hardware, the PS4 Pro and PSVR. Not that people wouldn’t pay attention to Nintendo’s NX announcement if it did happen, but it would get choked by all this other news, and besides that, the console isn’t even going to be out for purchase this holiday. Additionally, Nintendo should have their own “moment” this holiday with the (assuredly profitable) release of Super Mario Run on iOS this December.

But January? Nothing will be happening in January, and the NX would be the only thing anyone is talking about. Nintendo can launch 2017 as a hard reset for their hardware ambitions, debuting the (hopefully promising) NX right as the year starts. While I’d love for this to be a live stage show complete with demos, it will probably be a Direct, and this leads me to my next point.

This would also have to come with a delay, obviously. You can’t debut a console in January and have it come out in March. So, I would suggest a late June release, one that comes directly after E3 itself.

Previously, when we’ve talked about the short release spans of the PS4 and Xbox One, both had big E3 events between their debut and the launch of the console. But here, after six months of build-up, Nintendo could show up at E3 with a huge number of games for the NX, and not only “win” the show, as they have in the past year or two, but also have the benefit of putting the NX on sale almost immediately after E3 was over. It would be the ultimate hype lead-in for the product, provided what’s shown is actually something to get excited about.

Add in the idea that the NX might launch with some serious heavy-hitters (Zelda, possibly Mario and Pokémon) and you would have the success story of the summer, a time when there’s usually a pretty heavy drought of releases, but a period where people aren’t in school and able to play more video games than ever. This is an argument against a potential, traditional release in Fall 2017 (which would be a huge delay) where the NX would be facing off against yet another collection of big AAA titles and Xbox’s new Scorpio console.

A longer delay to Fall 2017 does not seem like the best idea given the competition the NX would face then and the fact that they really do need to replace the Wii U as soon as they can manage. But this “announce any day now, release in March” idea doesn’t seem like the best course of action either. That’s why I think a plan to announce as soon as the new year hits, and then launch as soon as the new year hits, and then launch as soon as E3 ends is the best move, but we’ll see what actually happens soon enough, I suppose.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/10/06/a-nintendo-...

@Ichi It is still on the Developer to make sure it works correctly on both systems.