@DanteSolablood Were you counselling the same need for context when the '1.5m unit sales' were trumpeted? After all, we're talking about a Nintendo console being released in March, and unlike the PS4 and the XB1 there are no other console launches to steal its thunder, it's the first Nintendo console launch in over four years, it has the first mainline Zelda title released since 2011 (and was highly anticipated because of repeated delays), and the Wii U generation, because of its abject failure commercially, was a crucible produced a community of up 14m diehard cheerleaders that will literally purchase anything that Nintendo releases.
This Oliver Twist sort of behaviour is something that concerns me deeply about third party prospects. If Nintendo indeed has a platform that is so fantastic at allowing novel development and porting, and the big name developers are so bullish, why are they airing this sort of thing in public instead of trying to foster those relationships in the background? I would argue that it's because they're trying to encourage fans to express that support to devs in a similar manner. A company that has support in the bag advertises it (like it did with that rubbish dev logo graphic during the reveal), it doesn't ask for it and certainly not in what amounts to a public plea. Yikes.
@NEStalgia This. You're going to have a huge profit spike when you are still receiving residuals from what was arguably the most successful game of 2015, especially from its online component, and you aren't shouldering any US$80m multi-year developments.
Konami will continue to be profitable, a company of known ties to yakuza and whose primary business is now pachinko machines can't help but be so, but their brand equity is the lowest of any game company still extant and that's ultimately what will kill the company. Gamers show brand loyalty (when a company makes good content) and Pachinko players don't.
They ought to have further nostalgia-base expansions like they did in Hyrule Warriors, though not necessarily on their own just as part of other packs. Would love to see classic Link attire, perhaps the sword from the Zelda II art, the LttP Master Sword, the Picori Blade or the Four Sword. With a move toward a hybrid-RPG, especially with limiting mechanics, they need to have legendary equips.
That's on the consumer. At this point, we know who the culprits are when it comes to releasing incomplete games or hiding features behind a paywall and calling it downloadable content. And yet, gamers continue to buy games from those developers in droves. Its all on the consumer. Not exempting developers from participating in the practice. But it isn't hard to assess who is putting out quality and complete games and quality DLC.
I agree completely but where Nintendo is concerned, given that they've released so little DLC comparatively and with very little fanfare, it can be difficult for the average consumer to know if they're being taken for a ride.
If you've any reasonable experience at all with MMOs, it wouldn't take you long to get caught up; Stormblood doesn't release till end of June. If you're an ardent fan of FF, then it's definitely the one for you; one of the reasons that I never got into WoW was that I didn't care in the least about the Warcraft mythos.
[em]Many bad apples. There are plenty of really bad examples of DLC out there, and im not even talking about 'Horse Armor'.
But so far, Nintendo has done a splendid job with their DLC, why should it be different this time around ?[/em]
Goodness, I wanted to strangle Hayakawa when they announced that the TPP DLC was going to consist of three types of horse armour, the tuxedo (which was no longer unlockable) and a pack of costumes that could only be used inside MGO. Between that and no Chapter 3, it was my most hated game last year.
Idk why people have this anti-DLC hostility ingrained in their minds. What on this green earth is wrong with DLC?
Probably because they've been burned so many times. The mentality of most large publishers is that DLC is really just a way for the cost of games to approach what they probably should cost, inflation-adjusted, without actually changing the base price and alienating loads of people outright. That said, I have absolutely no problem with DLC so long as not having it doesn't affect the completion of the main story.
Speaking of FFXV, I was actually surprised how communicative SE was about the issues with Chapter 13 and that they were active working to fix, along with providing another year's worth of additional content. That kind of commitment and willingness to listen to consumer feedback is very healthy for games.
@JaxonH Agree 100% here. So long as they're not ransoming main story points like WB did with Arkham City and Arkham Knight, there's absolutely no reason not to have DLC is a game as broad as Breath of the Wild.
@Mega_Yarn_Poochy I'm generally negative about where Nintendo is going these days, but one place where I can absolutely give them credit is the DLC philosophy. Nintendo never hides main story content behind paywalls; it's always truly supplementary content. The way that they and KT handled Hyrule Warriors was the epitome of class and it ought to be a lesson to the industry: if you provide great additional content and don't fleece your customers with DLC that should've been in the main game, they'll be happy to pay for it.
I don't see your leap being in the same scale as 'Google search results show something generally positive for the Switch'. You said: 'Moreover, this alone ought to concern you. You have a huge spike in pre-order search trends but a tiny fraction of general interest. The obvious inference from either of those ought to be clear: pre-orders searches are done by early adopters or scalpers and are not reflective of general market interest on a forward basis. The implication being that, like the Wii U, the Switch will handily sell its launch day allotment and then stall fantastically.'
To me that seems a bigger leap.
As I explained to another poster, that response was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in the sense that it represents an equal but opposite narrative that could be constructed from minor variationsn in trend terms and then compared. The point was to underline that the trends are objectively and statistically meaningless. They do not represent quantifiable data because the we have no raw numbers for either group of searches, nor are we able to ascertain, or even hazard, how many of the searches are unique. I'll agree that they're a curiosity, but analytically that's the very most they are.
Then, to suggest my views are part of some echo chamber at Nintendo Life based on this? I am generally an optimist and we have our share of typical fingers-in-their-ears-everything-is-awesome-types and the I'm-just-here-to-dump-on-everything types but I stay for the back and forth with people that challenge my thinking and expand my views. I enjoy finding out how people enjoy Nintendo differently than I do.
And that's just fine, I enjoy the debate. I'm certain that most here consider me a pessimist at best, and a committed troll at worst, but that truly isn't the case. My views of Nintendo and its viability have to do with numbers, and what those numbers mean in the historical context of the rise, and occasional fall, of commerical brands. To that end, I see significant downside pressure, beyond what is generally recognised by those Nintendo enthusiasts will even dare to entertain.
[em]On that suggestion you made I do see it differently. The comparative gap in pre orders and that spike of general searches is interesting but I don't view that general search as particularly small to begin with (a little less than half of a similar reveal period of the fastest selling game console in history). The pre order spike being so high can be a reflection of many other factors including the short span before the actual release, for instance. I'm not totally buying the big disparity between scarcity paranoia (you can look up stories about scalpers and PS4 that were circulating at the time, but they didn't amount to much in the end fortunately) but it could have an effect.
So, that diminishes what one might guess from the graph I introduced here in isolation, but that's good. I see the whole thing even at half the impact as a big positive. Plus, it's a more complete picture. Anyway, I honestly don't think these are useless indicators and I find them interesting to discuss and place in context. Not nearly as interesting as the actual sales numbers will be, though.[/em]
Again, my analysis was intended to be somewhat farcical but allow me a moment to step back into it for the purposes of making a point. You mention that you're optimistic because the search volume was half that of the PS4 and a bit more than that for the XB1. In reality we cannot say that because, again, we do not know how many individual consumers are represented in those search frequencies because Google Trends doesn't truncate for uniqueness, but let's just go with that. Therein lay an additional problem: both the PS4 and XB1 were dividing an audience at the time. Undoubtedly there was some overlap between those audiences, perhaps 20%, but there are enough diehard brand loyalists in both camps that it wouldn't represent a cancelling majority. The Switch has no competitive launch to dampen the impact of its reveal and release yet, if the metrics are resonably accurate (again, I do not believe that they are), it's not reasonable to account the Switch half the volume of search interest, rather some mutiplicatively decreased percentage. February and March are an advertising wasteland for games; why is the Switch not commanding more mindshare. Just a thought.
