Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@Therad But see their CES 2017 promo. The shield is coming back (sort of).

I've seen a few posts around the net where people try to downplay the significance of the Switch. They try to argue that it's just another high powered portable system. That the Vita did it before and failed. Just to counter that here's a list of portable systems and the home console they were technically closest to:

GB/GBC ~ NES
GBA ~ SNES
N64 < DS < Dreamcast
Dreamcast < PSP < PS2
PS2 < 3DS < Gamecube
XBox < PSV < XBox 360
PSV < Shield Portable < XBox 360
Razer Core ~ XBox 360
360 < Shield Tablet < Wii U
Wii U < Nintendo Switch < XBOne

This is by far the most console-like portable console ever released. The closest things before it are the more recent attempts by NVidia and Razer. But those were still pretty outdated as home console competitors when they launched. They also didn't get the software support the Switch will be getting. So when people try to argue this is nothing new? Just laugh at them. Because they are completely unaware of how much mobile has advanced over the last 5 years or so.

@skywake Makes me excited for the future. Even within the next 5-10 years, we'll be seeing some much more powerful handheld devices. I wouldn't be surprised if the Switch became the basis for all consoles to come. We're getting close to the graphical plateau where visuals just can't really improve anymore, and at that point, why not have console/handheld hybrids instead of one or the other? Horsepower is all the rage right now, but that won't last forever. That's just me speculating, though. The gaming industry could go in a totally different direction from hybrids.

This is just an idea but I think Nintendo will release an upgraded version of the Switch after a few years after launch similar to the PS4 Pro and the Scorpio. We're in an era where the Big 3 are making upgraded versions of their consoles in the middle of their life cycle and if Nintendo wants to remain relevant, I think they need to go with the smartphone/tablet route especially since mobile chips are always evolving.

To put another spin on that post I made from above:

GB: ~5 years behind... but in B&W
GBA: ~10 years behind
DS: ~10 years behind
PSP: ~5 years behind.... but crushed by the transition to HD
3DS: ~10 years behind
Vita: ~7 years behind
Shield/Core: ~10 years behind
Switch: < 4 years behind

But all my reservations I had before reveal still applies. People will pay a premium for the portable part. Even if they are not interested in that feature.

Btw, it is more than 4 years behind. Unless it is on par with the ps4. Which it won't be.

@Therad
You should check your maths, the PS4 launched 3 years ago as of last month. So as a console it's not more than 4 years behind. The Switch is launching as a portable system in the middle of a console cycle. A console cycle that if it was just a home console it wouldn't look out of place in.

Putting it yet another way, one of these things is not like the others....
3: GB < MS < NES
4: GB < GG < MD < SNES
5: GBC < PS < N64
6: GBA < DC < PS2 < GC < XBox
7: DS < PSP < Wii < PS3 = 360
8: 3DS < Vita < Wii U < Switch < XBOne < PS4

To put it simply, this is the first time a portable system can be called a home console upgrade. The PSP was a step back from everything except the Dreamcast. The GBA was definitely behind anything from the N64 era. If you got a Vita then you could look at it as a step up from the Wii. But the Switch? It's above everything from the previous generation AND it's more powerful than the Wii U. That's unprecedented.

@skywake
A) The Switch is being marketed as a Home Console, not a portable. Nintendo wants the Home Console market.
B) PS4 just had the Pro released and XB1 will have Scorpio release next year. That will mean the Switch is even more less powerful than the competition.

While I agree that it seems to be stronger than Wii U and that is unprecedent, I don't agree with your assessment that it is less than 4 years. The switch didn't launch last month, it will be out 3.5 years after PS4 and 4.5 years after Wii U. And I would be very surprised if it would be as "powerful" as even the xbox one. And Xbox one isn't even the golden standard this generation, PS4 is.

I don't think it will be a "generational gap" in power between Wii U and Switch. And if you are after just an home console, I can see some be disappointed, since it would feel like an incremental update. If they would have ditched the portable form factor and still went with nvidia, we could have had something along GTX 950 or 1060 for the same price.

I still think it is an remarkable machine, but it has less power than it could have had as a stationary console. Which is what some people are complaining about.

The Switch was being marketed as a home console, but that was before Sun/Moon- their only big holiday title released- I suspect that as time goes on the language they'll be using about the Switch will change

@DefHalan
It's being marketed as a home console because it's powerful enough to be marketed as such. If Nintendo had released a portable system in 2009 that was about half as powerful as the Wii U ended up being? They would have marketed that as a home console. Especially if it had HDMI out.

But that wouldn't have been possible because you couldn't cram that much power into a portable device in 2009. It's an entirely different landscape now. And yes, there are now home console revisions to compete against. But at this stage the only use they have is for people who have UHD sets. If they had released console revisions back in 2009? It would have been a very, very different story.

@Therad
You're being pedantic. I said <4 years because it was about 3.3 years after the launch of the PS4 and XBOne. The fact that it's almost 4.5 years since the Wii U launched is irrelevant to the point I was making. It's more capable than the Wii U. If the Switch had launched in 2012 it would have been the most powerful console on the market. If it had launched in late 2013 it would have been third. So it's <4 years behind the front of the pack.

@DefHalan The positive thing is that, in terms of software, games need to run on PS4 and Xbox One as well. If the games run on those systems, then it's possible the Switch gets them as well. That's the most important thing; Software. Software used to be tied with computing power; cause more of the latter means you can run more games, but with the mid-gen upgrades, we shouldn't look at the upgrades, but instead we should be looking at the base models. Now, the downside is that a PS5 is inevitable and will probably release in 2019 at the latest, giving the PS4 a 'longer than average' 6-year lifespan, and without really knowing what Microsoft will be doing, the Switch may find itself in a Wii U situation again in a few years time, but until then, the mid-gen upgrades aren't an issue.

An even simpler way to look at it. Imagine if the DS and 3DS had not existed but both the Wii and Wii U were portable. Both of them with the same specs they launched at. Both up against the same competition from Sony and Microsoft and with the same retail prices. Everything the same, but also portable and with the full weight of Nintendo and their partners developing software for it.

Would that have been insane for the respective years those consoles launched? Well yes. At the time that would have been ridiculous. There would have been the same gap in power between them and their competitors for sure. But it would have still been nuts. And as salty as the lovers of high end graphics may have been? I think it's fair to say that they would have sold pretty well indeed

Why are you talking about a hypothetical scenario which you have no idea how the "power-loving crowd" would have reacted? We don't know. We also don't know if it would have sold well.

I understand that you want to talk up the switch, but you need to realize there will be people that won't find it impressive, since they aren't interested in the portable part. Especially those that actually bought a Wii U and wanted a new home console. There is a real possibility it won't feel like an especially big power gap between it and Wii U and in that case it might feel more like a forced upgrade than anything else.

Yikes.

As things stand, CPU clocks are halved compared to the standard Tegra X1, but it's the GPU aspect of the equation that will prove more controversial. Even while docked, Switch doesn't run at Tegra X1's full potential.

"we should not expect to see Switch versions of cutting-edge blockbusters"

Eurogamer: - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintend...

Unfortunately, it looks like the Nintendo Switch is going to be even more underpowered than we expected...

@Therad It's unrealistic to imagine the Switch won't have a significant power gap between itself and the Wii U. Even ignoring the fact that the Venture Beat "X1" rumour has been thoroughly debunked, even the standard X1 with a decent amount of RAM could embarrass the Wii U & that's not to knock the Wii U, but we've seen an X1 running games the Wii U couldn't in the trade show it was revealed over a year ago.

Even if we imagine Nintendo broke an X1 in half and made it as powerful as a Wii U the Switch would STILL have the advantage that it can run ALL the modern gaming engines and modern development tools that developers rely on to make their games. Whereas we have developers on record swearing about developing on the Wii U, the Switch should be no different that working on a PS4 or XB1.

As for the form factor, Nintendo simply can not afford to fail with this console hybrid, Nintendo doesn't have endless pockets and was probably facing having to release NO console or catering to both their console & portable player-bases. I don't buy consoles any more, I only buy handhelds... I will buy a Switch. If Nintendo can even convince half their handheld gamers to move to the Switch they've probably done well enough to give the Switch a decent lifespan.

I don't see this as Nintendo failing to give console gamers what they want, I see it as Nintendo trying to recover enough goodwill from a bruised fanbase to make a new standalone console possible further down the line.

Not surprising. It is unrealistic to expect a small tablet to match or exceed ps4 in power while maintaining a reasonable price point.

@Peek-a-boo The problem is Eurogamer is using a rumour which many people are stating as thoroughly debunked to confirm something Digital Foundry stated about an old version of the Switch Dev Kit.

Lets just confirm something, the Venture Beat rumour stated Nintendo wanted to save money by using the X1... this is wrong as the X2 and it's 16nm form would be cheaper to produce. They also claimed the X2 ran hotter, which is completely incorrect as the X2 is designed from the ground up to reduce heat. They ALSO stated the X2 would use more battery, also completely incorrect as the X2 is again designed to be MORE efficient than the X1.

While it may be true that the Switch runs an X1, it's certainly not due to the reasons explained in the Venture Beat rumour. That rumour doesn't appear to have been put together by people who understand how mobile tech works.

@WebHead That's a very good point actually. though I don't think many people assumed the Switch would match or exceed the PS4. Close to the XB1 was more where people were placing it, but replacing the X1 with an X2 would actually save Nintendo money. Odd choice.

The infamous laura dale is backing it up too.

@DanteSolablood Um, Digital Foundry are like the top people in the industry when it comes to specifications...

I think they know what they are talking about.