Forums

Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Posts 6,061 to 6,080 of 70,113

skywake

iKhan wrote:

You might like the Wii U and think it has enough power, but if the switch is Wii U powered, how can Nintendo make the system sound like a worthwhile purchase to anyone not interested in the mobile aspect?

Because Nintendo are making the same gamble Apple made with the iPad. That people sometimes care more about portability than they do power. Apple was ridiculed by many people including myself when the iPad was announced. What is the point of a device like that when you can do so much more on a laptop? But the gamble payed off. Mobile hardware had become good enough that a lot of consumers were ready for tablets.

With the Switch you might be right. Maybe Nintendo are making the wrong gamble here. Maybe nobody cares about portable gaming and they instead care about the best visuals. But at the same time playing for improved graphics forever is a game of diminishing returns. Someone was going to take this gamble eventually. I personally think Nintendo has made the right move here because this will eventually be what consoles become. It's just a question of whether or not they've gone too early.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions

Octane

Vee_Flames wrote:

Where's that Wii U Pokemon game?

I really don't know what's going on with that IP and how much influence Nintendo has over it. If I was Nintendo, that would've been one of the first games I'd release on any console. Handheld, home console, doesn't matter. That's a system seller regardless of the platform it's on.

Edited on by Octane

Octane

SLIGEACH_EIRE

Nintendo Switch patents hint at the console's secrets

Patents filed show Nintendo Switch could feature a built-in projector and allow swappable controllers

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nintendo-switch-patents-secrets

We know that all the Switch's secrets haven't been revealed yet and I could see a projector being included. I remember Miyamoto talking about that features at least a couple of generations ago. And if he talks about it then it's definitely a possibility. I may be wrong but I don't think it would be expensive to implement.

SLIGEACH_EIRE

Nintendo Network ID: SLIGEACH_EIRE

Luna_110

@BiasedSonyFan
I agree. People, specially younger people, tend to look portability like something ridiculous, but when you try to balance studies, job, family and having a social life, portability is a god send.
Sometimes, after a day of work, I have two or three hours to relax before supper with my family, but I don't want to connect all Wii U's cables, and to stay in front of the TV - I just want to bundle down in my bed or in the sofa in the living, so I can chat with my family while I play. I can't use the Wii U then, so I use the 3DS.
Home console is a weekend luxury nowadays for me. Who except a uni student or a kid has time for long play sessions in the week?

I have a chronic lack of time, for everything.

Now playing: Okami HD, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

Switch Friend Code: SW-8536-9884-6679 | 3DS Friend Code: 0877-2091-1186 | Nintendo Network ID: Luna_cs

veeflames

Octane wrote:

Vee_Flames wrote:

Where's that Wii U Pokemon game?

I really don't know what's going on with that IP and how much influence Nintendo has over it. If I was Nintendo, that would've been one of the first games I'd release on any console. Handheld, home console, doesn't matter. That's a system seller regardless of the platform it's on.

Exactly. It's really a missed opportunity for the Wii U.... it may not sell a million units everyday with a Pokémon game, but at least it will give the Wii U some more numbers, Right now it's roughly 10 million units behind the GameCube (and we all know it's gonna remain there)... which is such a shame.
I don't get Game Freak's paranoia of home console Pokémon games. In fact, with the GamePad the Wii U is quite suitable for a main series Pokémon game (maybe even an MMO of sorts, if you will). If they're REALLY worried, then create a free app for the 3DS that allows players to take their battle teams around and battle on the go, as well as trade and.. do more stuff (you get the idea).
Anyways, Didn't Masuda mention that Game Freak was going to create games for the Switch? Hopefully one of those games include Pokémon. I mean, it has to; the Switch in some ways qualifies as a handheld.

God first.
My Switch FC: SW824410196326

3DS Friend Code: 1134-8006-9637 | Nintendo Network ID: VolcanoFlames

MarcelRguez

Vee_Flames wrote:

I mean, it has to; the Switch in some ways qualifies as a handheld.