Don't get all butthurt over good news for the switch. Lighten up or you'll end up like gatorboi and sligeach.
No 'butthurt' here, if it does well then it does, but I'm going to call bollocks when I believe it to be that, even here where I accept that it won't be popular.
@aaronsullivan Certainly these aren't great indicators, but the big numbers and wide samples are good for suggesting generalities. I've notice the naming of things is problematic, too which is one reason I preferred the pre order searches as they were more specific.
They aren't good enough to suggest generalities of material unit movement. They have absolutely no context, even in relation to each other since we cannot say with any degree of certain how many of each search constitutes an individual consumer. Unless I'm meant to believe that someone that searches for a particular pre-order four times on a given day does so with the intention of purchasing four units, and I absolutely don't.
@aaronsullivan Just like everyone saying that the search trends mean something positive are making a broad leap. But I suppose it's 'different' when it's the Nintendo Life echo chamber, eh? I'm fine with discounting my version as being functionally meaningless; are you honest enough to do so with your scenario?
I'm all for interesting observations of search trends, and I do appreciate the ones you've posted for what they are, but you are biased, with your kneejerk reaction being to dismiss search trends as "meaningless" until you could come up with your own set that told the story you wanted to see.
All Google trends are functionally meaningless as true tools of prognostication or analysis, in that they exist without context beyond the raw frequency of searches for whatever is inputted. My first post make that point very specifically and to decry the article as a whole as a poor example of manufactured confirmation bias. I then responded to another poster with an equally 'valid' comparison that simply shows that, depending on how you phrase the search terms, you get very different and diametrically opposite results in terms of interest. The came my final rejoinder that called into question that the comparison I provided could have equal or more diagnostic weight and I gave a methodological analysis about why it has equal, if not more weight if one accepts that search trends are a valid method of analysis.
I was probably being overly harsh on you, since the presentation of a comment thread like this tends to exacerbate bad impressions, and I fall for it sometimes. Sorry. Kneejerk reactions provoke kneejerk reactions and such. Still, though, it seems like you're willfully only seeing what you want to see in the trends. Seeing what you want to see is natural, but to discredit data that doesn't fit your narrative inserts bias, and inflates the confidence of your own conclusions above what they - or any drawn on this data set - deserve.
Be as harsh as you like, it doesn't bother me in the least so long as you make a valid point, and to my mind you haven't. There's no data, there's ungraduated graphical comparison that contains no imformation about demographic representativeness or assurances of quality with regard to uniqueness. What I did was to seek to discredit an unsupported fallacious narrative with an different narrative, equally unsupported and fallacious, because the entire foundational notion of both is absurd. That you can just as easily call my analysis into question does that work for me; the search trends are a pareidolia, without statistical value. With laughable ease, one can make it say whatever one wants.
Regarding history repeating itself - this isn't a matter of worry right now, it's a matter of fight. Consoles are built on a virtuous cycle of consumer confidence - hype generates sales, sales generate third-party investment, investment generates hype. System specs, in the end, aren't terribly important to sales except as a means to jumpstart this cycle.
Of course they're terribly important. The speak, far more than 'hype' as to the extent and duration of third-party support. There is a necessary balance between install base size and cost of development that necessarily leans its support toward technical specs because it transfers a fraction of cost of development from the developer to the end user by virtue of making it a far simpler affair. People have made much of Platinum Games' statement that they would put NieR: Automata on the SNES if someone pays for it, and that goes centrally to a point that I've argued for a very long time on this site: near-parity of hardware is just as important as large install base size to securing third-party support because the margin on software is so low and the front-loaded expense so high that the fewer differences between platforms the better. This is echoed in statements made by Respawn, Hajime Tabata and others. They like the notional language of the Switch in the abstract but from a practical point of view, when they're footing the initial bill to develop, they're rightly dubious.
Every prediction made in public about the Nintendo Switch is, on some small level, a self-fulfilling prophecy to the extent that it'll either boost or dampen hype. So yeah, as a Nintendo fan, when I see an unwarranted prediction going against the Switch, I'm going to try to push back against it, and as I explained, yours claimed more confidence than was warranted.
I make no claims of confidence beyond my own mind and I the statements that I make carry no warranty of being true. That said, I notice that you continue to raise no issue regarding my analysis beyond the fact that I consider it more probable than the opposite based on Nintendo's install base attrition generationally and its brand equity amongst its target audience (gamers), and that that cauess you emotional disquiet. If you in fact do have problems with them beyond that, please elucidate them. If you do not, then I'll thank you for your response and respond, as kindly as I can, that I do not care at all for the health of your fandom or its object. Whether Nintendo fails or no doesn't affect me in the least. I have no emotional attachment to them, or against the beyond the too-important-to-fail mentality that is oftentimes displayed here, and I'm not a shareholder so their fortunes do not affect my own.
@Fath You seem very upset at the prospect of a rational evaluation of Google search trends. Why is that?
I'm not here to show favour or disfavour to the product, and I'm old, so I'm used to being what the 'cool kids' point at and laugh. Since you don't seem to have a methodological problem with my analysis, I'll have to assume that you have an emotional problem with it. Don't blame me if some maths cause you some niggling doubt that history is repeating itself.
Much closer dates and more specific and relevant type of comparisons in my estimation, and the Nintendo Switch has pre order searches that approach the level that PS4 had before selling 1 million in the US alone on the first day of launch.
Moreover, this alone ought to concern you. You have a huge spike in pre-order search trends but a tiny fraction of general interest. The obvious inference from either of those ought to be clear: pre-orders searches are done by early adopters or scalpers and are not reflective of general market interest on a forward basis. The implication being that, like the Wii U, the Switch will handily sell its launch day allotment and then stall fantastically.
@aaronsullivan It's not relevant at all. Neither XB1 nor PS4 had the significant concerns for artificial scarcity that the Nintendo Switch has, concerns prompted by the availability disaster and scalper parade that was the NES Classic during the Christmas season, so pre-orders weren't anywhere near the concern.
If you look at the chart I provided, what is the first major spike for the PS4? The Week of 17 - 23 February 2013; the PS4 was revealed on 20 February of that year. What is the first major spike for XB1? 19 - 25 May 2013; the XB1 was revealed 21 May 2013. What are the spikes for the Switch? The teaser trailer and the reveal, neither of which approach even a significant fraction of the same level of interest.
It's meaningless. First, these numbers aren't for unique visitors. A single poor sap that missed out on the pre-orders could hit it twenty times per day and it counts for each one. Second, with the Wii U Nintendo hadn't just come off a scalper frenzy Christmas season caused by artificial scarcity.
Do you think selling 50-70 million total consoles (whether home console or handheld) at a profit is a failure in today's video game industry? If you say yes, then you're clearly out of your mind.
I'll answer you question with another question. Has the Switch sold 50 - 70m units? Nope. If it's able to, which it isn't, I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong. Till then, take a business course at your local junior college before you say ridiculous things.
I already talked about why your reference to the install bases of previous console generations is entirely irrelevant. You did not provide a valid rebuttal.
I ignored it out of charity but since you seem insistent on pressing the issue, sure, I'll issue a rebuttal. I truly hope that you're a frontline salesmen in whatever it is you do because if you're in a business and have any decision-making authority, I want you to pose that question to your employer; don't be surprised if he fires you.
Past performance irrelevant? How is it do you think that companies read market good will toward particular product categories and their brand overall? How do you think they come to decisions regarding what to release and not release, what revisions to make? When to double down on a product that just has had a slow start (3DS) and when to cut bait whilst saving face (Wii U)? They do it by looking at past performance across their product offerings. Nintendo's only competition is its current market competitors? This alone tells me that you're not an employer and not an investor. Let me pose a scenario to you. You're a CEO of a company on which I'm a member of the board. In one product generation you sell 70m units of product, versus 90m and 120m for your competitors. Then in the next product generation, you sell 11m whilst those same competitors sell 3m and 2m respectively. If you came to the board and 'yeah, we didn't do as well as our previous generation, but that doesn't count! We still did better than our competitors and that's what counts!' , I would do everything in my power, and I guarantee you it wouldn't take much prodding of that board, to claw back your severance and fire you within the hour. You apparently don't recognise that publicly traded companies, by definition, exist to maximise shareholder profit. That means that as much as any one company is competing with its rivals, it's competing with its past self, both in successes and failures.
Nintendo understands this because they're a business, and they understand how precarious their position is. It's not coincidence that Nintendo is pushing the Switch's product narrative as being a home console first, rather than the portable that gamers clearly recognise it to be. Aside from not wanting to kill the golden goose of the DS platform before they're sure that the Switch will carry a significant portion of the install base (and they aren't sure), the generational decline in handhelds was about 60% and their generational decline in home consoles was 87%, and that shortfall is compounded by the increased profit loss because handheld has significantly higher margins; the home consoles are an albatross without software sales. They realise that once you normalise the Wii generation by removing the casuals (yes, they are casual non-core gamers and you can see that both by the titles that had strong attachment rates, the generational decline from the Wii to the Wii U was more than double the trending generational decline, erasing it as an outlier), you have a trajectorial trend that is generationally, consistently downward and the delta of trend is increasing. That's brand imaging problem that is not confined to a single piece of hardware; it's a symptom of a lack of brand equity on a forward basis, one that is especially troubling given the nostalgia draw and general marketability of their IP ex traditional gaming (new distributor markets like mobile apps and in merchanidising).
And before you huff and dismiss this outright, if past performance is so bloody irrelelvant, why did Kimishima feel the need to come out and deliberately name drop the Wii, and its 100m unit sales, in his 'projections' of the Switch's success? If it's pointless, why did Reggie justify the disaster that was the Wii U, when industry journalists were questioning its draw, by saying that the Wii, the most underpower of the seventh gelot, sold the most units? Because, on its own, it represented a pronounced upswing in brand equity, and they hadn't yet realised that it represented transient market.
I'm more than happy to debate you, but if you're going to say absurd things like that then just past my comments by. I have only so much free time and patience as it is.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE FFVII remake is coming to the Switch? Last I heard it was a PS exclusive for one year, and then Scorpio. I haven't heard a word about a Switch version.
So, how is it that you can accuse people of things and call them or their behavior as you see it, making baseless assumptions all around the board, regardless of the fact whether it's correct or not, but if you even suspect other people making assumptions about you, it's okay to use harsh or potentially even threatening language? I saw this reaction of yours to someone else while scrolling down the comments section:
The only thing missing to make it even more aggressive is capital letters...
There's a very stark difference between those cases, and it's gleaned easily enough if you read the comment that I posted; it turns out wasn't even addressed toward me, though since it was between two people with whom I was debating at that very moment and had no mention to show otherwise, I think you can see how that would be confusing. The comment in question seemed to intimate that irrespective of my opinion of the Switch, which ought to be very apparent, I would nonetheless purchase one because my criticism was only talk and that I essentially didn't have the courage of my own convictions. I'll more than welcome anyone to dispute my analyses, provided they do so with concrete numbers to enforce that disputation; that's the healthy and enjoyable part of debate. What I absolutely will not tolerate is that someone will impute to me a course of action that is contrary to my stated opinions. Conversely, you have been vocally positive, and shown more than a bit of cheek to those that were negative. Once can reasonably infer that you do so because you either believe that the Switch will be a success, or you're concerned that it may well not be and you're trying to keep positive momentum going. In case you're unaware, the cultivation of positive emotionalism toward an entity is the very essence of cheerleading. Since, you yourself admitted to doing so after the fact, in the sense that your outlook revolves around finding the 'good' (asses the X1 not against its competition but rather on, presumably, other past handhelds) and spread the word (post links in support), I don't see why the term rankles you so badly.
[em]All I said was "The X1 may not be entirely up to par, but it ain't no slouch either, and with the help of the custom software, NVN and Vulkan API, results on the Switch will be more than decent, I assure you.
And consider this: there's a reason why Nvidia themselves are also once again going with the X1 for their new iteration of the Shield..."
I honestly see nothing asinine about that, merely stating facts. The X1 is indeed not on par and Nvidia is still using it in its next Shield device.[/em]
And I answered why they're doing so. Because the performance profile of the Shield TV is such that it is not intended as a primary gaming platform, rather as a general media consumption device with secondary gaming functionality to give it a value prop differentiator, bolstered by nVidia's cachet as probably the leading GPU maker in the world, against the Apple TV, which was to introduce its own gaming platform at the next hardware refresh. So, they reused the existing chip, likely refreshed the memory bus speed and perhaps the amount, we don't know, made any component arrangment revisions based on in-the-wild wear that they encountered, and sent the design off to manufacture. That's how minor hardware revisions work.
You completely misread me there. AGAIN, I might add...
What I mean by that is looking for things that are constructive, makes the situation move forward and a point of view that is looking at what IS possible, and what we ARE getting, instead of constantly looking at what it can't do and what we aren't getting.
We can complain an moan about that until the cows come home, but it isn't going to change anything about them just being the facts, so what's the use?
The use is that, if you believe that Nintendo is on a course that will lead to failure, the last thing that you do is want to look on the bright side. They need feedback, not manufacturer adulation.
Sure, there will always be people that go overboard with their statements, and I agree with you that we don't have to be blind to the shortcomings and resort to statements like "graphics don't matter" (and you'll never hear me say that; I'd sooner go with "graphics matter just as much as gameplay"), but in similar fashion, all this nagging and idiocy about the Switch being dead in the water and such is also highly annoying.
Is it annoying because it's not based on assessment of known facts (which in my case, it is) or because it causes you emotional disquiet that you don't want when you come to what has increasingly become the same sort of echo chamber that cheered the Wii U to an early grave whilst proclaimingn that it was just want the market needed? If it's the former, and especially if it has to do with my argument, then by all means tell me what I've gotten wrong. Show me sales figures that refute Nintendo's trend of decline in both product categories. Show me attachment rates that support the Switch as something tht will be an enormous draw when the same form factor, design language, price point and gaming philosophy was display by the Vita, which was an abject failure. Show me maths, because I'm not here to debate feelings.
