Nintendo Acknowledges Blue Switch Lite Colour Argument With Handy Comparison Video

It's the color inbetween blue and purple - aka indigo. I will die on this hill.

To me it’s clearly a blue that leans towards red and very far from light blue and greens giving it a hint of purple but still firmly blue.

Not a blue that I gravitate towards but I guess not everything can be related to navy blue.

"It's amazing to think what great and exciting things people will be doing with PCs in 30 years."

In 30 years: thousands arguing over the color of a game console

@ArtiomNLS That's what makes it so good for marketing.

Sigh it's dark blue , it's fine I don't love it though might be best of none limited edition lites.
Can people move on now , this and that red switch online icon deal is very played out.

Where is the sonic amiibo? Also captain falcon is and always has been blue...

And i feel colour confused after this video... You could just as easily say it's a different shade of purple compared to waluigi like they do with marios overalls...

The real controversy is the assertion that Captain Falcon, legendary pilot of the Blue Falcon, is clearly purple.

SHOW ME YOUR BLUES!!!

I won’t be satisfied with any answer until someone holds it next to an indigo GameCube.

The sad thing is many people will buy it to own the new colour even those they already have a perfectly fine yellow turquoise or coral switch. That is only reason switch figures are so high people treat them as collectables you only buy one ps5 and one series x the whole family can easily use a single console unlike with switch

blurple = blue + purple
= blue + (blue + red)
= (blue + blue) + red
= blue + red = purple

Please stop using that abomination of a term for a color that already has a perfectly good name.

It is called midnight blue.

@ok1 no why would it happen cant see any requirement for families to own multiple xbox or ps5 consoles but switch badically forces it with games like animal crossing etc and generally how its played good for nintendo terrible for the customer

@JimmySpades I made an account just for you, so congrats.

First, blue + red isn't purple. It's magenta. You can figure this out by finding a color picker online and doing full blue, full red and no green. The result is magenta. Purple is when you add more blue to magenta, which brings us to:

You're thinking about the math wrong... blue + blue + red isn't the same as blue + red, and purple shows this off. The issue is in ratios, rather than whatever you're doing. 2 parts blue to 1 part red is not the same as 1 part blue to 1 part red.

You seem to have forgotten that there is a whole gradient of colors between blue and (blue + red), of which different proportions of blue will change it.

Why isn't this even a debate? Visually it reminds me of the old GBA, just leaning more toward blue.

I just appreciate that it's a color I'm not super fond of, so I'm not tempted to get it. Good on those who like the color though, I hope you have fun with it.

Not sure why everything has to be a debate or a flame war. Spend less time speculating and arguing (or giving opinions) over nonsensical stuff. Use that time to play more games.

@thejuice027 Exactly. Never release a console that’s a dead on primary color. 🙂

@bluebonics Using the RGB model, as you suggested, doesn't make sense in this case since we are looking at paint or dye rather than the color of light.

Using the RBY model:
Blue+Red=Purple
Blue+Red+Red=Magenta
Blue+Blue+Red=Indigo

Edit:
Using the CMYK model:
Cyan+Magenta=Indigo
Cyan+Cyan+Magenta=Blue
Cyan+Magenta+Magenta=Purple

@everynowandben

He may have been referring to an RBY model, so yes, I may have missed that. For the actual point of my comment though, it doesn't actually matter which model you use. (And technically, RBY aren't sufficient subtractive primaries, and rather CMY colors for are better for subtractive blending, which are just the midpoints of the additive model, but I guess RBY is still regularly taught to children.)

The actual point is that his use of the associative property and adding two colors yielding the same color, doesn't hold for color blending, so his attempt to say (red + blue) + blue = red + (blue + blue) = red + blue is false reasoning.

@everynowandben exactly. When I first saw this, it was clearly Gamecube Indigo.

Or even GBA Indigo.

I just want new joy-con colors.

@bluebonics I see what you meant then, and I agree with that part. I added CMYK colors to my comment as well in case other people reading this may be interested.

@Roibeard64 For Switch Lite colors, I like the gray the best for how it contrasts with the buttons. As they point out, blue does this too.

The yellow one is my second choice.

I now see that it is blue. It appeared to be blue-ish purple for me before

@Darkqwerty We are a family of 3. We have a standard Switch as the main console that stays docked for playing on the TV or gets used for Labo. Each of us have a Switch lite so we have our own screens when we play together for Minecraft, Among Us, Animal Crossing, Obakeidoro, and others. We use the main (TV) switch for games like Mario Party, Ultra Foodmess, etc. Where we want/need to share the screen. Plus, we can all be playing separate games at the same time when needed. This happens alot since we are all gamers who want to play different games.

Maybe Nintendo should have just given it a Pantone# so there wouldn't be a debate...

@Darkqwerty Lol what? Nintendo aren’t the only ones that do system variants and revisions. The other two do it all the time. I’d be willing to bet that double-dippers make up a tiny portion of the overall sales. The boost is probably negligible.

I also don’t get the assertion that a household can’t share a single Switch. Why not exactly? How is it different from any other device?

@bluebonics Sure but if we go by color theory Blue is still far more dominant, you can change its gradation but it is still the same Hue. We can argue about gradation's names or lamis terms secondary colors, but it's main Hue is Blue. =:3

Didn't know this was happening again, all I remember upon release of this switch I thinking how it's my favorite shade of blue and wouldn't mind owning it =

@BAN because the certain popular games like animal crossing that only have one save file if you have multiple kids interested they need a switch each. Say a playstation solely runs on tv its easily shareable just at cost of a second controller

@ok1 ive seen many people on facebook showing off multiple different colours of switch original and lite most still sealed

@Darkqwerty
Cherry picking one game out of thousands, and ignoring the 4,000 games that aren't like that one specific game, isn't a strong foundation on which to make an argument.

Different people want their own Switch so they don't have to share or play one at a time.

And there are nearly 90 million people with Switches- there's gonna be some with extra "sealed Switches". A super tiny percentage of collectors. Just like I have a sealed Monster Hunter World PS4 Pro. That's something every fanbase does, but in insignificant numbers.

Switch is a very personal system, one you can take with you, and to that end, people like having their own. Other systems aren't portable and thus it's not as big a deal. But you can't share a system when you leave the house.

@Quix Well, color dominance isn't really related to blending/mixing colors, so it's not particularly relevant here.

Color dominance is related to design — which colors will stand out more compared to surrounding colors. But primary colors tend to be the most dominant, which would be cyan, magenta and yellow in a subtractive process. But then the tricks of perception come into play and things like shading, highlights, composition will also affect which color the eyes are drawn towards.

And then let's not even get into the issue with labeling colors, because a lot of how we deal with the design theories like what you're talking about are very limited by language and the frame of reference we have for labeling colors.

@everynowandben @bluebonics Magenta isn't a real color.

@thejuice027 There is no spoon.

@thejuice027 if magenta isn't a real color, then no colors are real!

It’s cobalt. Maybe they are scared of using that word for some reason. 🤔

@everynowandben It's obviously Green, you troll. Get off that Hill. That's actually my dog.

@bluebonics I mean, technically there isn't a wavelength of light that corresponds to the color magenta, so depending on semantics... But we're starting to getting pretty philosophical at the point where we're talking about what is or isn't real.

@VeraTepes LOL 😂

@everynowandben Technically neither white nor black do, but wavelengths of light are not the same as color, and it follows from the ability to blend colors using different wavelengths and produce a color that isn't associated with those wavelengths.

Consider R=255,B=255,G=0 and R=255,B=0,G=255. The first is magenta and the second is yellow, but in neither case is there a wavelength associated with the color you're seeing hitting your eye. Both colors are being produced by the wavelengths associated with reds, greens and blues.

Color isn't the physical light itself or even a property of the light itself, and only exists as the brain's interpretation of it. The color is the brain's interpretation of light triggering a response from 3 different cones in your eye. And those three different cones combine to create the different colors. It's just that varying wavelengths can stimulate more than one cone and thus produce the effect of stimulating both cones with separate colors. So magenta is just the color produced when our s and l cones get stimulated, just like yellow is the color produced when our l and m cones get stimulated. The only difference is that there's a wavelength of light that can stimulate both l and m cones at the same time, but there isn't a wavelength that stimulates both s and l cones at the same time, but we can find out that color by stimulating them with separate wavelengths.

@River3636 Midnight blue would be a LOT darker than the blue Switch Lite. As in, so dark a blue that it's almost black.

@bluebonics I think you may have accidently @'d me instead of @thejuice027

I'm being gaslit

@everynowandben Nah, I was trying to clarify that a single wavelength of light doesn't matter or define what a color is or whether it's real or exists or whatever. I just tend to be overly wordy

@Darkqwerty You're basing this on Animal Crossing? One of thousands of games on Switch, which has only been out for a year? Yeah, this is a non-issue. I doubt that even 10% of the people that bought that game felt the need to buy a second Switch to play it, but even if they did, that still equates to individuals who own a system for themselves. That's not the same as one collector who buys five systems just for himself and they all just sit on a shelf untouched. These are legitimate sales.

I would actually wager that Nintendo's systems get shared significantly more than rival systems, given the fact that Nintendo products are clearly much more widely adopted by families, while their competitors' core demographics skew much more heavily toward young single men. If Nintendo's audience demo followed that same tracking, they would probably have sold a lot more Switch units by now, not fewer.

Also, how is a PlayStation any more shareable than a Switch? I sincerely doubt there's a measurable number of people sitting around playing the PS5 together. It's an extremely single-player leaning system. How many local-multiplayer games are there on a PS4/5 anyway, like six? lol

@Darkqwerty

There were collectible special edition ps4s and Xbox one's. There will be some for the newer consoles too.

Yep, proves the point the new Lite is purple. It shows it as a lighter shade of purple compared to Waluigi.

@BAN no point agruing with you its common knowleage that most households buy a switch for each kid i work in a shop that sells them and see psrents buying them at 2 or 3 identical bundles at the time i even have 3 for my family regardless of cost you never see this on xbox or playstation you generally just buy the one unless your a collector end of i have no interest in agrimg further its obvious why switch figures are so higher. I dont hate on nintendo or any company iam glad there selling well hopefully next time they can make an even better console

@meeto_1 I’m guessing we all see colours a little differently because that is solidly in the purple range to me. It’s not remotely close to blue (to my eyes) on any monitor I’ve seen it.

I'll tell you exactly what it is!

It's a Switch!

Come on people it clearly called Blue Nintendo Switch Lite.
The GameCube Purple/Indigo would have been cool.

@bluebonics You are partially right, there is no wavelength to describe R=255,B=255,G=0 and you can't because red and blue are on opposite sides of the spectrum. But you can for R=255,B=0,G=255 = Yellow with a wavelength of 580 nm. The color itself is totally the brain's interpretation of it as you said, but you can describe it to others with that wavelength. Magenta you can't.

White is a result of material reflecting all wavelengths.
Black is a result of material absorbing all wavelengths.

@thejuice027 I'm not "partially" right at all. Nothing you've said is different from what I said. The point is, that 580nm is stimulating your receptors the same as just using whatever proportions of red and green light, and there is nothing special about 580nm light that makes the color produced more real than any other. That yellow perception has nothing to do with 580nm light specifically and has everything to do with your l and m cones being stimulated, either by that one wavelength or by multiple different wavelengths... so the color "yellow" isn't a feature of 580nm light specifically, but is a feature of which cones in your eyes get stimulated and in what proportions.

This logically contradicts the claim that "magenta isn't a real color," because color isn't defined by a wavelength of light, but rather a perception in the brain related to the proportion of stimulation in different cone types in the eye.

Another way to consider it is "what if we didn't have m cones" ... then 580nm light wouldn't look yellow, it would look green. Color isn't a feature of light. It's a feature of how we interpret light.

Magenta is a real color. Any color you perceive — magenta, white, black — is real, because color is an effect of the brain and your eyes.

Edit: and it's worth pointing out that white and black don't have to deal with materials and their absorption. You can generate white through light, and black through an absence of light. White is when all your cones get stimulated and black is when none do.

@bluebonics You are must certainly "particularly" right.

"Consider R=255,B=255,G=0 and R=255,B=0,G=255. The first is magenta and the second is yellow, but in neither case is there a wavelength associated with the color you're seeing hitting your eye." - I just described Yellow with 580nm wavelength that you said had no association...

Also, It's wrong to say that 580nm is stimulating your receptors the same as red and green because they are not. If they did you'd see the same color everywhere. Each one effects your eyes differently. You don't have a color cone for each color you only have 3 (sometimes four if you're lucky). For example, don't have a yellow color cone but you can still see yellow... You're also wrong about yellow not being a feature of 580nm light specifically, it is. You can change the wavelength but you'll end up with a different color hence why it can be described in such a way.

@thejuice027 It's not wrong to say that... that's what's happening. You clearly have no idea what I'm saying because "you'd see the same color everywhere" has no bearing on what I said at all. You can take red and green wavelengths and with the right ratios, produce the exact same color as 580nm wavelength light, because that's how the eye works. That's how your monitor works. All those colors you see on your monitor are produced by just red, green and blue lights. If you see yellow from your monitor, there is no 580nm wavelength involved, yet you still see yellow. So "yellow" isn't a feature of 580nm light, but in which cones are being stimulated in which proportions. There is no yellow subpixel on your monitor, yet you can produce yellow on it.

Again, consider what color you'd see without an m cone — yellow wouldn't exist despite 580nm light still existing... and then consider we can see a yellow color without a 580nm wavelength involved... you see it any time your computer monitor makes yellow. I mean, do you even understand what I'm talking about at all here?

The point is that color is not intrinsic to light. It depends on the photoreceptors inside your eye and the brain's interpretation of it. I mean, do you think a chimpanzee sees "580nm" light as yellow? They don't have red cones in their eyes, so they can't, 580nm light produces some other color for them, because "yellow" is not intrinsic to 580nm light.

Nothing I've said is wrong in the slightest, you just don't understand what's being said.

@thejuice027 "the yellow you see on your monitor is producing a 580nm leaving the screen and hitting your eye"

No it isn't. Dude, you can look closely at your monitor and even see the red, green and blue colors. Put yellow on your monitor and get a magnifying glass, it's made from red and green light. All monitors only produce red, green and blue light. This is basic stuff.

If you don't even understand this, it's no wonder you're so confused as to why magenta is real. I've even tried to explain eye physiology to you so that you can grasp how we perceive colors, but clearly you're struggling with this.

Edit: not sure what's allowed for links here but start learning about monitors here:

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/cchem/RGBColors/body_rgbcolors.html

It's why colors are listed with RGB values, when you see R:255, G:255, B:0 and it produces a yellow color, that's because the red subpixel is at max intensity, the green subpixel is at max intensity, and the blue subpixel is turned off. Each subpixel has 256 levels of intensity, and that's how monitors produce color.

It's like this because your eye has 3 types of cone cells, one that peaks near red wavelengths, one that peaks near green wavelengths and one that peaks near blue wavelengths, and all colors you perceive are due to differing intensities of how those three cones get stimulated by light. So when your monitor produces yellow, it's sending out red and green light, it's stimulating your red and green cones, and your brain is interpreting that as yellow.

When 580nm light enters your eye, it stimulates your red and green cones, and your brain is interpreting that as yellow. That's how color vision works.

@thejuice027 Yes, light leaves the screen in the form of red, green and blue wavelengths. It never leaves the screen in the form of 580nm wavelengths. No wavelength associated with yellow or cyan or orange or any other color ever leaves your monitor. Again, you can see this by looking at the actual subpixels. If you get a magnifying glass, you will see that only red, green and blue light ever leaves your monitor.

The reason you see those other colors is due to how color perception works, which I've tried explaining. I'm done with explaining now, and if you still don't get it, I can only suggest researching color perception and eye physiology.

Okay, I think I understand, but lets go back to Magenta then.

Magenta is a result of your red and blue color cones being stimulated and with no green stimulation. The problem is that the light spectrum goes from Violet-Blue-Green-Yellow-Orange-Red. When your color cones are firing off blue and red, and also not green your brain just doesn't know what to do with that so it makes up a color.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuPF6JtWdw

@thejuice027 Yes, that is true and I've said that all along. That doesn't mean magenta isn't a real color. The point of my analogy with yellow light being produced with a mixture of red and green light is that all colors are in your head and only a result of your brain interpreting signals from cells in the eye. Either all colors are real or all colors aren't real.

All colors are a result of your brain interpreting the stimulation of your eye's cone cells. Magenta is no different — it's just the color your brain produces when receiving signals from cones that get stimulated by colors on the opposite end of the spectrum. Similarly, white is the color your brain produces when receiving signals from all your cone types, and black is the color your brain produces when not receiving signals on any cone type (well, there's a minimum threshold for photons hitting cells in a region of your eye to produce black, some species such as frogs can perceive individual photons, we cannot).

❗These two hosts were horrible and unwatchable.

@bluebonics The reason why all other colors are real and magenta is not is because you can describe them with a wavelength, you can't with magenta. It's more than just what the brain does/doesn't perceive. We are able to define all other colors to a wavelength except for magenta.