You'll play generation 8 on the 3DS at 20fps on average and you'll like it.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Samurai_Goroh

Game Freak is always behind the curve in supporting new Nintendo hardware. Pokémon on the Switch? Eventually, but no sooner than Holiday 2019. I bet we'll get Sun and Moon 2 on the 3DS (not the New) before that.

Edited on by Samurai_Goroh

Samurai_Goroh

Octane

And that's the weird thing. I wouldn't have helped the Wii U, but it can definitely help the Switch. The 3DS already got 2 main series games and 2 remakes. If I were Nintendo, I would've delayed Sun & Moon instead of Zelda. Sun & Moon are a bigger system seller than Zelda could ever be. It seems so obvious. I don't get it. I mean, Nintendo probably doesn't have enough control over Pokemon to make that happen, but still. I'm sure they could've agreed on something to get those games on the Switch at launch.

Octane

Samurai_Goroh

@Octane Game Freak does whatever they like, they are not owned by Nintendo. They are partners on The Pokémon Company. If they were 2nd party, there was many times in the past when they could have supported console launches, but they only care about their bottom line: Having many millions of installed userbase to sell the games. Getting that userbase in the first place is up to Nintendo from their point of view. Not their job.
That's why we got Pokémon Crystal in 2001 for the GB Colour instead of the Advance. Emerald came in 2005 still for the Advance and not the DS. And more recently, Black and White 2 released in 2012 to the original DS, one year into the 3DS lifecycle.

Samurai_Goroh

GamerZero

I wonder with Switch will a TV be required at all? Although I do not own a Wii U I heard that you had to have it connected to a TV for the initial setup. I'm planning to use the Switch as a portable device only.

GamerZero

Octane

@Samurai_Goroh I don't think GameFreak owns any part of the Pokemon series. TPC and Nintendo own the series (Nintendo owns the copyrights to all the names and whatnot). It's complicated, but probably so that the franchise can only appear on Nintendo consoles (well, and mobile and PC for spin-offs). The problem is that TPC is also owned by Nintendo and GameFreak. The franchise is tied to Nintendo as the platform holder and GF as the developer in this case.

Octane

Octane

@GamerZero You probably can. All the computing is done in the tablet. The TV exists more as an alternative display option. So I don't see why it would require a TV at all. In the end, it's still a handheld that can be displayed on screen.

Octane

erv

If the initial setup is tv bound and doesn't allow for a user friendly way of getting started, Nintendo will lose half its potential sales.

As stated before, you want to be the subject of conversation in social media circles, and it doesn't help to have everybody complain about your new device.

Switch code: SW-0397-5211-6428
PlayStation: genetic-eternal

Nintendo Network ID: genet1c

Samurai_Goroh

@Octane The franchise can only be released on Nintendo consoles, but what Nintendo consoles and when, it is entirely the developer's choice, in this case GF.
It wasn't that big of an issue in the past because since Game Boy through the 3DS line, backward compatibility was there on every handheld. So if you had just bought a GBA at launch and wanted to play Pokémon, you could get Pokémon Crystal in spite of it being a GB Colour release.

But the Switch will not be backwards compatible with the previous handheld and Pokémon Sun and Moon are looming in the horizon. Maybe, just maybe Nintendo could convince GF to allow a port of it to the Switch, but I am nevertheless sceptical. For one, taking a 3DS game and making it look decent on a HDTV is going to take some real effort. Not just bumping up the resolution.

Samurai_Goroh

TuVictus

AlternateButtons wrote:

Okay something that's been really bothering me is when people say the Switch cannot be sold for more than $300 or $400 or whatever have you otherwise it's DOA. Like really? What gives Sony the right to charge $400 bucks for a console and get cheers from a crowd but Nintendo for some reason can't?

What's that? It'll be less powerful than PS4 so it's not worth it and Sony is a better value? I'm sorry, are we forgetting the damn thing is portable? Can be taken anywhere? Even if it's slightly less powerful than XB1, that's one powerful handheld we're talking about. It might be possible to play Skyrim ANYWHERE.

