Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

An hour is enough to explain the console features and the upcoming games, as there's Nintendo Treehouse after it to demo the games.

@Octane, I thought PSX was longer than an hour, but it was relentless in announcing wall to wall games and the Vita also got a brief look in. Now if the Switch reveal is like that we will be in for one hell of a year.

@Webhead, that's why I'm not pre-ordering till after I have watched treehouse live after I get home from work.

Recent FCC filing reports.

Tech Times have pointed out the key details:

having a portable only SKU is vastly different from having a stationary SKU so I am not sure why you mention that... It also wouldn't be that much cheaper since it would be the same thing without a dock, where a stationary would lose the dock + screen and battery.

Non-removable battery... That's not great for people who intend to use it as a handheld device... The battery will eventually die, so switching it out for a new one will be tricky.

1 hour is perfectly fine. You don't want to much dead time in this kind of presentation. And for those that want more details can always look at the tree house.

Can't see non removable battery being an issue, as long as it's better than the Wii U game pad. Repair wise I'm assuming the battery will have a decent life span.

Agreed - I think it will be more than enough, especially with the Treehouse thing confirmed for after.

Ah! This is getting so exciting!

Does anybody think they'll open official preorders during/after the show? I'm in the U.S., and the major retailers here haven't opened for preorders yet.

If you do a youtube search for Nintendo's E3 presentations it's usually about that long. Some are a bit less and others are a bit more but there's not much variation either side.

Nothing really surprising there. No mobile connectivity seems pretty reasonable to me. Why would you want to pay for a second mobile plan for your portable gaming device when you can just tether it to your phone? Or just wait until you get home. It's not a huge deal and I doubt it'll be a deal breaker for anyone. Same thing with the non-removable battery.

The WiFi one I think is kinda amusing in a way. Because the article quoted talks about how much of a jump it is from the Wii U. Except that the Wii U did have 5Ghz WiFi it was just locked down to be used for the GamePad. And when it launched ac wasn't an official standard yet. So really the Wii U's WiFi tech was about as modern as it could have been at the time. It's just the timing and way it was used means people can talk about how much more advanced the Switch is.

I mentioned it as a counter-point. Because I think me saying that a portable only SKU is a good idea for me is as misguided as your desire for a non-portable SKU. For Nintendo it would just create more trouble than it's worth.

I also disagree with your theory that a portable only SKU wouldn't shave money off as much as a non-portable SKU would. IMO neither idea makes much sense but they would both be cheaper than what we're getting for different reasons. A non-portable SKU wouldn't need the battery or screen. A portable only SKU wouldn't need as high a spec SoC and it wouldn't need the display port to HDMI adaptor and USB hub. But in both cases we're talking a small fraction of the total cost of the system.

And to what end? Both devices would appeal to a smaller market than the device we are getting. They'd likely end up sitting on the shelf and therefore take up shelf space and manufacturing time that could have been used more efficiently. And I don't see how the more complete device is any sort of disadvantage to consumers who only want one part of it. Especially for the people who only want a home console.

As I said earlier, even if you don't want a portable you're getting a hot-swapable console. Buy extra docks and you can have a Switch on every screen in the house.

Yea, seems logical. Just another question for people in the U.S. who have preordered consoles before: Any specific retailer you tend to preorder through? Amazon? Best Buy? Walmart? Have you been burned by any of them?

@skywake Since you mentioned tethering... I've used my phone to share internet access to all my devices for 2,5 years now and while it ables me to use eShop, download Mario Maker levels, etc. I can't use it to actually play online on my Wii U or 3DS. I once got to 3 player race of Mario Kart 8 but that's all I've been able to do. It's not my speed since it's much better than what I had years ago when I lived with my parents. Right now it's 50 down, 10 up. I'm still able to play games online on my PC.

Does anyone know what restricts me from playing my console games online and if it's something that Switch is able to fix? Are the consoles the ones restricting me or the connection type (4g, by the way)? It wasn't a problem for me until Splatoon was released since I rarely wanted to play online but I'd be happy to play Splatoon Switch online.

@Late
Seems a bit odd to me. Maybe the servers are booting you for high ping or something. Because how many Mbps your connection is doesn't really matter much for online games. Still, it's hard to tell. And I think it's fair to say that if you've had that problem on the Wii U and 3DS the Switch probably won't resolve it.

@skywake the switch is already an handheld, why would they change the SoC? That would increase the cost rather than decrease it, since you would need more development time. Removing the screen and battery is much much simpler than redevelop a chip.

I don't think many thinks moving a console between screen is a priority. And even so, people that want an handheld or want simplicity moving between screens would simply buy the more expensive portable version.

I don't think they will do a stationary console, but I think they should.

@Therad
I didn't say a different SoC I said not as high a spec SoC. Something they could do by binning. Get the chips that don't boost upto the required speed for the TV mode. Instead of throwing them out they could limit the clock speed and sell them in a different SKU. The Switch as it is would be more expensive to produce than both theoretical non-portable and portable only SKUs would be.

All I'm saying is that I don't see how either makes any sense. Could they be slightly cheaper? Sure. But those sort of SKU variations would have a smaller audience than the device we're actually getting. And the cost saving wouldn't be that dramatic. You'd end up with a Wii U Basic SKU type scenario. There'd be only one of the gimped SKUs in stock and most consumers would want the one that does both. I think there will be revisions down the line but I think it makes more sense if they're done in ways that don't change what the Switch is. Like a Switch Mini or something.

Little talking? Guess you want Nintendo to explain the Switch by using trailers and hand signals.

@TwilightOniAngel What is there to explain? It's a handheld with removable controllers that can be placed in a dock to display the games on screen. They already explained that in the reveal trailer (and they didn't need to use words in that trailer either). Besides, seeing people use the system is often a better way of explaining how it works than talking about it. I don't need Reggie spending 15 minutes on how it has motion controls as well, they can show that in a 2 minute trailer. The important thing now are the games.

1 hour is plenty. For those of us who have been waiting and speculating for months and months, it may seem like little time to cover all the games and features of our hopes and dreams, but the average consumer could probably skip on the detail. They just need a clear message of what the system can do, and a strong selection of games to back them up. No need to elaborate too much on any particular games (that's what Treehouse is for). Personally, if I could give one criticism of Nintendo's previous presentations, it's that they aren't concise enough.

Hopefully, 1 hour is more than enough. We don't want it to drag out either. The PS4 Pro conference that Sony did was horrible and it wasn't appreciated as much as it could be.

I'll watch it, but on replay on a sane time. Well, for my timezone anyway.

NicoNico only does timestamps by the half hour, so it's possible that it's actually around 90 minutes or so.