But the thing is, we simply don't know all of this yet, so it's quite presumptuous to assume where it's going to go at this point already. The third party story is definitely not as clear as we hoped it would be by now, or as it should be, but that doesn't mean that it is as clear cut as you and many of the more critical members seem to think. After all: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
It's not presumptuous. It's founded on a rational evaluation of the Switch's marketability on a forward basis. It's founded on the very clear rate of core install base attrition that Nintendo has experienced since its first transition (NES -> SNES) and has continued unabated. It's founded on how starkly similar the trajectory of the Switch has been to the Wii U, in terms of the dissemination of technical information and the manner in which the Nintendo community has reacted to it. It has to do with the state of third-party support as it stands, which is precisely what it was with the Wii U. It has to do with the utter lack of information regarding how Nintendo has mitigated, or intends to mitigate, the host of service issues the Wii U had; we know nothing concrete about the account system, there has not been a single explicative statement regarding the VC or purchase migration, if any, from the Wii. One month out from a product launch, this is disastrous to the mindshare of Nintendo and its value proposition.
That's kind of a harsh comparison, but I get your point, so fair enough. However, I am honestly curious to find out where you're coming from and how you've come to this conclusion, since like I already said before, we don't know and only have partial information at best. I don't know what business you're in or what your knowledge base is, but my expertise is Sales & Marketing, so a lot of what I say and think is obviously influenced by that to some extent.
It comes from having graduated uni with a CS degree, emphasis on hardware design and software development, having been a software dev for more than twenty years, and from having been employed in market research analysis, brand positioning and imaging for eleven years.
And there's also quite a bit of partial information that is actually pointing at things looking up: positive reactions, Nintendo making a good start with their marketing campaign, and Tatsumi Kimishima making some good decisions and statements.
Reactions are meaningless outside the context of real-world commerce. Even during the first initial wave of hype for BotW, the analysis of the reactions did not take into account the monetary cost of admittance. It's easy to love a game and a hardware platform in a positive-feedback environment like a con or trade show, or worse still a Nintendo-hosted event, and especially when that experience founded on a game that you didn't have to buy and a costly, unproven hardware platform you didn't have to adopt. That same vacuous PR response is precisely why Nintendo got burned last generation by third-party support. The devs certainly impressed with the Wii U, and were bullish about it, until they had to shell out the cost to develop and publish for it. You know that to be true, I do, Nintendo does and the devs do. Every time a dev comes out and says that they currently have no plans to develop for the Switch, or that they are 'committed' but only have one seventh generation port to announce at this time, they're proving that to be true.
Anyways, as it stands, we are on both ends of the spectrum, but at least we agree on statements needing to be founded, both negative AND positive ones...
The entirety of my argument is based on numbers. Can you say the same?
Now why did I expect the kind of name calling reply from you that I did, hm?
I didn't call you any names. I said that you were engaged in 'asinine cheerleading' and I stand by that statement.
I suppose you failed to notice the smiley, meaning me just poking a bit of fun at you, that's all. People are so quick to be insulted nowadays, especially online. It's sad, really.
No, they just don't appreciate being called ignorant then proferred a coy emoji to insist that the comment was just for laughs.
[em]I'll try and give you one honest response, hope you reply in kind or I will refrain from replying. And it seems you're more than capable of doing so, because you actually make a few good points in comment #164. Contrary to how you so eloquently labeled me, I'm anything BUT a blind, rosy-colored spectacle wearing, eat up anything that Nintendo throws at me fanboy. I just look at possibilities and solutions instead of problems.[/em]
That likes saying that cutting on one's hand is merely a new and exciting oppportunity to learn alternative methods of opening jars. The way to fix problems is not to suggest how those problems are solutions to other, less-pressing problems.
It has been known for a LONG time already that the odds that the chipset were going to be X1 were far larger than X2, so why people continue to be so surprised and outraged by that, amazes me to no end.
And it amazes me that for months before this every comment section on Nintendo Life was full of posters insisting that the SoC was the X2. Now that we have all but ironclad confirmation that it's the same X1 that the more pessimistic posters said it was, what is the response? The exact same rubbish we saw during the Wii U's lifetime. 'Graphics are meaningless', 'Nintendo isn't competing Sony and Microsoft', 'Switch has all the power it needs, it'll get loads of third-party support'. It's absurdity that would be laughable if it weren't so painful.
And the reality you speak of, is in the link I posted, which actually paints quite a positive picture of the base X1 chipset, so my entire goal was to show people that it really isn't as bad as it looks.
It's not right this moment, but then I said as much. The issue is its forward support. Wii U adopters got burned badly, and the platform's decline wasn't just abrupt and precipitous, it was very visible. Releasing another system that will have significant problems garnering third-party support as it matures is not the strategy to turn around a hardware business. Indeed, it's a proper way to kill it.
Criticism is just fine by me, as long as it is constructive criticism and not whiney, "woe is me" stuff. And even if there are people that are blindly supporting Nintendo over here, what the hell did you expect on a Nintendo related site?
I have no problem with hope, so long as its founded, just like I have no problem with people that find comfort and meaning in religion or spirirtuality during periods of trial like terminal disease; where I have a problem is when that person says that they've given up chemo and is now seeing a naturopath and expects to be well again very soon, and then looking very cross when I cover my eyes and sigh. Nintendo has very real problems, mortal problems if they aren't corrected, and shrugging one's shoulders and saying that it doesn't matter or could be worse helps no one, least of all Nintendo.
I hear this same nonsense all of the time. Look at the software attachment rates on the 3DS for your so-called ambitious titles. They all have sub-2% attachments, and often sub-1% attachments. The only console-style game that made any sort of sales on the 3DS was OoT and, when taking into account the N64 install base, it sold one-quarter as well as the original title. Are there gamers on the 3DS that want those sorts of experiences. Certainly. Do they constitute the majority, or even a percentage meaningful enough to contribute materially to the Switch's success? Nope.
So, for some reason, you're making this a comparison between today's Nintendo and the ghost of Nintendo's past. Why? Nintendo isn't competing against what they did decades ago, but the current competitors in the industry.
I'm doing so because there is a quantifiable and consistent decrease in the size of Nintendo's core audience over time. That's a fact.
Do you know how many other video game companies even bother selling a handheld and a home console? There's Sony, but the Vita has struggled to sell to the point that Sony doesn't care about it anymore. Does Microsoft even sell a handheld?
It's not just a handheld. It's a home console as well; it's being positioned as one both in its messaging (Nintendo itself calls it a home console and a successor to the Wii U), and in terms of its software lineup. Whether or not Sony or Microsoft make handheld is immaterial. What matters is that the Switch is positioned as a category consolidation, but the attributes of that consolidated product do not meet the standard notional language of either of those categories. It's a home console, but it's underpowered versus its competition in that space. It's a handheld, but its design language is contrary to the established winning formula (small, energy efficient, broad stable of games that geared to short, serial play sessions), and is positioned more as a successor to the Vita, which was a disaster.
He only talks alot. He'll likely get a Switch once Super Mario Odyssey is released, so he'll help the same company that he talks crap about so much to make a profit.
I'll thank you not to visit my intentions, ever. Do you understand me?
[em]
Sure, Nintendo by default competes with Sony and MS. Sure. But they're not going to do it very well unless they bring something different to the table, both in terms of hardware and software. They nailed the hardware. And seem to have a good line of games coming now too.
So, what's the problem again? You think they specifically need Western AAA? Nonsense. It'd be great to have, and I'm sure a handful will come (proving to everyone the 'it's too weak" argument is nonsense in light of modern architecture and PC settings gaps that far exceed the difference between rival consoles). They just need good games that sell to the audience who's buying the console. Basically, they just need games, doesn't matter what kind. It's a large world out there, and AAA western games aren't the be all end all of gaming.
And ya, Nintendo's been declining lately. And... that's their problem, not ours. Marketing, image, having an appealing console, no droughts... all things that can affect decline. And they can just as easily carry on fine by improving some or all of the above. 62 million 3DS (and it's not even done yet) ain't bad in the modern era smartphone age in light of GBA only doing 80. It'll probably hit 70 by the time it's a wrap. So oh well, they lost 10 mil to smartphones, they'll live.
But even if they consolidate, find a good 50-70 million base and keep it, so what? So it's less than it used to be... The market shifts all the time.
Just sit back relax and enjoy the games and let them worry about all that stuff. We got a slick hybrid console to look forward to, years of great games... what's the beef
[/em]
You responded to my post with not a single figure or any sort of analysis. You're excited for the Switch, we know, just like we know others here aren't. Till you can actually back up any of what you're suggesting with numbers, hush whilst the adults are speaking 'ya'?
First of all, Nintendo has sold over 60 million 3DS handhelds. Combine that with the 13 million Wii U consoles they sold, and those sales indicate that plenty of gamers still play Nintendo video games. The Switch will likely appeal to both the Nintendo handheld and home console market, so the consolidation of Nintendo's handheld and home console divisions is actually a sound business strategy.
And how did those devices do when compared historically? 3DS sold 61m, no doubt, but it did so as a 60% drop generationally (vs the 154m sales of the DS), despite having strong third party support and virtually no competition in the space, certainly not compared to the PSP which actually was more than a blip on the DS' radar. And the Wii U? Constituted an 87% drop generationally. Granted, that's coming off of the Wii, but the Wii's sales were between 70 and 75% non-core casuals. How can we know that? Simply by attachment rates. Despite being the hardware winner for that generation, it had the smallest overall library and the lowest software attachment rate. The software that did attach, aside from Mario Kart, Smash, and a 2D Mario, were entirely non-core IPs like Wii Sports, Wii Fitness and Just Dance. For instance, Wii Sports had an 82% attachment rate. The next nearest title was Mario Kart with a comparatively laughable 35%. That said, the performance of the Wii U was precisely in line with the install base attrition that has afflicted Nintendo since its very first console, when you factor out casuals from the Wii install base.
Let's assume that the entire Wii U and 3DS install base are unique buyers. They aren't, I'd estimate that some 35 - 40% of the 3DS population overlaps into the console category, but let's assume it anyway. Even the rosiest projections would allow 70% translation from both of those sources, which would put the Switch at somewhere near 50m lifetime sales, fairly strong until you realise that it represents a one-quarter decline in overall hardware sales versus when they had traditionally-defined console and handheld systems. That Nintendo, which has always made money on hardware where no other manufacturer has, has opted to produce one less device let's you know that they know precisely what the situation is, and it isn't a good one at all.
Second, in an important respect, Nintendo is not running the same race as Sony and Microsoft. They're not marketing their console to the same markets as Sony and Microsoft; they're not using the same business strategies; and they're not directly competing against Sony and Microsoft.
Nintendo doesn't get to decide the terms of the contest, mate. They're selling to same home console audience that Sony and Microsoft are, period. They may do it differently, and clearly don't do it as successfully, but its utterly disingenuous to cast it as being something other than what it is.
@PlywoodStick I know it has a hefty price tag, but it's a competition, however much Nintendo stamps its feet and tries to deny that it's running the same race as Sony and Microsoft. If they intend for console buyers to purchase the Switch, then that's precisely what they're doing, and in that particular race, they come out of the blocks all confounded. To make matters worse, by consolidating their console and handheld offerings, keeping with the metaphor, Nintendo has had, at its own request, hurdles set up in its lane. It's running two vastly different races at once, and it has to be perfect to have a prayer of competing.
Nintendo isn't in the position to play for the clock. Both their console and handheld install bases are cratering, generation over generation, and now they're consolidating them because they don't have the talent to support two devices and they know full well that the third-party support on a forward basis is not going to be there.
@Grez That's entirely my point. The X1 does what it needs to do for the Shield TV's intended service profile. You'll note that I said previously that it makes sense to include better tech if it's cost-efficient and beneficial. Including a more expensive SoC for a platform that will not utilise it is pointless, and I said as much. The other fellow intimated that it was because the X1 was still a powerhouse comparatively.
And you make another point for me: custom ports. Special hardware consideration, i.e. custom dev overhead, to the low side is a suicide pill for broad and continuing third party support over a platform's lifespan, and doubly so when the basis for it is already a generation behind. The game streaming may be brilliant for the Shield TV, but then that's predicated on your service bandwidth, the remote servers are doing all of the heaving lifting graphically.
No, that's not it, really. But I'll forgive you your ignorance...
Oh, thank you ever so much! /s
Also great going picking that single thing out of my comment. Goes to show that you can't ever convince the "glass half-empty" prophets that things might not nearly be as bad as they seem to want it to be...
It's interesting that you cast aspersions of negativity on anyone that doesn't share the 'ZOMG Switch Triumphs!' narrative. I don't want Nintendo to be in the situation that it's in, but I don't control reality any more than your attempts at asinine cheerleading or passive-aggressive quips will be able to.
Or it's because the current Tegra X2 (Parker) and X3 (Xavier) are being used for non-gaming applications, especially car AI...
If it were cost effective and beneficial to use a chip in something they would, it's that simple. nVidia caters to the PC gaming set first and foremost, and they know that a majority of western gamers are specs. If they intended the Shield TV to be a proper gaming platform, it's entirely in their interest to load it with the best tech they can whilst meeting their standard cost. It isn't because they don't. Like the Switch, it's a category consolidation oddity, an attempt to add gaming functionality as a differentiator to proper Android competitor to the Apple TV.
@westman98 You don't know anything about PR do you? Saying something is unofficial does not mean that it isn't true, it means that the entity in question is denying legal attribution, likely because there's an NDA in place for ARM, since any optimisation built into the Switch's chipset that was added in the partnership between nVidia and Nintendo had to be vetted through ARM to make certain that it wasn't infringing on any IP. ARM knows what's inside the switch, it just didn't have permission to specify what it was. Hence, the denial that it's an official statement.
@OorWullie Its removal almost certainly confirms that it's accurate. ARM knows better than anyone what the Switch's chipset is, it's based on their spec. Someone got loose-lipped and likely broke an NDA in the process, but the information is corroborative of everything that had been leaked or confirmed thus far, especially when looking at the battery performance. It's a X1, probably with an extended instruction set for optimisation to offset the near-certainty that it will be underclocked versus the nominal performance.
To the sunshine and rainbow crowd, the reason that this is disconcerting news to me, and presumably to @SLIGEACH_EIRE, is not because it represents an immediate loss of power. We've seen what the Switch can do irrespective of specs now confirmed. The reason why it's disastrous is that it shows that Nintendo DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF HARDWARE NEAR-PARITY IN DEVELOPMENT. Nintendo does not have the install base or industry clout to coax broad third party support for a platform that will be antiquated a year into its lifecycle. They have built in an expiration date that is catastrophic for broad third-party support and thus longevity. We're already hearing rumblings from EA that it's essentially forced to build a separate version of FIFA for release on the Switch, and which will come out later than for other systems. This is precisely the same thing that happened to the Wii U and it doomed the console.
'But it's great for a portable!'
Nintendo's portable install base is haemorrhaging, (look at generational transition from DS to 3DS despite having no meaningful competition, and software attachment rates as well), and has been for a long time. It can't afford to cater only its handheld business. By abandoning the traditional console hardware and opting for product category consolidation, its signalling a set of product attributes that it clearly will not be able to meet on a forward basis.
'OTOH, so far it is exclusively an iOS app, so it's not fair to compare it's total mobile earnings when it's yet to reach the largest mobile market (by far.) We'll have a better picture in May or so after it's been on Android for a while if it's just a rejection of flat payments, or if the Google market is more conducive to that model than the Apple market. I think there's a fair possibility of better success there. The Apple market definitely has some weird behavioral trends. Nothing guaranteed though.'
And why do you think it was released on iOS first and why it's been an exclusive for the time that it has been? It had nothing to do with similar 'walled-garden' philosophies. Nintendo had a decent idea about how their quarterly results were going, so they release the app where it had the greatest chance of generating revenues. iOS features pay conversions rates much higher than Android; that's why iOS consistently gets apps first and for longer periods of exclusivity from paid app developers despite having a much lower market share.
Android is a pay-for-play paradise where flat-fee expensive apps go to die.
@iGen Was obviously referring to portable play. You know, the other part of what the Switch is purported to be. The long car rides when the local co-op evangelists say are prime Mario Kart territory, or Splatoon tournaments between drooling over booth bints at conventions or other such nonsense.
In point of fact, I won't be owning the Switch. Nothing about it has a value for me, but I also am going to criticise something that is yet one more lacklustre or compromised feature. I welcome the ire of the Nintendo cultists, though, it really truly is adorable.
@memoryman3 Switch has a USB-C connector, which means it ought to have QC included; 3DS also lasts me 6 - 7 hours of playtime for virtually all of its titles, not the 3hrs offered by the Switch for its target media (console-class titles).
I find it hysterical that the Kool-Aid drinkers are taking his PR spin so seriously. I suppose that's because most of you were on the Wii U you that you weren't subject to the Colonial Marines debacle. Most of us that were wouldn't believe Pitchford if he said that sky was blue. By all means though, continue to believe the Switch will be a smash success because of all of the games it won't be able to offer to the preponderance of consoles gamers that are used to a certain experience.
Comments 161
Re: Nintendo Switch Stays On Top in Japan Despite Sharp Week Two Decline
@DanteSolablood Were you counselling the same need for context when the '1.5m unit sales' were trumpeted? After all, we're talking about a Nintendo console being released in March, and unlike the PS4 and the XB1 there are no other console launches to steal its thunder, it's the first Nintendo console launch in over four years, it has the first mainline Zelda title released since 2011 (and was highly anticipated because of repeated delays), and the Wii U generation, because of its abject failure commercially, was a crucible produced a community of up 14m diehard cheerleaders that will literally purchase anything that Nintendo releases.
So, yeah, context matters.
Re: Breath of the Wild's Art Director on Why Link's Classic Hat is Missing
All eight versions of the cap in the game are floppy but still iconic. And one ought to be able to dress like a hero after completing 120 shrines.
Re: Reggie Fils-Aime Pitches Unreal Engine Support on Nintendo Switch
This Oliver Twist sort of behaviour is something that concerns me deeply about third party prospects. If Nintendo indeed has a platform that is so fantastic at allowing novel development and porting, and the big name developers are so bullish, why are they airing this sort of thing in public instead of trying to foster those relationships in the background? I would argue that it's because they're trying to encourage fans to express that support to devs in a similar manner. A company that has support in the bag advertises it (like it did with that rubbish dev logo graphic during the reveal), it doesn't ask for it and certainly not in what amounts to a public plea. Yikes.
Re: Virtual Console Will Not Be Ready For Nintendo Switch Launch
Knew it. You don't wait a week before launch to tell prospective customers that something WILL be available.
Re: Kojima-Free Konami Is Doing Just Fine, Thanks Very Much
@NEStalgia This. You're going to have a huge profit spike when you are still receiving residuals from what was arguably the most successful game of 2015, especially from its online component, and you aren't shouldering any US$80m multi-year developments.
Konami will continue to be profitable, a company of known ties to yakuza and whose primary business is now pachinko machines can't help but be so, but their brand equity is the lowest of any game company still extant and that's ultimately what will kill the company. Gamers show brand loyalty (when a company makes good content) and Pachinko players don't.
Re: Talking Point: The DLC Expansion Pass for Zelda: Breath of the Wild is Both Surprising and Inevitable
They ought to have further nostalgia-base expansions like they did in Hyrule Warriors, though not necessarily on their own just as part of other packs. Would love to see classic Link attire, perhaps the sword from the Zelda II art, the LttP Master Sword, the Picori Blade or the Four Sword. With a move toward a hybrid-RPG, especially with limiting mechanics, they need to have legendary equips.
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@UmbreonsPapa
That's on the consumer. At this point, we know who the culprits are when it comes to releasing incomplete games or hiding features behind a paywall and calling it downloadable content. And yet, gamers continue to buy games from those developers in droves. Its all on the consumer. Not exempting developers from participating in the practice. But it isn't hard to assess who is putting out quality and complete games and quality DLC.
I agree completely but where Nintendo is concerned, given that they've released so little DLC comparatively and with very little fanfare, it can be difficult for the average consumer to know if they're being taken for a ride.
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@JaxonH
If you've any reasonable experience at all with MMOs, it wouldn't take you long to get caught up; Stormblood doesn't release till end of June. If you're an ardent fan of FF, then it's definitely the one for you; one of the reasons that I never got into WoW was that I didn't care in the least about the Warcraft mythos.
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@Einherjar
[em]Many bad apples. There are plenty of really bad examples of DLC out there, and im not even talking about 'Horse Armor'.
But so far, Nintendo has done a splendid job with their DLC, why should it be different this time around ?[/em]
Goodness, I wanted to strangle Hayakawa when they announced that the TPP DLC was going to consist of three types of horse armour, the tuxedo (which was no longer unlockable) and a pack of costumes that could only be used inside MGO. Between that and no Chapter 3, it was my most hated game last year.
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@JaxonH
Idk why people have this anti-DLC hostility ingrained in their minds. What on this green earth is wrong with DLC?
Probably because they've been burned so many times. The mentality of most large publishers is that DLC is really just a way for the cost of games to approach what they probably should cost, inflation-adjusted, without actually changing the base price and alienating loads of people outright. That said, I have absolutely no problem with DLC so long as not having it doesn't affect the completion of the main story.
Speaking of FFXV, I was actually surprised how communicative SE was about the issues with Chapter 13 and that they were active working to fix, along with providing another year's worth of additional content. That kind of commitment and willingness to listen to consumer feedback is very healthy for games.
And are you ready for Stormblood?
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@JaxonH Agree 100% here. So long as they're not ransoming main story points like WB did with Arkham City and Arkham Knight, there's absolutely no reason not to have DLC is a game as broad as Breath of the Wild.
Re: Nintendo Confirms Expansion Pass DLC for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
@Mega_Yarn_Poochy I'm generally negative about where Nintendo is going these days, but one place where I can absolutely give them credit is the DLC philosophy. Nintendo never hides main story content behind paywalls; it's always truly supplementary content. The way that they and KT handled Hyrule Warriors was the epitome of class and it ought to be a lesson to the industry: if you provide great additional content and don't fleece your customers with DLC that should've been in the main game, they'll be happy to pay for it.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@BigWhoady Thank you for the dual examples of how to say even less! They're quite informative.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@dan_gleibitz Thank you! You should write the fortunes for fortune cookies, you would do very well.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@aaronsullivan
I don't see your leap being in the same scale as 'Google search results show something generally positive for the Switch'. You said: 'Moreover, this alone ought to concern you. You have a huge spike in pre-order search trends but a tiny fraction of general interest. The obvious inference from either of those ought to be clear: pre-orders searches are done by early adopters or scalpers and are not reflective of general market interest on a forward basis. The implication being that, like the Wii U, the Switch will handily sell its launch day allotment and then stall fantastically.'
To me that seems a bigger leap.
As I explained to another poster, that response was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, in the sense that it represents an equal but opposite narrative that could be constructed from minor variationsn in trend terms and then compared. The point was to underline that the trends are objectively and statistically meaningless. They do not represent quantifiable data because the we have no raw numbers for either group of searches, nor are we able to ascertain, or even hazard, how many of the searches are unique. I'll agree that they're a curiosity, but analytically that's the very most they are.
Then, to suggest my views are part of some echo chamber at Nintendo Life based on this? I am generally an optimist and we have our share of typical fingers-in-their-ears-everything-is-awesome-types and the I'm-just-here-to-dump-on-everything types but I stay for the back and forth with people that challenge my thinking and expand my views. I enjoy finding out how people enjoy Nintendo differently than I do.
And that's just fine, I enjoy the debate. I'm certain that most here consider me a pessimist at best, and a committed troll at worst, but that truly isn't the case. My views of Nintendo and its viability have to do with numbers, and what those numbers mean in the historical context of the rise, and occasional fall, of commerical brands. To that end, I see significant downside pressure, beyond what is generally recognised by those Nintendo enthusiasts will even dare to entertain.
[em]On that suggestion you made I do see it differently. The comparative gap in pre orders and that spike of general searches is interesting but I don't view that general search as particularly small to begin with (a little less than half of a similar reveal period of the fastest selling game console in history). The pre order spike being so high can be a reflection of many other factors including the short span before the actual release, for instance. I'm not totally buying the big disparity between scarcity paranoia (you can look up stories about scalpers and PS4 that were circulating at the time, but they didn't amount to much in the end fortunately) but it could have an effect.
So, that diminishes what one might guess from the graph I introduced here in isolation, but that's good. I see the whole thing even at half the impact as a big positive. Plus, it's a more complete picture.
Anyway, I honestly don't think these are useless indicators and I find them interesting to discuss and place in context. Not nearly as interesting as the actual sales numbers will be, though.[/em]
Again, my analysis was intended to be somewhat farcical but allow me a moment to step back into it for the purposes of making a point. You mention that you're optimistic because the search volume was half that of the PS4 and a bit more than that for the XB1. In reality we cannot say that because, again, we do not know how many individual consumers are represented in those search frequencies because Google Trends doesn't truncate for uniqueness, but let's just go with that. Therein lay an additional problem: both the PS4 and XB1 were dividing an audience at the time. Undoubtedly there was some overlap between those audiences, perhaps 20%, but there are enough diehard brand loyalists in both camps that it wouldn't represent a cancelling majority. The Switch has no competitive launch to dampen the impact of its reveal and release yet, if the metrics are resonably accurate (again, I do not believe that they are), it's not reasonable to account the Switch half the volume of search interest, rather some mutiplicatively decreased percentage. February and March are an advertising wasteland for games; why is the Switch not commanding more mindshare. Just a thought.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@BigWhoady
Don't get all butthurt over good news for the switch. Lighten up or you'll end up like gatorboi and sligeach.
No 'butthurt' here, if it does well then it does, but I'm going to call bollocks when I believe it to be that, even here where I accept that it won't be popular.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@aaronsullivan Certainly these aren't great indicators, but the big numbers and wide samples are good for suggesting generalities. I've notice the naming of things is problematic, too which is one reason I preferred the pre order searches as they were more specific.
They aren't good enough to suggest generalities of material unit movement. They have absolutely no context, even in relation to each other since we cannot say with any degree of certain how many of each search constitutes an individual consumer. Unless I'm meant to believe that someone that searches for a particular pre-order four times on a given day does so with the intention of purchasing four units, and I absolutely don't.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@aaronsullivan Just like everyone saying that the search trends mean something positive are making a broad leap. But I suppose it's 'different' when it's the Nintendo Life echo chamber, eh? I'm fine with discounting my version as being functionally meaningless; are you honest enough to do so with your scenario?
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@Fath
I'm all for interesting observations of search trends, and I do appreciate the ones you've posted for what they are, but you are biased, with your kneejerk reaction being to dismiss search trends as "meaningless" until you could come up with your own set that told the story you wanted to see.
All Google trends are functionally meaningless as true tools of prognostication or analysis, in that they exist without context beyond the raw frequency of searches for whatever is inputted. My first post make that point very specifically and to decry the article as a whole as a poor example of manufactured confirmation bias. I then responded to another poster with an equally 'valid' comparison that simply shows that, depending on how you phrase the search terms, you get very different and diametrically opposite results in terms of interest. The came my final rejoinder that called into question that the comparison I provided could have equal or more diagnostic weight and I gave a methodological analysis about why it has equal, if not more weight if one accepts that search trends are a valid method of analysis.
I was probably being overly harsh on you, since the presentation of a comment thread like this tends to exacerbate bad impressions, and I fall for it sometimes. Sorry. Kneejerk reactions provoke kneejerk reactions and such. Still, though, it seems like you're willfully only seeing what you want to see in the trends. Seeing what you want to see is natural, but to discredit data that doesn't fit your narrative inserts bias, and inflates the confidence of your own conclusions above what they - or any drawn on this data set - deserve.
Be as harsh as you like, it doesn't bother me in the least so long as you make a valid point, and to my mind you haven't. There's no data, there's ungraduated graphical comparison that contains no imformation about demographic representativeness or assurances of quality with regard to uniqueness. What I did was to seek to discredit an unsupported fallacious narrative with an different narrative, equally unsupported and fallacious, because the entire foundational notion of both is absurd. That you can just as easily call my analysis into question does that work for me; the search trends are a pareidolia, without statistical value. With laughable ease, one can make it say whatever one wants.