Let me drive this point home. You can have a console experience ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. No more being tethered to a TV. So for people to say there's nothing special about the Nintendo Switch, investors especially, they're clearly not seeing the forest through the trees. Either they're vastly underestimating the potential of a portable home console experience or they just don't understand the concept at all. It's aggravating to no end. The potential in this thing is HUGE.

.....Let's just hope the battery life can sustain that potential. That I'm a bit worried about.

Because many people don't care about the portable aspect of it. To them, it'd be like paying $400 to use half a console when you can get a PS4 pro, guaranteed to be the most powerful gaming hardware for a while. Until Scorpio comes out. Plus, portable AAA games sounds nice in theory, but I think Nintendo overestimates people in the west wanting to play games like that on the go. But we'll see.

TuVictus

TuVictus

@AlternateButtons at that point it becomes a question of just how many people have that preference? Ps4 is successful because it seems most dedicated gamers have a - preference- for powerful traditional gaming that can be done at home.

The switch will do okay enough. But I think it's way too early to tell if it'll be a resounding success or not.

TuVictus

TheMisterManGuy

Throughout the Wii and DS era, Nintendo began releasing many "lifestyle" games. These games include Brain Age, Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Personal Trainer, and some basic puzzle games like Picross, and Crosswords. These weren't so much traditional games, as they were extensions of everyday life for people who never really played games. These were great games, and helped lay the blueprints for the modern mobile market. But that's the problem, these kinds of software now thrive on mobile devices, where the new generation of non-gamers are. So much so that when Nintendo made sequels for the Wii U and 3DS in hopes that lightning would strike twice, they failed miserably.
This is why going forward, Nintendo can still make casual games, I'd argue that's one of their greatest strengths. But focus less on making lifestyle experiences, and instead create unique entertainment with universal appeal. Rhythm Heaven is a good example of where Nintendo should go with casual games. It feels like fun entertainment rather than some extension of life. Hell, I'd argue that they need to take inspiration from some of the business models of mobile in the future as well. Casual gamers don't want to pay $40-60 for games anymore. They rather have something they could get for either a couple dollars, or in other cases, free.
I always said Nintendo should just make games, for people who like games, and I stick by it. But casual games can be enjoyed by "core" gamers as well. I would argue Nintendo is better at making fun, and simple casual or bridge games than they are at trying to cultivate "hardcore" games, and that's a strength they need to hone for then next generation. Not that the occasional "hardcore" game isn't welcome.

TheMisterManGuy

Octane

AlternateButtons wrote:

@Operative I understand the preference but that's just what it is. Preference. If they're not a fan of the portability, the Switch just isn't for them. And that's fine. If they want power and guaranteed third party games, then the PS4 is the console for them. But for them to outright deny any value in a portable home console based on their preference is just silly. This thing has an audience and I have a feeling it will sell very well.

Power has nothing to do with it. It's games and marketing. Otherwise the PS2 wouldn't have sold 150 million units. I don't think many people care about the actual specs as long as it's the most affordable, has the most games or has the best marketing, or a combination of those.

The problem is, as soon as your console is limited in some way (architecture, less powerful or if it has a different control scheme), it'll be more difficult to develop for. Development takes more money and less games will be ported over. Less games means a console won't be as attractive and it won't sell as well. In turn, devs are even less interested in the system because of the smaller userbase. See Wii U.

Octane

erv

Nintendo doesn't need to tell people that the switch is high tech.

They need to tell people how much they're away from the tv.

Switch code: SW-0397-5211-6428
PlayStation: genetic-eternal

Nintendo Network ID: genet1c

rallydefault

erv wrote:

Nintendo doesn't need to tell people that the switch is high tech.

They need to tell people how much they're away from the tv.

Dang, man. PLEASE go do some marketing for them, because that's exactly it!

rallydefault

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic