Soapbox: The Nintendo Switch's Final Specs Don't Matter

I agree they don't matter,I just want games.and a awesome Nintendo console/handheld.

Well, since this is a soapbox, you would think the comments would be pretty clean....

I think I actually agree with this. No one takes Nintendo seriously as a competitor anymore, so they're pretty much free to do whatever in the specs department. It's on them to wow with good games and third-party selection, and I believe they'll come out of the gate with some good stuff. Whether or not it has staying power remains to be seen, but specs won't be what sinks this console or leads to its success for sure!

They never did matter. For true gamers that is

Nothing matters, it's Nintendo! Everyone must buy it, or else I'll have to get a bigger soapbox to scream from!

I get that specs aren't end-all, even for the developers, but at this point...Nintendo is fighting a monstrously uphill battle. Every positive box they can tick while still staying affordable would help, dontcha think?

@World "No one takes Nintendo seriously as a competitor anymore"

A little sad, a little funny and all the way true.

Remember the days when Nintendo was the big dog on the block? Le sigh...

Just stoping by to say I love your videos even if you was babbling about nonsense stuff XD

@MilitiaMan "true gamers"

Only wieners focus on specs. As long as it plays Nintendo games I'm buying it!

If it limits a game, then they matter. If they prevent certain companies from bringing games to the console, they matter. I remember having Twilight Princess and the 360 was new. It was jarring to go back to the Wii. I'm not saying there won't be great games on Switch. But it's always better to have the most advanced system. Who wants a phone with 5 year old technology? Why watch a DVD when you can watch a BluRay? Specs are very important. Are they everything? Of course not. But we can have both right?

Specs defiantly matter, but games are the real thing to focus on.

Specs are the single most important aspect of a console these days.

Good games. That's literally it. That's all I REALLY want. Of course if it was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, that would be cool. However, at the end of the day, all that matters is the games.

Chavs, geeks and the narcissistic care about specs, and that's all fine, but - at the end of the day - if said game runs like I dog, what good are specs? Playing every WiiU game I picked up since launch, for me, I've never failed to be impressed and a lot of the time 'blown away' by what I was seeing/playing.

Have I been more impressed playing some of the so-called 'big hitters' via my PS4 this gen thus far? No, not really. In fact, The Last Guardian has arguably been the game I have enjoyed the most to date, and trust me, it's no next gen vision.

Specs shouldn't matter to the consumer. But they are paramount to developers, especially 3rd party AAA western developers. And when it will start to matter a lot is when development starts to shift to PS4 Pro and Scorpio as the benchmark. This will become the case within a years time, two tops.

Of course, if Nintendo gamers don't actually buy the initial wave of 3rd party games that come out, then this is all a moot point anyways. Additionally, Nintendo themselves need to make Switch compelling enough up front to get people to adopt. Breath of the Wild ain't gonna cut it alone.

How to try and cause unnecessary comment arguments by discussing a contentious issue only 2 days before we get an answer on it. We might not see the specs at the presentation... but we'll get a good idea about them from the games.

Games matter FAR more than specs, I dumped my PS3 because I spent most of my time on my 3DS which had far more enjoyable games for me. I think there is a part of the gaming community where specs matter more than anything.. but I'd genuinely be upset to find they were the majority.

Heck, Pokémon games for the portables have pretty much matched Call of Duty unit sales for years (despite CoD being released on twice the number of consoles). Specs are nice... but not everything.

"Because it's portable!"

Spot on, @AlexOlney ... spot on!

If specs were the only important aspect, then someone explain why the DS and 3DS were so much more successful than the PSP and the Vita? Sony always had more horsepower, yet Nintendo handhelds always ended up with huge marketshare. Now I'm not trying to argue, I'm just making a point. Yes graphics matter, but they aren't the most important thing to everyone. While they may be to you...remember, that's just your personal opinion.

This is so true. Tech specs are not everything. GAMES are.

first off nintendo wii was a waste of money wii u was worst with lack of games in order for me to buy this system nintendo must impress me being that i wasted my money and time on the last two crappy systems so yes specs are important specs are everything nowadays on phones ,pc, and consoles

Okay, maybe a somewhat amount.
But in the end, It is GAMES that sell consoles.

Actually, I think the final Switch specs do matter: Let's say I want a Switch console that allows me to play digital versions of games from basically all of Nintendo's past console via its "Virtual Console" service (both home consoles and handhelds), and I REALLY do, then it has to be powerful enough to run games that go right up to Wii U graphics in one way or another. If the Switch isn't powerful enough to do this it's already fallen short of one thing I absolutely believe it needed to really shine. And that's just one thing I brought up where the specs of the system, and more, could be a deciding factor for me personally on whether I give it a thumbs up or not. But, to be fair, I think this is actually more about how Nintendo specifically handles the VC and BC aspects of the console that it is the power to be honest, because I believe the Switch should be powerful enough to digitally run all of Nintendo's past games in one way or another anyway, and the real question is whether Nintendo is smart enough to actually to this or not.

@Pazuzu666 Thanks for separating the groups of people who actually care about specs, Im part of the PCMR, so I get the hype when some mega powerful graphics card that I can't afford gets announced, but I care more about games than I do my wii u being super weak, because In my opinon, the wii u has some of the best games ever made on it.

@impurekind I don't think nintendo would release a new console less powerful than the wii u.

@impurekind Anyone that thinks the Switch won't be at least as power as the Wii U is kidding themselves. The real problem with Nintendo & digital games is that they have a HUGE library already & then release maybe one/two a month? Jim (effing) Sterling Son recently tore into Nintendo & their terrible back catalogue management. You could strap three PS4s together & still not get a good VC service.

Really though, regardless if you agree with it or not, graphical power matters to many gamers, and is a selling point to them. There is no disadvantage to the consumer for having a powerful console, there are disadvantages to having a weak one. The only party that benefits from a weak console is the console's manufacturer.

It never mattered to me. Sure it better have better graphics than the 3DS and get those Freaking cherubs out of there, but all and all, it is a portable. It better be better than the Vita. I know that will be fact.
Just gives us games and more games.

@DanteSolablood I would be fine with more virtual console games being released every month, but if it took resources from new development, than I would have to say no.

In reality, really hard-core gamers buy modded or ultra high-end PCs (I was there). Semi-hard core games buy PS4 and Xbox as well as those who enjoy their respective exclusives (like 2-3 games a tear).

I really don't care about high-end specs, but still, Nintendo will continue to be the second console to get, not the first. Doesn't anyone remember what happened to the Wii on its last 2-3 years? Gathering dust!

@DanteSolablood Well, it depends on how Nintendo is handling the running of these older games on the system: If it's some form of emulation then Switch needs to be pretty powerful to run games of say GC, Wii, and Wii U level, as emulation is a tricky beast, but if it's just direct digital versions of the games that run natively on the Switch then it shouldn't be a problem. But, again, it all comes down to how Nintendo is handling this kind of thing--if it even bothers to let us play old games from all these systems on Switch (and it REALLY should imo).

@The8BitLego Neither do I, but see my point above.

Are they the number one thing, absolutely not. Do they still matter, imo yes very much so.

@WOLF1313 It's just plain common sense, isn't it? The situation with the Wii after a while is that it would be left out in the cold when a new game came out for the PS3 or Xbox 360. We had got used to hearing that a Wii version of said game was not being developed because of its inferior specs. With the Wii U, the same thing happened at an accelerated pace. I have a bad feeling about this.

Specs don't matter until developers start coming out in a few years saying they "tried to port it to Switch but we couldn't get the game running like we envisioned it to perform".

@The8BitLego I don't think it's an either/or situation, Nintendo doesn't have to rebuild the games from scratch everytime a new console launches.. the slow release is something they've chosen to do. Take GBA games for example, I have quite a few of them sat on my 3DS from a few months after the 3DS' launch. Years later down the line none of these already perfectly converted, beautifully running games have been released to a wider audience.

@impurekind Exactly, it's not really down to power... it's how it's dealt with. However, some phones can already tackle Wii games & even with the worst specs speculation, the Switch will be far more powerful than the best mobile phones out there.

Specs don't matter? Seriously? The reason the wii u flopped was because the majority of gamers didn't want a weak console. Which than lead to a low install base which meant no third party support because of how weak it was.

@Daldra I thought the reason the Wii U flopped was because no one knew what it was for 2 years.

@Daldra Actually the Wii U launched REALLY well. The reason it flopped is because Nintendo made a design decision to run it on EXTREMELY low power making it a pain in the bum to develop for. No third parties = no games = no players = less third parties.

Also didn't help 90% of the non-hardcore games thought it was a Wii add-on.

Nintendo have already addressed this issue however & it seems developers are universally saying the Switch is a dream to develop on. Most games running on UE4 for the PS4/Xbone only really needs a change in settings by all accounts.