@Darkqwerty if anything it's the opposite. There are incredibly few couch co-op games on any non-Nintendo system. Mario (4), Hyrule/FE Warriors (2), Smash (8), Mario Kart (4) all support multiple players on one console. To play most major Xbox games with my kids I would have to have 2 xbox's and two TV's, maybe even 2 Xbox Live Gold subscriptions, same for PS4 and PS+. And if all 3 wanna play? Time for a second mortgage. Nintendo is far and away the best choice for couch co-op. I don't even turn on the Xbox while the kids are up anymore cuz I'm tired of explaining why they can't play with me. Don't know anyone with more than one regular Switch, but I have 6 joy-con that get regular use. Everyone I know with kids has at least 2 Xbox's or PS4's so they can play with their kids. One dude has 3 Xbox's and 3 TV's so he can play with his wife and kid since most everything they play is online co-op only.

@thejuice027 Except nothing about "describing them with a wavelength" is what defines colors. And no, we can't describe all colors with just wavelengths... because something like "light blue" doesn't have a single wavelength associated with it. "Light blue" is a combination of blue light and a mixture of white light. This means the color of the sky, when you look at it, isn't a real color, because it's not pure blue and isn't associated with a single wavelength, the white light that's mixed in makes it look different from a pure blue wavelength, and you can't find a single wavelength that is the color of the sky.

Most colors cannot be described with a single wavelength of light because they include a mixture of white light, and further, how "dark" a color is, like midnight blue, is dependent on the density of photons per area that hits your eye. If you have more or less "blue" photons, the color you perceive changes, so even for a single wavelength, there are variations of the color.

Sorry, but the idea that only magenta isn't real but the others are is just false. Most color you perceive cannot be associated with a single wavelength. Color perception is vastly more complicated than "a color is defined by a wavelength of light." Ever see a sunset? Almost none of those colors are "real" by your definition, because they will include white light mixed in, and will vary with the amount of photons in any given region.

@bluebonics But you CAN describe light blue (490nm) and dark blue (440nm) respectively with different wavelengths. Every other color can be described, and has been described with a single wavelength of light. You say you can't describe colors with a single wavelength, but you can. Even if the sky is a mixture of white light, you can still say that a particular wavelength of light can stimulate the color cones in your eyes in the same exact way.

@thejuice027 No, 490nm is not light blue. That's cyan. Dark blue is not 440nm, that's some shade of bluish purple.

Go find a hex color picker. Enter in #0000FF and then #8080FF and then #000080 ... every single one of those is the same wavelength of blue, but each single color is different. In your world, they're either the same color (which would be crazy, and I'll call you insane), or two of them are "fake." Most colors are like this. Most colors cannot be defined by a single wavelength of light, otherwise you're insane, by my previous parenthetical.

I can't believe you still can't grasp this. I'm sorry but you're just wrong, and you clearly do not understand the concepts you're talking about. I can't help your ignorance anymore.

You can lead a horse to water, but if it asks "where's the water?" then there's only so much you can do.

@bluebonics

So if #0000FF and #8080FF and #000080 are the same wavelength then they must all be the same color. The only difference then would be how much additional brightness it has or doesn't have right?

"You can lead a horse to water, but if it asks "where's the water?" then there's only so much you can do." - Okay boomer

I learn best by challenging and debating. You don't have to start throwing around fighting words, this is an educational debate and I am enjoying it.

@thejuice027 No, they are not the same color. You can look at them and see they're different colors, right? They share the same hue. They are different colors.

It's paaporu.
.........the min character count on comments NL, that's stupid.

@River3636 I'd say more it's more ultramarine than midnight blue

Why would Nintendo make a light blue Switch Lite and call it light blue, if it was not light blue?

@JeagerTheSun My friend had a Plymouth laser it was kind of like a Mitsubishi eclipse and it was the same color as this. I asked her what that color was and she said midnight blue. I thought it was purple. There are variations to midnight blue just like there’s variations to blue. Some people call turquoise green some people call turquoise blue. 🤔

@bluebonics Of course color dominance is important, like I stated before, talking about "color theory" we see things as primary, secondary colors with an addition of white or black for tone. Like pink been actually "red" tone down by the addition of white, or "crimson" been red tinted by black. What your talking about is a more commercial approach not used in color theory and that is what I was referring too, which is the bases of all design theory, so it's a big deal. Also, I majored in Media arts and animation, some in game art design, and minor on art and design. =