@ducktrapper Absolutely. Nintendo will make great games with less power. 3rd party titles that benefit from portability will do fine. But....if it's a major 3rd party game that will mostly be played on your TV.....I will buy the best version. Most people will. And that won't be the Switch version. Try playing Destiny on PS3 vs PS4.

You can argue they matter little. Not that they don't matter at all.
You can tell that to us Nintendo fans, but third-party devs won't buy it. If the system sells, we get third-party support. If the system sells and has good specs, we get the third-party support we actually care for (and not the huge wave of shovelware the Wii got, given it technically sold but for the wrong reasons). The third-party support we care for is the same kind of games that so far needed us to get a rival console.
Take the home console version of Sonic Generations, for example. It was labeled as "multiplatform", which means it came out on PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. Wait, where's the Wii? How is it truly multiplatform?
And the same happened with the Wii U, only ten times worse. Where's The Division? PC, Xbox One, PS4. Take every game that "skipped" the Wii U (heck, "is skipping Wii U" is a sentence we've read in so many NL articles so far...), that's still the definition of "multiplatform" to an alarmingly high number of people. No, any game that doesn't come out on all major consoles still counts as an exclusive to me and it oughta get referred to as such.
What used to be the main appeal of a Nintendo console was access to many great third-party franchises and the Nintendo games. The biggest downside of owning a Nintendo console nowadays is that the great, awesome first-party titles are all there is to it. In the immortal words of the late Satoru Iwata, bless his soul, "you want to play Nintendo games, you buy a Nintendo console"... and, in a pretty much fair deal, the same is true for Sony games and for Microsoft games. But in these cases, on the same machine that plays Ratchet & Clank, you can play an Assassin's Creed. The same console running Halo 4 can also be used to play Fallout. So why does a Nintendo console have to be left out?
Because the specs aren't up to the devs' standards, that's why. We can't sugar-coat it.
Personally, my Xbox One and my Wii U are complementary to each other. I can't have one without the other. I want to play Unravel, I boot up the Xbox. I want to play Mario Maker, I boot up the Wii U (although this can now thankfully be achieved anywhere via 3DS).
I still want to be able to play Nintendo games which is why I'll still buy the Switch, which is my dream - of a home console I can take anywhere - come true. But if third-parties will give it the cold shoulder due to specs, I won't be surprised anymore.
As I said, "I still want to be able to play Nintendo games"; I won't necessarily finish the sentence with "but not if this missing out on third-party games", because my Xbox is there for this very reason. However, since "the neighbor grass is always greener", I can easily see why many Nintendo fans might not be so much willing to sacrifice other non-Nintendo IPs anymore.

TL;DR version: yes, specs matter. They shouldn't matter as much as companies want us to believe, but they still do. To a lesser extent, they do. Either we get a strong machine, or a Nintendo-only machine. Our call.

@gatorboi352 You said it!

As long as it does the thing it was supposed to do, looks good on it's own terms, is attractive enough to third parties to get games, I'm happy.

Specs matter far less for the Switch, simply because of its portability. That's the real draw here, being able to play a game at home on your TV or take it on the go, possibly with hardly a break in between (if the reveal video has any truth to it). As long as it's specs are good enough for ports to be relatively easy and require minimal compromises, it doesn't need to exactly match the PS4 and Xbone or try to keep up with Neo and Scorpio. As long as the games look "good enough" at home, the portability and exclusives can be enough of a draw to pull people in and at least purchase the Switch as a secondary system.

Microsoft and Sony are off chasing 4K and VR when neither of those has proven commercially successful, and that's where their extra hardware power is focused. By coming in with a strong hook and a low price point, Nintendo is poised to carve out a strong niche in the market...provided they don't screw it up and remember the mistakes they made with the 3DS and Wii U.

2 more days...

TWO

MORE

DAYS!!!

I have a question. Does "AAA" strictly mean third-party games? Because I've used the term for both third-party and Nintendo games. People have called me "PS4 fanboy" (Even though I have a PS4 that I quite enjoy, I like Nintendo better) for using that term. I'm just curious. Plus, I don't want to confuse people next time I talk about Nintendo games.

Specs only matter to an extent. What matters more is how easy it is to develop for and port to, as well as sales.

3rd parties care about ROI. The three main factors in that are ease of development/porting, hardware sales, and software sales.

Ease of development matters because it's the cost to make an extra version. Does it take a certain amount of extra time, money, and manpower to make this extra version? The easier it is to port to/develop for, the less the cost is.

Hardware sales matter because they need a potential audience to sell their games to. The more hardware sales there are, the larger the install base, and the larger the install base, the bigger the potential audience is.

Software sales matter because that's who's actually buying your game. Is there an actual audience for your game? This involves demographics and things of that nature.

In regards to Switch, the first one by all accounts seems to not be an issue. For most 3rd parties, it will be the latter two - sales. In the case of western 3rd parties, the third one (software sales) will likely hamper support long term.

Totally agree that specs don't matter. Specs never mattered. What's matters is a good launch lineup that will attract day one buyers. People sitting around saying I'm waiting for this or that from the sidelines will doom this system to poor sales and no third party support just like the Wii U. Establish a solid installed base early with some killer titles and third parties will naturally develop for the system. Devs didn't avoid the Wii U because of specs, the abandoned it because the installed base was puny.

@Senpai_Bruh Nintendo games are First party on their consoles. If they were to make a game for another console it would be Third Party

EDIT: AAA means that a games budget was pretty large

On a side note I had a dream that the Switch had a new Metroid Prime game coming except it was called 'Metroid Ultra' and it had an epic trailer, then I woke up. Lol

2 more days!

In the end of the day it is a simple matter.
The only things that can matter, are games, possible portability and GAMES.
Having more power on the system does help making better games, but if the games on the system are great regardless, then why should anyone care?
Another thing that can help to make better games are btw. additional features like motion control and the Wii U gamepad.

Be it horsepower or special features, in the end it depends on how the developers use it and it's possible to make very good games without any of that.
Just as you can make very very bad games on high end hardware.

As long as Nintendo hardware remains underpowered, compared to MS and Sony, fanboys will say specs don't matter.

Nice agurment bait but really specs do mater very deeply infact it decides what games can come on the system i know it's like " it's nintendo all that matters is games" and if people don't agree with you your like "it 's portable so it will sell" but you know the avarage mainstream gamer (causals) mostly only care about graphics or they have a mobile device that they can do everything on and i even here that mobile technolgy may even pass the swicth in a year or two so by then it's on even more outdated hardware and if this fails nintendo becomes a third party or just simply dies when i first saw the swicth i thought it was cool but then you start thinking is this the wisest descion after the wii u they should have played it safe but they take this risk and this time they don't have a 3DS to keep them afloat so just think about that.

No, specs do matter. They aren't the end-all be-all for the Switch, but the docked Switch can't be just as powerful as the Wii U again and be super successful IMO.

They don't have to be XBone/PS4-level specs either, just somewhat in-between.

Still, specs aren't incredibly important. Great specs doesn't make the PS4 Pro any less stupid of an idea.

It's the games that matter. However, if the specs are too weak that it's a lot of extra effort to port the games, or of its too weak that the Switch version is vastly inferior, then there's going to be problems.

@jbrewer99
Sonys lack of marketing caused them to fail.

If they can come it at the 250-299 price this should do very well, regardless of specs.

I require 60 fps in 1080hd pn TV - THAT'S IT!

Specs matter, but how they're used matters more. For the past 17 years or so, the console with the better specs did not win. PS2 far outsold the Gamecube and Xbox while being the weakest, The Wii far outsold the Xbox and PS3 despite being vastly weaker. The DS vs. PSP, the 3DS vs. the Vita. This gen of home consoles is probably the only example where this won't be the case.

Anyway, I think Mario 3D world was the best looking game of the last few years, and that was strictly due to how they used what tech they had. And a good art style.

It matters in terms of the kind of games we'll be seeing on the system, but it won't define its success. Ultimately, it all depends on the kind of games a person is looking for IMO. Every platform has its merits, and its unique library of games. An individual just has to choose which one suits them the best, or buy multiple if you don't want to pick just one.

Another thing, since many do write that:
No specs do not limit what kind of games you can bring onto a console. You can make any kind of game run on a Wii U, just as you can make any kind of game run on a PS3, because why wouldn't you? The games wouldn't look as nice as on better hardware, but why would a PS4 game not work on a PS3? Just with worse graphics of course.

Seriously, Xbox 360 and PS3 were already at least nearly at the point, where specs couldn' limit the kind of games running on them anymore.

The times where, for example, the size of a world is severly limited by hardware are just over.

I certainly don't mind paying £40 to £50 pounds on a third party game for the Switch that graphically does not match the graphics of its competition. After all Nintendo does not do great graphics, that way they can knock a few quid off the console price. And since they figure that most Switch gamers will play games on the consoles tablet the graphics will suffice.

Just as a little side-note, sometimes you can get better specs but worse performance. Notably Samsung phones are always spec heavy but suffer more lag & software bloat than many other Android phones. Same with some graphics cards... on paper they should be monstrous & cost a butt-load, but benchmarks and real world performance says different.

I think it was the PS2 & it's Cell Processor (correct me if I'm wrong) that never actually managed to use even 80% of it's actual power because the design was SO complicated for devs to work with.

Okay, there is a minimum performance that the Switch will need to meet. But just by using new hardware it's almost impossible for them not to meet that minimum. Now it's all about how easy it is to develop for, how easy it is to tap into it's power & how fun the games can be.

I think the specs should be on par with the PS4 and XB1. Anything below is too underpowered to compete with the rest of the market, and any higher-end specs would raise the price without giving the system more value.

@LeRaposa OK so what if you have the best specs but you have no games.looks like they don't matter.no games specs really don't matter.

Wrong. All things being equal a more powerful system is always better. If Nintendo were to come out with a bleeding-edge console that surpassed PS or XB while having all the N titles... OF COURSE that would be a good thing. Gimmicks can sometimes matter, and obviously content matters, but to disregard pure processing and graphics ability is naive.

@DrRandle There's a difference though, the PS2 wasn't that weak compared to the GameCube and Xbox, not in the way the Wii was to the 360 and PS3 for example. The Wii had a gimmick and that helped it sell. Although, there's no denying that the 80 million sales of both the PS3 and 360 are nothing to scoff at. Anyhow, times change, and I feel that for a traditional home console, being the most powerful will put you in better position. Even if it's just the word of mouth; ''Have you heard? x console is more powerful''.

The Switch is a bit different.. As a home console it's a joke (in terms of computing power), but as a handheld it's a beast. The question is whether people will care about the portability? And are the portable gamers willing to pay for such a powerful machine? Time will tell.

Anyway, the reason why specs are important, because in general better specs mean more games. And more games is always a good thing. VR is currently a hot topic and that requires some pretty high computing power as well, and while some will argue that new hardware today will only allow for better visuals, I've seen games this generation that weren't possible on last gen, not in terms of visuals, but in terms of mechanics. So as long as better specs allow for more and new games, I'm all for it.

@LegendOfPokemon It's a portable system, and for a reasonable price that's not going to happen.

Is it Friday yet?

@BiasedSonyFan Oh no & I don't think it will come close to the PS4's power either... wasn't trying to say that. But I certainly think it will surprise people with what it CAN do with the specs it will have. Even using flash carts reduces RAM usage & file size compared to optical or HDD stored media on the PS4/Xbone.

Again, just as a note rather than an argument. It was interesting to see the original X1 reveal which showed it running the UnrealEngine 4 demo in full HD. It looked surprisingly close to the Xbone which ran the same demo when revealed but the Xbone used 10x the wattage. This is NOT me trying to say the Switch could be as powerful... just saying hopes should not be sub-Wii U levels like a lot of people still seem to think.

We had this discussion before the wii u launched!

Specs matter in the sense that 3rd party developers will look the Switch's specs, along with its architecture, to see how easy it is to developer and/or port games over to the console. To suggest that specs don't matter at all is ludicrous.

With that being said, some of the comments here saying that "specs are the only things that matter" are just as ludicrous.

The Switch's hardware sales also matter. A higher install base means 3rd party publishers will be more willing to support the platform, even if it is weaker than its competitors, since there is a large audience that can be addressed.

The Switch's demographic will also matter. If the Switch audience buys nothing but Nintendo's 1st party games, platformers, and mini-game collections, 3rd party publishers won't support the platform no matter how well it sells or how powerful it is.

The Wii U struggled with all of these things. It was weak, used an unfriendly PPC architecture, had terrible hardware sales, and good software sales only for select Nintendo 1st party blockbusters.

The Switch will be weaker than the PS4/Xbox One, yet uses a friendly Nvidia architecture. It's hardware and software sales are unknown, though it does appear Nintendo is trying to expand their typical demographic by appealing to young adults with an interest in RPGs like Zelda BOTW or Skyrim rather than platformers and mini-game collections like NMSBU and Nintendo Land.

Personally I find more detail in graphics gives me more immersion which I like. But I understand that price is going to be important for the switch

Specs doesn't really matter for me. As long more powerful than Wii U, that's more than enough for me. If Switch has Nintendogs or Animal Crossing, I will not complain just because it looks Cartoonish in HD. I don't really care about Super Duper Ultra Realistic graphic ala FF XV, I'm bored with those Perfection. I would rather enjoy Ultra HD Cartoonish graphic rather than Ultra HD Realistic graphic. Well, that's my taste of gaming.

@BiasedSonyFan I don't think you were quoting me there. Not sure I'd say something quite that silly. :/

A third thing:
Differences in power are being blown waay out of proportion this generation. The Switch will not come close to the PS4? The Wii U already IS quite close to the PS4, the PS4 isn't even that much better than its own predecessor a PS3.
Even without going into a specs discussion (where 99.9% of all commentors always do not seem to really know what they are talking about, even though they think they do),
just make a simple graphics comparison: compare PS3 games with PS4 games. Then compare PS3 games with PS2 games.
You will notice that the difference between PS3 and PS4 looks laughable compared to the difference between PS2 and PS3.

When I upgrade my PC with 400$ budget, I personally wouldn't even be content with a jump from PS3 to PS4 level, I would wait until I can get a bigger upgrade for that money.

If Switch is more powerfull as the Wii U, which is likely, then it can not possibly be far from the PS4, since there isn't enough space between those systems to begin with.

LOL

1) Specs DO NOT MATTER to Nintendo or their fans. That's why they sold 13m WiiUs and flopped.

2) If it is the games that sells consoles then the WiiU had the worst games in history... apart from Dreamcast. This argument is really stupid sometimes. The Dreamcast had great games.

3) Specs don't matter yet 99% of people on this site are desperate for the Switch to have at least XboxOne performance. Even a percentage want more than that.... but REMEMBER, specs don't matter. SMH.

As a Nintendo fan I don't expect miracles from the Switch. I expect above the WiiU and way less the xboxone graphics. If the public outside of fanboys want power then it will flop.

Of course specs matter. They're used for more than making the grass look nicer or to increase the amount of pixels in a hat, you know. To create the open-world design that most games use nowadays you need a certain amount of processing/graphical power. It doesn't have to be on par with PS4/Pro or XBO/Scorpio, games on Switch may not look as good - that doesn't matter unless you're a PC gamer - but the gameplay and atmosphere have to be the same as any other version.

So, it doesn't need to be as powerful as other consoles, but it needs enough power to run 3rd party games nicely. In the end, though, I agree that sales - more than specs - carry the final word about a game being ported or not.

I'll take games over specs any day. Just keep the specs in the same ballpark as the other systems and keep making amazing games.

@Hotfusion

"99% of people"
Lol and just like that you're done

@BiasedSonyFan My apologies.. the "@DanteSolablood" kind of had me thinking you were.

I disagree, having a minimum of a Tegra X1's power, whether it be Maxwell or Pascal based, is nothing to sneeze at for a portable console. Most mobile phones and tablets still don't use that kind of power, and it goes above and beyond what the Vita was capable of. It may not be a match for what will likely be the XBScorpio's AMD Ryzen CPU and Vega GPU, but the NS's SoC will provide support for all of the modern API's, especially with Vulcan support, and that's what counts.

Say what you will about power meaning nothing, but know that it is a naïve notion. The whole reason why the Wii U was abandoned was because it ignored the updated enough technology to handle modern API's. It can barely even handle it's swan song, BotW, due to having such an outdated chipset. A concurrent gaming machine doesn't have to be a powerhouse, but it damn well better support modern API's, if nothing else. NVIDIA will have Nintendo covered this time...

I'm in the "specs matter for developers" group. As long as the system doesn't require a lot of resources to port those multiplatform games over to it, those developers will be more tempted to release those games on Switch as well as PSBone. For me, as long as it's more capable than the Wii U (which we've already seen with BOTW), then I'm good performance-wise. As a Nintendo-only console gamer, I just want more gaming options on my machine.

There is only one thing that matters when it comes to selling ANY product - Marketing.

Get it right and the sheep will all follow and buy it!

@BiasedSonyFan Of course, diminishing returns, that's a thing, but we've seen games this generation that aren't possible on last gen systems, and again, I'm not talking about graphics. Things like physics, particle effects, and especially AI. Those things require a lot of computing power, so it's only logical that a step up in hardware opens up new possibilities.

@BiasedSonyFan The Wii U's failure was only ever about power because it effected the games & developers. If Nintendo hadn't locked the CPU speed to try and be more "green", developers wouldn't have abandoned the platform. We all seem to forget that the Wii U actually sold pretty decently initially.

@The8BitLego that attempt to spell definitely though😂

@DanteSolablood PS3 used the Cell. (Which is actually more powerful than the Wii U's Espresso CPU, since that's just an updated Wii CPU.) PS2 used... I forget what it was, but it was supplemented by the Emotion Engine coprocessor. Not having that coproc prevents having native hardware support for the PS2. The PS2 might have been weaker than the GCN or Xbox, but it had superior devkit support, better use of peripheral add-ons, and media versatility. It was even advertised as being a "PC-like console" at the time. So it's not as simple as a specs race.

They can leave the specs away, and just reveal the gaming quality.
Nintendo is like the Picasso of videogames. That is what i want to see in the reveal. Lots of quality games.
Zelda we already know, mario also will be revealed.

So i am hyped what games will be revealed more in a hour. Less talk, more reveal.

Nintendo has done a really good job with this one. Everyone travels, and i with my work have lots of nightshift. Now i can take it with me. Its just genius.

@PlywoodStick Thanks! Nerd as I am, pulling out decade old CPU names from the top of your head isn't always easy.

I think I would die of joy if Kingdom Hearts trilogy and Final Fantasy XIII gets ported over, and Nintendo also gets Nier Automata.

(T_T )

In thinking about it, I don't believe it would be a commercial failure even without 3rd party support. If they have both portable and home console dev teams moving in under one roof to develop games, I'd expect at least 50-60% more solid first-party games for the Switch. As long as they have a strong launch lineup and more consistent releases I think that's enough to carry the system.

Big diff during the Wii and DS era. Big install base AND cheaper dev costs. Neither was HD.

Switch, in theory, is HD. SO it's not going to be cheap to port.

A good install base is critical, but also, Nintendo fan boys need to buy 3rd party games. If they don't, it won't get support.

Sorry Alex, your points have no validity in this generation.

Hdont bother me in theslightest. Already preordered as I know that Nintendo will bring something that I will be more than happy with, whatever the concessions etc.

@The8BitLego Well, now that I see your edit, wouldn't that include a Nintendo game as well? Thanks for explaining though. I'll just have to say "first-party" or just plain "Nintendo game" for now so not to confuse people. You wouldn't believe how many times people have called me a PS4 or Xbox One "fanboy" for saying "AAA" (referring to Nintendo games).

@mritchy
They might still get 3rd party support. the nice thing about the switch also being portable, it increases the chances of it taking off in Japan. If Japan falls in love with the Switch, then we can expect a ton of support via 3rd party.

Not to mention, potentially, Capcom, Square Enix, and FromSoftware (as well as other Japanese developers) could throw their support behind it. Sure, it might not get the "latest" ports, but imagine what a Nintendo console can do with Nintendo's 1st party games, Dark Souls, Some Resident Evil ports, and an anthology of Final Fantasy games!!

and if that works, western developers would start to take notice.
I'm definitely with Alex Olney on this. Oh, and yeah, I also agree with you. All Nintendo devs supporting one console is a good idea.

@Utena-mobile
Absolutely, it's the natural progression of things. Like Alex said, if it is commercially successful (for whatever reason) 3rd party support will naturally come. Here's to a brighter future!

doesn't matter to em. as long as it's more powerful than wii-u, and better in portable mode than 3ds, which it is. winning.

i would say specs play a key role too weak is bad, getting install base early on is a key role, software release is key role, more software more hardware sells more 3rd party support,

i'll agree switch vs ps pro or ms scop spec wise is a joke,
px4 or xbox one might be a bit under powered,
however nintendo does have more 1st party and 2nd party support for each gaming system
and yeah is mobile worth it? for buyers
If we got all favs at launch, 1 3d zelda, 2d zelda, new smash bros, real metroid, donkey kong, splatoon, 3d mario, 2d mario, general sports game, xenoblades, we would easily get wii like units sold off the bat, offset they would need to hold back another 5 years to do the same launch on their next system,
while ps and xbox can go easy more 3 to 5 years later for new system, since their systems cycles a lot longer for hardware consoles

But how will they compete with high end gaming PC's???!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!1111?!11+!1?1

@BiasedSonyFan What profit is there to be had if their game won't even run properly on the system?

@LARSUSMAKSIMUS , i really don't think they are aiming for high end gaming pcs , to have them convert to them, but would u rather spent 500 dollars on a console with 4 to 5 aaa games u like, or 3k on the pc plus 60 dollars each game if your lucky, and replace it within 6 years?

Of course it matters. I wanna play Gamecube games on the Switch.

I could care less about specs and graphics quality. All I care about is the freaking games.

But in my humble opinion, the Switch looks like a gimmicky train wreck. I could litterly care less about the Switch. Which hurts coming from a Nintendo Fanboy that has been there from the beginning.

Nintendo's motto: "Quality over Quantity."

If I wanted beefy specs these days, I'll just turn to PC.

Just give me quality titles with at least decent graphics/frame rate/resolution and I'll be satisfied.

If specs mattered, consoles like the PS2 wouldn't have sold less than the Gamecube or Xbox, as they was the weakest in the sixth generation.

it absolutely needs to run at 60 fps minimum

Ive known this time and time again. It is something new, because Nintendo has been dealing with a new audience, one that "the elite graphical horsepower hardcore console group" loathes to death, the mobile market audience, the one that kids are given smartphones and tablets over easily than a new console, as studies have shown. Nintendo has first pickings in dealing with this audience and Sony and MS are going to be behind big time once those two start plans to get that audience (and I have seen mention before of those plans, they are getting ready), especially with Nintendo's family friendly brand power.

Anyway, a hybrid console means a hybrid audience. ONE GROUP MUST COEXIST WITH THE OTHER. If anyone still has that elitist-in-hardware mentality like Sony and MS fanboys does, Ill be just as happy to see them out the door, because they wont accept change due to outside influences. The old days as we have known are drawing to a close, because past technological advancements and smartphone/tablet popularity have forced their hands into planning into accepting the mobile market if they want to survive and thrive. If anyone wants to have their voice at Nintendo's table to make a difference, then you better swallow most of your picky opinions down to keep your voice, because its the way things are becoming now with the mobile market as one of us now.

Not to say, the mobile market is a bad thing, of course, because we need tons of new kids to bring out a strong generation of gamers. And the number of children/casuals in the mobile market is ludicrous enough to make that dream possible. It would be great to see the days again, where kids grew up with Nintendo and most will never leave, something reminiscient of the classic Nintendo days, up to N64 era. We can make it happen, and the mobile market has the amount of resources to do it. We, Nintendo and its gamers, just have to really REALLY utilize them to our advantage!

@mikegamer Except the weakest was actually the Dreamcast... (Although you wouldn't know it, looking at it's library for the time... Dreamcast games looked way better than most early PS2 games, sans Final Fantasy X) And we all know what happened to it. Also see my conversation with Dantesolablood above.

+125 comments. How could that possibly happen in a few hours with a headline like that?

@astros75
OK, "98% of people".

You happy now.

It's not just games that sell consoles. Nintendo clobbered Sony and MS in terms of first party games, and look how that played out.

I choose gameplay and art direction over graphics every time (even though they're a nice bonus), but numbers tell me I'm solidly in the minority.

Switch, like any gaming device, needs compelling software and perceived variety. Further, it needs to have the compelling software released at a consistent pace.

@electrolite77 To a degree, if the games suck, specs don't matter

I've already joked that the VERY LEAST Switch is capable of doing is being dubbed "Vita done right" by some. Far be it from me to demean the console I've honestly enjoyed for over a year now, but really - one of Vita's goals was letting gamers take home console games om the go via cross-save and such. And while a financial disappointment to its producers, it's still alive enough to be receiving modern PS4 crossplatforms like Attack on Titan, World of Final Fantasy and the upcoming Valkyria Revolution. At the horrible expense of... uh... textures, lighting and grass? Yep. Now Switch, a custom Tegra-powered tablet from the age where smaller phones get stuff the size of Disney Infinity and Assassin's Creed ported to them, will likely be stronger than PS3 where Vita was nominally weaker. So how close does it HAVE to be to the specs of PS4 and XBOne, primarily home entertainment media centers meant to be played on huge TV screens? With no 4K to have in mind, no extra devices and cloud save synchronization and still somewhat whimsical Gaikai streaming to do for the "home console games on the go" aspect, no discs to read and spin... how much power does Switch NEED to be appealing to third parties and a probable platform for modern big titles?

Enough to keep the content and core experience, that's how much. Enough to support common game engines. Enough to keep the frame rate decent. Now combine it with proper marketing and some convincing first year sales numbers, and voila. If developers did their best to squeeze famous titles on DS Lite when it proved to print money, they should only be more encouraged by the platform that appeals to the needs of many adult gamers and was reportedly designed with development ease in mind.

Seriously, even the "worst case scenario" of getting only old third party ports like Skyrim (and as Rime shows, that's already not the case) would make Switch ironically offer the seamless home/travel experience of many PS3 era things Sony has been struggling to keep afloat at all with sporadic remasters and costly cloud gaming.

@electrolite77 one of PS2's notorious specs was doubling as an affordable DVD player, though. XD

Spec arms race and spec hype certainly wasn't invented by Sony ("blast processing", anyone?), but still. Besides specs and games, there's also factual functionality.

specs matter. the self-inflicted hobbling of nintendo hardware over the generations has to stop.

@AlexSora89 Very well said. It would be ignorant to argue against this.

haha.Yes specs do matter. I don't want a Jaguar with the engine of a Volkswagen.

@Jamotello I agree with you. Why do the 3rd party devs run from the nintendo consoles? Specs! We havent got alot of games on Nintendo because of it. Most games I know I wish for would run like crap. Oh well really just pointless post. Im still buying the Switch im very excited for it.

@Lizuka What hard drive? And besides, hard drives themselves are nice for cheap storage, but they're the real trash bottleneck for actually running games these days. Flash memory and M.2 solid state are the newest mediums for game storage that run larger games today with nearly the loading times of cartridges back in the day.

Specs don't matter?!? Yea, actually they do of you want the games. Sick of Nintendo fans saying they don't matter, yea they freakin do! The system can be easy to port to, that is good start, but if the game looks completely like poo and makes there product look horrible, why would they consider putting the game on the system? Seriously, I think the only reason this system might do good is because it's a powerful for a portable system, but with the way ppl game now a days, portables aren't very popular anymore, it's all about mobile gaming now.

@letsplay yes, exactly! Specs don't matter, wth...

Uh huh.

Sure specs matter. They also matter to some more than others. They don't matter as much to me though. If they did I wouldn't be still playing games from the 80's and 90's. I also still watch VHS movies on occasion despite also watching things in HD. I see i this way, I like vanilla ice cream. If that vanilla ice cream has things added to it like Oreo cookies, smarties, chocolate peanut butter cups it can be even better. If there is so much stuff added to my ice cream that the cost is way more than I want to spend on ice cream then I don't want it, because in the end a bowl of vanilla ice cream is still very enjoyable.

If specs doesn't matter, then Nintendo can declared the NES mini as their new console.

Then again, Switch is already more powerful than Wii U. That makes Switch several times more powerful than Vita, as a portable and a tablet it is at the top end for performance.

First and foremost Nintendo should market Switch as a portable, with the ability to play on TV at home. This should lessened the comparison with PS4 and Xbox one.

Pertaining to Visual Fidelity
No, they don't really matter. As long as the games look clean and HD and beautiful, then no. I mean, they're nice don't get me wrong. I'm all for as much power as possible. Squeeze every ounce out of that tablet console you can squeeze. But in the end, we've reached a point games look more than good enough. Particularly Nintendo games.

Pertaining to 3rd Party Support
Yes, they matter. But not to the uttermost. System could have less power yet handle games well and ports could still scale well and run well. So the bottom line is being being able to run games, and that is not entirely dependent on having exactly as much power as other consoles. Base PS4/X1 aren't going anywhere. Not with PS4 Pro sales as they currently stand. And as long as that holds true (which is looking like the duration of the generation) it only needs to be in the ballpark.

You know what REALLY doesn't matter? Glow-in-the-dark sunglasses!

I just want an awesome console that I can take with me or play on my tv. Switch looks like that. My 3ds is my main system and I would love to play the same games but on my tv when at home.

That reminds me, I wonder how people would have reacted to this type of discussion 20 years ago, if Sega Saturn fans had said, "So what if the Nintendo 64 has all those fancy 3D graphics functions!? Specs don't matter!" Yeah, right... No one said that back then.

They don't matter. As long as the games are fun, I'm happy to use older hardware..

@WOLF1313 specs seriously do t have to be the latest and best. As far as that goes it would be PC then. Nintendo is the only company that brings to the table games you will not get on pc. Sony and Xbox both almost every game is on PC.

It's interesting. Power has long been the driving force behind new generations. I think people get too hung on which console won the generation and it's power within that generation (I.E. PS2).

Look at Nintendo consoles only. Why was the SNES neccesary and what improvements did it allow over the NES? What about about when the N64 when it replaced the SNES? Gamecube? Wii? Wii U? Switch?

There has only been a few real innovations (analog, motion, touch, VR). One could make the argument that the gap in power is decreasing each gen and isn't as important as it was before. But that just makes it harder for Nintendo to convince consumers that consoles are relevant in my opinion. I mean the Switch's whole gimmick is portability. Some people are excited about that. I'm not. I want a home console replacement. The rumors and editorials peg the Switch as less power than the 3 year old Xbox One. So basically, since I don't care about the hybrid concept, the Switch exists because Nintendo wants to sell hardware and they can't sell Wii Us. It's a barrier to entry, it's a Nintendo tax to gain access to Nintendo games. I get it, we all love Nintendo games and most view the barrier to entry minor compared to the joy. But I think it stinks.

I'm least excited for Switch more than any Nintendo console before it. As someone who is just going to leave it attached to a TV, it's a very minor upgrade in power over the Wii U with the removal of some features (touch on tv, dual screen, etc).

@gatorboi352

That's the thing though. PS4 Pro and Xbox One Scorpio will never be the benchmark for development of this console generation simply because they will never get exclusives games that won't be available on their less powerful version (except Scorpio VR; but whatever). This has been reported several times already, making the base PS4 and Xbox One the development benchmark.

So, if the Switch is just a little less powerful than the Xbox One, I don't think it'll turn off these western AAA developers you speak of who's game would benefit from portability.

Spec matter, "oh it's all about the gameplay", sorry but I don't want a game with good gameplay but with constant framerate drops and horrible graphics, but since Nintendo usually make cartoony games they can get away with that, both specs and gameplay matters 50% each

@Turbo857

I think that's true if the Switch released 3 years ago. I'm not sure how many succesful consoles have released mid-gen. PS4 has a userbase of 50+ million. Xbox One 25+ million. Switch 0. That alone will make the Switch an afterthought to developers. Switch needs to start fast or they risk apathy from developers.

Depending on how you look at it specs actually do matter. Personally I could stick to the wii u for a couple of more years buying and playing only games by nintendo. But nintendo abandoned its own console because of poor sales. Better specs, or specs on par with the other consoles might have worked a miracle.
One thing is certain: better specs wouldnt do any harm

Good console specs can enhance games but they are not a system-seller. Anyone who believes that are falling for marketing nonsense.

That said, I hope the Switch does well.

@Nintendian

Nah, it's undeniably obvious that this thing's a portable just by looking at it. Besides, projecting an image from a handheld device into a TV doesn't sound as innovative as taking a home console on the go with you.

If it's marketed as a home console that happens to be portable then you already mentioned something that other home consoles can't do and never did.

@cleveland124

I apologize if I appear a little slow but don't think I understand your comment. If you'd clarify, I'd be grateful.

@cleveland124

Ah, that last line cleared it up. Well, I agree with ya there. If the Switch does poorly then 3rd party's ain't gonna support it. I just believe it would come down to money not lack of hardware horsepower.

But, I really don't see how this thing could fail. Nintendo's never flopped on a portable (besdies Virtual Boy but come on - a red screen?).

@MilitiaMan well uhhhh

i guess im not a "true gamer" then, i cant stand how my gtx 970 gets 40fps in tomb raider

@Braok sorry for not being specific. What I meant to target was graphics quality. What I meant by "true gamer" is a "true gamer" plays games for game play and performance quality "frame rate" and that's it, they don't complain about the graphics as long as they get what I mention adove. Even now we get master pieces made with old game development techniques. Also don't get me wrong frame rate matters. Who wants to pay 60 bucks for a broken game? My guess is no one. One more thing I want apologize for my "true gamer" comment it was quite biased.

this is completly false. Specs matter because games need specs , how can people be so blind?
what happened with projectCARS for the WiiU? codemaster said the game is stuck at 30fps nomatter how low they set the graphics-just unacceptable for a car simulation- so the WiiU itself prooved that 1rst party can not support a console on its own, there will be several droughts.
I see that there many people here who can afford to buy more than one console. i like fps, car and sports simulation and nintendo games and i can not find it on a nintendo console since the gamecube, Why should i be penalise for liking nintendo IP?
i someone like sony or microsoft ip , he knows that we will not be forced to buy 2 console to play both 1rst party and third party. Why this shouldn't be the case for Nintendo?
please stop supporting nonesense specs matters because games matters, if the since is not even at the Xbox one level i am off, WiiU's wounds are still fresh.

Specs definitely matter. They matter more to some than others, but they matter none-the-less. They don't matter as much as well designed games with great art direction, but the better the specs, the better said games will ultimately look, play and feel.

@DiscoGentleman lol it's called a discussion. What is wrong with wanting to stimulate discussion?

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I agree, I don't think specs matter, I think concept matters and I don't think this concept will sell any better than the Wii U.

I already got a PS4 Pro and PSVR during Christmas. I haven't owned a Sony console for a VERY long time. Now I just need to replace my New 3DS with Switch and it's complete.

Specs does matter, I want the most powerful home and portable console.

Blablabla...sure the specs matter! It's the same discussion as there was with the N64, the Wii, the Wii U... The specs f§&%/( matter!!!

@cleveland124

But there have been rumors and reports putting the Switch on par with XBOX One or even better. Let's not act like all the rumors have been one sided. Only two more days to go until we know for sure.

@Zadaris
Thank you. Thing is, specs don't matter to me, but I'm a special case given I'm a Nintendo fan to begin with. Wait, that's half-incorrect. I'm a Nintendo fanboy, which Nintendo seems to think is the norm. But I'm not the norm. I'm an exception. The rule advises good specs to play a role in a console's success. Not a vital role, or, more precisely, not a necessarily vital role (see the Wii), but an important role nonetheless.
And taking fanboys such as yours truly as the norm means taking success for granted, which is a one-way ticket to failureland to me.

Very low Specs haven't preventet the 3DS to sell quite well. Especially in Japan.

Some guy in the comments wrote, that mobile phones will have better specs than the Switch in two years. Does it really matter? It didn't prevent the 3DS to be a success.

The Switch is a replacement for the 3DS, or at least will become this in a year or two. It will definitely sell, and get some 3.party support. But maybe not everything what we expect?

@Nintendian
I think specs doesn't really matter. Even older games with traditional graphics such as GBA, NDS, Wii for example still captivating me. Yes, I need power but not as a necessary things. I'm not really hungry for Ultra HD graphics, gameplay does matter. I caught myself got bored by FF XIII but captivated by Miitopia. Ultra HD graphics mostly fails to impress me if I don't like from the gameplay concept and graphic design. Well, sorry for bothering you. But it too pity if you have to sold your New 3DS. 3DS has a lot of terrific games to play, too bad if you stop playing them.

I think a lot of gaming "journalists" and gamers confuse specs with computational power. The wiimote was part of the specs for the Wii. The dual screen setup was part of the specs for the DS. The hybrid nature of the Switch is part of its specs. What matters is how compelling the system is and its price. Nintendo simply did not make the Wiiu compelling enough for its price.

whilst I do agree with what you're saying, you could of made the Same argument for the Wii U

It has a brilliant library of games (mostly first party) but for whatever reason the console didn't appeal to the masses.

I do however believe that the switch will be a lot more appealing to the general gaming world but I guess we'll have to wait & see

Of course specs matter. Also, all these things matter:

Games
Price
Marketing
Developers
Internet Buzz
Press reception
Accessories
Cosmetic design
Retail Space
Online / Non-game features
Market Size

You can perform badly in some and still succeed, but to suggest that any of these is irrelevant is business suicide.

@gatorboi352 Exactly. How many Nintendo fans claimed specs didn't matter on the likes of Wii and Wii U before those systems launched . . . only to see many big AAA developers either not support them at all or drop support for these systems when they realised they simply weren't going to deliver their games to the level the required. And you can partly argue that a lot of the developers are dropping the Wii U versions of their games now because it's dying a death more than it's lack of relative power but I expect we might have seen a few more of those games coming to Wii U already if it were basically the same spec and dev environment as the likes of Xbox One and PS4. Basically, being up to par is rarely a negative but being under par can absolutely be, and that's the simple truth of it.

I think the overemphasis on graphics is only really just some big advertisement . The graphical capabilities of a system aren't nearly as important as some suggest. I mean in the advent of devs focusing on 3D games what was the biggest seller in the 5th generation? Pokemon Red/Blue a top down 2D RPG on a 4-bit handheld with monochrome display selling 30 million.

Currently if you see a particular company pushing for graphics they're most likely one of the biggest publishers in the world who are capable of delivering the highest level of graphics on the most powerful console hardware. They're the few capable of actually delivering those types of games...something smaller developers couldn't afford(unless they get bought by one of those big publishers). Is it any surprise that there's an emphasis from the biggest third parties on something that only solidifies their own grip on the industry while making it harder for smaller companies to compete? I mean Ubisoft outright admits that their profitibility increases more reliably by raising the barrier to entry.

I mean you don't have to look further than the DS or the 3DS to see when these massive publishers are constricted by specs where they can't just muscle out smaller companies they can't even remotely do as well as they do on the console market. Smaller pubs like Capcom and Level 5 games run circles on handheld around companies that sell 5x as much as they do on console.

I don't think the specs are that important to making the Switch a good console(Beyond being capable of playing most of the games the Xbox1/PS4 receives at a decent performance). I also think valuing specs and graphics too much is misguided. It will likely result in an industry where no one can afford to make niche games since their sales figures would not justify the level of graphics they would need to be competitive,. Where a number of publishers countable on one hand control the majority of the market because they're the only ones capable of providing the level of graphics consumers demand.

The only area specs seem to matter, unless you're a massive graphics nerd, are that they influence how much 3rd parties will port things to the console. The closer the specs are to the PS4/Xbone, the more likely a game will get ported.

I love the Wii U, but there are certain negative things about that I don't like for example:

• A lot of game requires that you play with the Game-pad and you can't use a Pro controller.
• Limited storage space , if you want to add more storage space you must buy an external hard disk and you require to buy a USB cable that has two ports (one for data and one for power).
• You can't share/download the digital purchased games to another console.

Well that's it! everything else is good!

@Turbo857

But Nintendo is explicitly marketing this as a home console, not a portable. Also, there are definitely cracks showing in Nintendo's portable plan. I'm not saying the 3DS was a failure, but it certainly performed under expectations. 3DS sold about 1/3 of the systems of its predecessor which was almost 100 million fewer units. Nintendo has shown success in the portable market being the budget handheld which the switch is not. Phones and tablets keep becoming cheaper and more accepted. My buddy just bought his 8 year old an iPhone. This isn't the portable market that Nintendo has dominated in the past.

@capitalism

We'll know more about the games and how the system functions/is used in 2 days. Very unlikely we know anything more about the hardware specs until it is released and a third party tears it down. Nintendo will never release specs on this.

"Clean"? What do you mean by that? :/

Specs only matters because Sony and MS used it as a promotional point. "The new XBOX is better because it is more powerfull"

That idea is way down in consumers minds right now. Specially younger generations.

The true is, this companies doesn't have the level of quality games and IPs that Nintendo have. Of course they will focus on other stuff like specs.

I will never need a realistic Mario games, I want a fun and inventive Mario games. So yeah, in Nintendo's case, specs don't matter because Nintendo make good games.

Well specs do matter. Nintendo chose to sell a gimmick (gamepad) over power in Wii U and it didn't work. I would take more power and better resolution in 3ds over 3d and dual screen gimmics anyday. 3ds was a hit (and miss to a degree) cause of Nintendo's portable legacy and IP's.

@Dirty0814
We're talking console wars. PC is a completely different group. I said Nintendo will make great games...and they are exclusive. That is the reason I'm buying a Switch and any Nintendo console that comes out. But it does come to play when talking ports of 3rd party games....and all the other reasons listed above. My Wii and WiiU sat and collected dust in between the long waits for Nintendo's AAA titles.

@Turbo857 May I refer to you, the Sega Nomad: http://www.segaretro.org/Sega_Nomad

@cleveland124 A sad state of affairs- Nintendo used to extensively detail and release their console specs through industry insider conferences, knowing that knowledge would be published for the public to peruse.

@WOLF1313 i do agree but what you are saying is basically comparing Standard Definition vs High Definition. What you said is true when talking 360 vs Wii. But with Switch we're talking maybe lesser framerate and some minor things. The gap isn't that big so as long as the hardware provides the games in hd and are fun I'm sold. Plus on the portable side they will be top dog.

@jaymacx I'm not counting the Switch out. The portability is the key to it's success. Do people want to buy a lesser version of a game so that it's portable? Some certainly will. But would I buy a lesser port of Red Dead 2 just for it's portability? Probably not. Maybe I would for other games. Battery life will be key too. If I have to charge it every few hours, it's not really that portable for me.

@Turbo857 This may be the case now but not for long; definitely not for the next 4-5 years (or however long Nintendo expects Switch to be their flagship device). This is also why I argued that Switch, the one that comes out in March, needs to be iteration 1 and priced accordingly, allowing for a New Switch or Switch Lite or whatever to debut in about 2 years with upgraded specs.

I just want to point out that the statement that the Dreamcast was a commercial failure is just blatantly wrong. SEGA was already in the red and hemorrhaging cash before the launch and sunk insane amounts of money into marketing the system. It was a debt they couldn't overcome. They set insane goals for sales and in the chase the Dreamcast continually broke sales records for the time. At the end of it's life before the plug was pulled because they couldn't meet the ridiculous goals set for them the Dreamcast was shifting 100,000 units a day. A DAY. Had SEGA not been so in the hole when they took on SONY/had deeper pockets, they'd still be around today and the Dreamcast would have a proper legacy. It was an incredibly ambitious system that was ahead of it's time in many ways, and at the same time crippled by NOT embracing one major technology... once again because of money and the price point they wanted to hit: DVD. A DVD player, a bankroll to go the distance against SONY and the story would have been different. But the Dreamcast was NOT a commercial failure... SEGA was, but not the system.

From an interview with Peter Moore:

'We were selling 50,000 units a day, then 60,000, then 100,000, but it was just not going to be enough to get the critical mass to take on the launch of PS2. It was a big stakes game. Sega had the option of pouring in more money and going bankrupt and they decided they wanted to live to fight another day. So we licked our wounds, ate some humble pie and went to Sony and Nintendo to ask for dev kits.'

That's a LOT of systems.

At this point in time, I do see no reason to pretend that there is no correlation between "specs" and 3rd-party support as far as homeconsoles are concerend.
Nintendo might have managed to convince themselves otherwise, but that really has no bearing on the facts of the matter. It's also true though, that specs are only one important variable, and on top of that, the Switch might not really qualify as a "homeconsole" in the traditional sense, so the 'rules' might actually be different this time around.

Still, beyond this abstract thought, I still think that in the end, the Switch will lack the power to see 'proper' PC-PS4(P)-X1(Scorpio)-cross-platform support, while at the same time, it might very well be TOO powerful for traditionally more hand-held focused, smaller developers like e.g. Atlus.

The idea of 'best of both worlds' thus could very well turn out to be more like 'worst of both worlds'. Still, the notion that specs don't matter is downright silly. In fact it's just as silly as the 'it's the specs, stupid!'-notion.

Alot will depend on other factors, like how the system is marketed, and how the platform as such operates. Especially the latter gives me pause though, as Nintendo is still nowhere near the competition, when it comes to basic features of their respective platforms. I mean, if we are being brutally honest, we have to accept, that in that regard, they are just as much outclassed and irrelevant, as when it comes to the 'brute force' power of the hardware they use in their devices.

This is AT LEAST as much cause for concern as anything 'specs' related. Just to mention one aspect as an example here: region-lock. The way Nintendo handles their different territories is basically as atrocious as ever, and I for one, am no longer willing to put up with it, or - for that matter - with all the costs and issues that importing their devices brings with it.

If the Switch turns out to be another region-lock device, I won't buy it, I mean, their line-up would have to be the most stunningly awesome line-up in the history of man to make me even consider supporting another region-locked device - in 2017 no less.

Again though, region-lock is just one of many issues I have with Nintendo in terms of their feature set, digital store, account system and so on and so forth. From my PoV, they would need a real leap here, at least covering the ground they failed to cover the last two generations ... sad part is this: what are the chances of that really happening? =(

I do still think that specs matter, they're just not everything. A lot of devs dropped support for the wii u due to development woes. I think a system with better specs and architecture would allow for more games to come to the system.

@gatorboi352

If Sony and Microsoft put out an Xbox Two and PS5 within the next five years, then I'd agree with you that Nintendo may need to bring a Switch "successor" to the table quicker.

But as long as "successor" consoles aren't released within the next 4/5 years, Nintendo shouldn't have to worry about new development benchmarks set by these fictional consoles.

On another note: People put too much stock in the potential of Nintendo's hardware to attract 3rd party ports. It really doesn't matter. Granted, Switch, so far, sounds powerful enough to run some PS4/Xbox One ports. But as long was it attracts third parties to "make" exclusive games period for the Switch and the console experiences shorter droughts it'll inevitably be a win. At the end of the day, the Switch only needs games.

AMEN to everything you said Alex. Thanks.

@cleveland124

"But Nintendo is explicitly marketing this as a home console, not a portable. "

As they should. The Switch should be marketed as a home console first that you can take with you. It's blatantly obvious that Switch is essentially, a tabletesque handheld and the console visibly markets that point all by itself. Also, @PlywoodStick's earlier reference to the Sega NOMAD helps prove that a handheld that can simply project an image onto a TV doesn't sound as innovative as a home console you can take with you on the go. Besides, a key point many people are missing here is that as a home console, Switch can play local multiplayer with just one console unit (and at least 2-player co-op is always accessible) - unlike other handheld gaming devices, phones or tablets. So, simply marketing this thing as a portable you can play on the TV... is limiting.

"Also, there are definitely cracks showing in Nintendo's portable plan. Nintendo has shown success in the portable market being the budget handheld which the switch is not. Phones and tablets keep becoming cheaper and more accepted. My buddy just bought his 8 year old an iPhone. This isn't the portable market that Nintendo has dominated in the past."

True and good points. I agree that phones and tablets are becoming kids first gaming experiences. But hold up, you don't think $250-$300 (rumored Switch price range) is a budget price for a new phone or tablet? If I could get away with purchasing one for that price with no contract or bloated monthly phone service bill, that's a steal for me! And if your buddy bought an iPhone for his son (granted, a new iPhone), I can't imaging why he'd have a problem buying a Switch (granted, his son's a gamer).

Agreed!! Everyone talks 3rd party development but Nintendo produces great games!!! This is Nintendo we are talking about.. I'm getting for the Nintendo titles alone, if i want to play the 3rd party titles i'll get out my dusty, yes dusty xbox! (not played it since tomb raider) ROLL ON THE FRESH 'BREATH OF WIND' ZELDA WILL BRING AND THE MANIA OF MARIO KART SWITCH!!!

PS - i'm wondering if the Switch docks can be sold separately or whether the Switch console is compatible with other Switch docks - i.e. i take my switch to my bro's and can either dock in his switch dock or buy a dock separately so that i can play Zelda in full glory at his.. i hope such questions are answered on Friday!! (he'll probs get a switch too so could dock mine while at his an play on the TV while he plays on his handheld console.. i wonder!?!?)

Bad: Wii U and 3DS are basically dead when 3D-Mario, Smash, Kart, Splatoon, Mario Maker and Zelda move to Switch. Good: Nintendo can make more games faster, like decent Animal Crossing and Metroid. 3rd party: Put out Worms, NHL and Civilization-ports and I'm fine.

I think Nintendo still recalls their efforts at offering the best hardware with the Gamecube and being technically superior to the competition yet having a low install base with fewer game sales. The other side to this coin was the fact that during that time Nintendo was still in the mode of making their systems difficult to develop for to weed out unskilled developers.

I think while many of us would love to see Nintendo compete with similar hardware to PS4 Pro or Scorpio, Nintendo will likely always do things their way. Nintendo has seen that innovation through gameplay works well for them since the Wii and DS era. And keeping their tech slightly behind the latest keeps their consoles affordable which helps with adoption rates especially early on.

I think Nintendo is on the right path with the Switch. It's price point with a mobile platform that can run home console grade software sounds like it could be the next Wii as Nintendo has always done great in the mobile space. I personally can't wait to see more about the Switch and finally be able to put in a preorder.

@Turbo857 "But as long as "successor" consoles aren't released within the next 4/5 years, Nintendo shouldn't have to worry about new development benchmarks set by these fictional consoles."

But this is already the case. If you think PS4 Pro and XBox 1S are the exception to the rule you're mistaken. The traditional 5-6 year lifespan of a game console is gone now, and that precedent has just been set by the current market leaders, Sony and Microsoft.

The XB1S just came out less than a year ago. Its successor debuts this November. The successor to the PS4 Pro should be teased if not by this years e3 then 2018 at the latest.

Specs matter somewhat, at least to 3rd party devs, Nintendo themselves doesn't care about specs but I think what matters most is that the Switch is a more traditional system in that it only has one screen and standard gamepad controls. I think some 3rd party devs are reluctant to revamp their game to work on a dual-screen system like the DS/3DS and Wii U. I think the Switch will solve that type of reluctance among devs. Devs don't want to adapt their games to work with a system that relies on gimmicks, they want a system that is easy to port their games to, with traditional controls and only one screen to worry about.

@Biffclaven "Nintendo themselves doesn't care about specs"

Nintendo, the company, may officially not. But I bet if you had some off the record candid conversations with some of their in house developers, they'd more than welcome PS4 Pro specs every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

@Turbo857

I cringe when I see those joypads sideways for 2 player multiplayer on the go.

If you are going to compare Switch price to tablets at least give a good estimate. I've had multiple tablets for around 6 years and I've spent a total of $4 on all my software purchases during that time. I just bought an ipad air 2 for $275 during black friday. So total expected cost is $285 (I'll say I splurge and buy $10 in software.) We have the Switch at $250. Average person will buy 10 games for the Switch so that's $600. Then they'll probably buy a couple of controller or some other accesories so we'll say $120. Probably at least $50 for an SD card. So the total average investment in a Switch will likely be over $1,000 versus $300-400 for an Ipad. That is quite a big difference there to me.

Ok......last night I had a brilliant concept and I think Nintendo should hire me or just steal my idea and implement it or hell maybe they are a step ahead and already thinking it.......

Those of you in the IT or Datacenter world have probably seen blade servers before. Basically you have a chassis and then 'blades' pop in the chassis to expand serving power. Usually used for Virtual server farms.

Imagine the Switch is a blade as it is pretty much going to be a circuit board and a screen.

How about a year after release Nintendo releases a dual Switch docking station. If Switch is using USB C then the doc essentially has a very high speed bus that should in theory be able to tie two Switches together, doubling you CPU/GPU/RAM spec.

The arrow seems to be pointing at multi-scale games meaning we have PS4/pro xb1/scorpio and now Switch which will run at docked/mobile performance levels. So why not have another 'stacked' performance level that pairs two Switches? The devices will be cheap and its very possible to have 2 or more in a household (dad, mom, kids).

Games will scale easily so the same game can run mobile, docked or dual docked and allow different fidelity. Tell me that wouldn't be awesome........I call it Switch Blade.....lol

@gatorboi352

"But this is already the case. If you think PS4 Pro and XBox 1S are the exception to the rule you're mistaken.

Huh? How is this the case? They are "mid-generation upgrades" that will have the same exact same library as their base models. I don't understand your point.

"The traditional 5-6 year lifespan of a game console is gone now, and that precedent was set by the current market leaders, Sony and Microsoft."

As of last console generation - Sony and Microsoft have been working on 8-10 year console lifespans and this is still the plan with this generation of consoles. The Pro and Scorpio mid-generation consoles simply aimed at new buyers to take advantage of 4K and VR tech - that's it. They are not successors and will not sell more than their base models.

@cleveland124

"I cringe when I see those joypads sideways for 2 player multiplayer on the go."

Don't knock it 'til ya try it. But seriously, they're obviously there for convenience and not meant for conventional gaming. That's where the grip comes in which I'm sure can still be used in portable mode.

But concerning the rest of your argument, let's look at the big picture here. The Switch looks like a tablet, but it ain't trying to replace your tablet. You and I didn't buy our tablets to play games. And the Switch is coming in at a price point (most likely), less than "new" cutting edge tablets. So.. that's good right?

The Switch is a gaming console and gaming is a rather expensive hobby. So, people who keep comparing tablets and phones to game consoles - are comparing apples to oranges.

Yeah, parents sometimes buy tablets/phones to keep their kids quiet. But if that kid wants to get his serious gaming on... Pops may have to fork over more cash to shut the kid up.

@Turbo857

I'm fine saying gaming is an expensive hobby and won't compare to prices for tablets/phones. I was just responding to those that keep stating the Switch is cheap.

@cleveland124

I hear ya. If it does indeed come out at $250-$300, I'd say it's... eh, affordable-reasonable. $200 now... that would be cheap!

"Specs don't matter" is just more Nintendo propaganda. They DO matter. Better specs - better performance - better frame rate - better gameplay experience. Also, no specs, no 3rd party support.

Oh, Wii U had 3rd party support, you say? All I see are older games (they were 2-3 years old when the Wii U came out, they're ancient now), which even today remain unsold in the barren Wii U section, because the Ps3, 360 and PC versions were superior. Specs matter, in order to remain relevant and competitive.

HOWEVER, what people seem to omit is that the Switch is a PORTABLE. The smaller the console, the harder it is to cram components into it. Those components also need air flow and ventilation to keep working at high processing speeds. And then there's the battery life, which needs to be decent for the Switch to even be considered a "portable" handheld. This means that it needs lower specs to keep power consumption at a minimum.

People expect Scorpio performances from something that costs half/ a third of a gaming tablet, and a fifth of a decent gaming laptop. Get your minds strait people! If it's graphics and smooth frame rates that you want, give Nintendo a reason to build 700$ machines, or get a gaming PC.

i don't even see how it could fail if it indeed consolidates the two games libraries. pokemon, animal crossing, monster hunter, mario kart, yokai, 3d mario and 2d mario fans won't just evaporate. even if only people who buy pokemon buy it, that's already more sales than the wii u. the 3ds sold a lot of units even being a weaker machine than the wii, unable to run xenoblade chronicles decently. the switch may be the machine that has pokemon stars while also having the power to run skyrim and such. it is underpowered from the point of view of the crazy spec race, but it is not laughably underpowered. devs will be crazy not to want their games on the machine that has ALL of nintendo making games for it.

@AlexSora89 I understand completely. I'm a Nintendo gamer at heart; it's always my first machine with a consideration for other devices (PC, PS4 etc) at a later point if it has some games I want. Whereas if Nintendo's systems could reach parity with its rivals not only would we still have Big N's games but also a glut of the 'wanted' level of 3rd party support; not the mediocre indie and shovelware rubbish that drowned the Wii's later years.

It's just every PS/Xbox owners go to excuse for not wanting to buy Nintendo. Too much of a snob to admit they like a Nintendo console's concept and would find some enjoyment in a few of their games when secretly they wish Mario Kart would release on their console of preference.

I'm willing to bet if Wii U had proved as successful as the Wii, you'd have dual screen gaming add-on controllers for PS4 and Xbox One by now. If Switch takes off, it won't be long before Sony suddenly start to care about their portable user base again...

@MilitiaMan admittedly thats on high graphics please don't roast me

i get what you're saying though, and while I think that depending on the game graphics can be very important, possibly moreso than the framerate, but that it would be nice if the GPU in the Switch were much better than the Wii U. As long as you don't notice the graphics, they're fine, right? With that mindset, if the graphics are noticeably poor, they can be distracting from the gameplay, which, in a perfectly optimized game, leads to 4 different options.
A: the developers cancel the game
B: they change the art direction/style to be less demanding or mask the poor graphics more, changing how they intended the game to look
C: they change how the game is played/limit the environments, or in the case of cpu limitations, reduce the complexity of their game
or,
D: put up with a lower framerate, impacting the visuals AND gameplay.
All of these options aren't ideal, and while compromises have to be made and often lead to better ideas, less power limits the developers freedom in how they want their game to look, feel, and yes, even sound, while keeping a good framerate, which can be extremely important for many titles (as I'm sure you agree). Thats just my 2 cents though (Is that how they say it?), and if you disagree with me, that's fine by me.

@Braok I agree with what you said except the graphics part. I believe there has to be a balance between graphics and frame rate. Frame rate being more important, but that just my preference. I'm sure the switch will be more powerful than the WiiU. Otherwise we will be looking at another Wii U that recieved hardly any third party support. I'm sure they don't want to go down that road again, especially after they admited the Wii U was a failure. And as far as third party support goes for the Switch, I don't think we have to worry. They Partner with Nvidia, which offers support assistance for game developers for when they hit an obstacle during game development or porting. Also they showed Skyrim in the reveal trailer for a reason. Even though it has not been confirmed I'm sure we will see it in tomorrow's presentation. The fact that game was shown one can assume its on pair with PS4 or Xbox one, or it stands in the middle. Also I know the skyrim footage was not running on the actual system it was just footage that was placed there. But the game was shown as a demonstration of what the system can handle. Let's hope Nintendo does right this time.

@Zadaris
My point exactly, gentlemanly Pikachu.

Considering it's basically the nvidia shield tablet/microconsole with some beefier aspects due to customization we do and greatly do not yet know about I see no issue at all. I have the shield in tablet form and it's a stunning powerhouse of potential. The system itself can handle when an app is finely tuned just for the Tegra X/K1 setup something near the magnitude of order of the PS3. This Nintendo hardware with its tweaks using some aspects of the yet to be shield2 with shield1 puts it between both playstations (of which no one yet will disclose where on that sliding scale) which means it's not a slouch. In the end hardware is hardware, it's the games that matter and if they're good and the hardware doesn't compromise them whining over numbers just makes things look stupid.