Regarding history repeating itself - this isn't a matter of worry right now, it's a matter of fight. Consoles are built on a virtuous cycle of consumer confidence - hype generates sales, sales generate third-party investment, investment generates hype. System specs, in the end, aren't terribly important to sales except as a means to jumpstart this cycle.
Of course they're terribly important. The speak, far more than 'hype' as to the extent and duration of third-party support. There is a necessary balance between install base size and cost of development that necessarily leans its support toward technical specs because it transfers a fraction of cost of development from the developer to the end user by virtue of making it a far simpler affair. People have made much of Platinum Games' statement that they would put NieR: Automata on the SNES if someone pays for it, and that goes centrally to a point that I've argued for a very long time on this site: near-parity of hardware is just as important as large install base size to securing third-party support because the margin on software is so low and the front-loaded expense so high that the fewer differences between platforms the better. This is echoed in statements made by Respawn, Hajime Tabata and others. They like the notional language of the Switch in the abstract but from a practical point of view, when they're footing the initial bill to develop, they're rightly dubious.
Every prediction made in public about the Nintendo Switch is, on some small level, a self-fulfilling prophecy to the extent that it'll either boost or dampen hype. So yeah, as a Nintendo fan, when I see an unwarranted prediction going against the Switch, I'm going to try to push back against it, and as I explained, yours claimed more confidence than was warranted.
I make no claims of confidence beyond my own mind and I the statements that I make carry no warranty of being true. That said, I notice that you continue to raise no issue regarding my analysis beyond the fact that I consider it more probable than the opposite based on Nintendo's install base attrition generationally and its brand equity amongst its target audience (gamers), and that that cauess you emotional disquiet. If you in fact do have problems with them beyond that, please elucidate them. If you do not, then I'll thank you for your response and respond, as kindly as I can, that I do not care at all for the health of your fandom or its object. Whether Nintendo fails or no doesn't affect me in the least. I have no emotional attachment to them, or against the beyond the too-important-to-fail mentality that is oftentimes displayed here, and I'm not a shareholder so their fortunes do not affect my own.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@Fath You seem very upset at the prospect of a rational evaluation of Google search trends. Why is that?
I'm not here to show favour or disfavour to the product, and I'm old, so I'm used to being what the 'cool kids' point at and laugh. Since you don't seem to have a methodological problem with my analysis, I'll have to assume that you have an emotional problem with it. Don't blame me if some maths cause you some niggling doubt that history is repeating itself.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@aaronsullivan
Much closer dates and more specific and relevant type of comparisons in my estimation, and the Nintendo Switch has pre order searches that approach the level that PS4 had before selling 1 million in the US alone on the first day of launch.
Moreover, this alone ought to concern you. You have a huge spike in pre-order search trends but a tiny fraction of general interest. The obvious inference from either of those ought to be clear: pre-orders searches are done by early adopters or scalpers and are not reflective of general market interest on a forward basis. The implication being that, like the Wii U, the Switch will handily sell its launch day allotment and then stall fantastically.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@aaronsullivan It's not relevant at all. Neither XB1 nor PS4 had the significant concerns for artificial scarcity that the Nintendo Switch has, concerns prompted by the availability disaster and scalper parade that was the NES Classic during the Christmas season, so pre-orders weren't anywhere near the concern.
If you look at the chart I provided, what is the first major spike for the PS4? The Week of 17 - 23 February 2013; the PS4 was revealed on 20 February of that year. What is the first major spike for XB1? 19 - 25 May 2013; the XB1 was revealed 21 May 2013. What are the spikes for the Switch? The teaser trailer and the reveal, neither of which approach even a significant fraction of the same level of interest.
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
@xj220_afiles
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=nintendo%20switch,ps4,xbox%20one
How's that for comparison?
Re: Google Trends Data Demonstrates Interest in Nintendo Switch
It's meaningless. First, these numbers aren't for unique visitors. A single poor sap that missed out on the pre-orders could hit it twenty times per day and it counts for each one. Second, with the Wii U Nintendo hadn't just come off a scalper frenzy Christmas season caused by artificial scarcity.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@BiasedSonyFan
Do you think selling 50-70 million total consoles (whether home console or handheld) at a profit is a failure in today's video game industry? If you say yes, then you're clearly out of your mind.
I'll answer you question with another question. Has the Switch sold 50 - 70m units? Nope. If it's able to, which it isn't, I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong. Till then, take a business course at your local junior college before you say ridiculous things.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@BiasedSonyFan
I already talked about why your reference to the install bases of previous console generations is entirely irrelevant. You did not provide a valid rebuttal.
I ignored it out of charity but since you seem insistent on pressing the issue, sure, I'll issue a rebuttal. I truly hope that you're a frontline salesmen in whatever it is you do because if you're in a business and have any decision-making authority, I want you to pose that question to your employer; don't be surprised if he fires you.
Past performance irrelevant? How is it do you think that companies read market good will toward particular product categories and their brand overall? How do you think they come to decisions regarding what to release and not release, what revisions to make? When to double down on a product that just has had a slow start (3DS) and when to cut bait whilst saving face (Wii U)? They do it by looking at past performance across their product offerings. Nintendo's only competition is its current market competitors? This alone tells me that you're not an employer and not an investor. Let me pose a scenario to you. You're a CEO of a company on which I'm a member of the board. In one product generation you sell 70m units of product, versus 90m and 120m for your competitors. Then in the next product generation, you sell 11m whilst those same competitors sell 3m and 2m respectively. If you came to the board and 'yeah, we didn't do as well as our previous generation, but that doesn't count! We still did better than our competitors and that's what counts!' , I would do everything in my power, and I guarantee you it wouldn't take much prodding of that board, to claw back your severance and fire you within the hour. You apparently don't recognise that publicly traded companies, by definition, exist to maximise shareholder profit. That means that as much as any one company is competing with its rivals, it's competing with its past self, both in successes and failures.
Nintendo understands this because they're a business, and they understand how precarious their position is. It's not coincidence that Nintendo is pushing the Switch's product narrative as being a home console first, rather than the portable that gamers clearly recognise it to be. Aside from not wanting to kill the golden goose of the DS platform before they're sure that the Switch will carry a significant portion of the install base (and they aren't sure), the generational decline in handhelds was about 60% and their generational decline in home consoles was 87%, and that shortfall is compounded by the increased profit loss because handheld has significantly higher margins; the home consoles are an albatross without software sales. They realise that once you normalise the Wii generation by removing the casuals (yes, they are casual non-core gamers and you can see that both by the titles that had strong attachment rates, the generational decline from the Wii to the Wii U was more than double the trending generational decline, erasing it as an outlier), you have a trajectorial trend that is generationally, consistently downward and the delta of trend is increasing. That's brand imaging problem that is not confined to a single piece of hardware; it's a symptom of a lack of brand equity on a forward basis, one that is especially troubling given the nostalgia draw and general marketability of their IP ex traditional gaming (new distributor markets like mobile apps and in merchanidising).
And before you huff and dismiss this outright, if past performance is so bloody irrelelvant, why did Kimishima feel the need to come out and deliberately name drop the Wii, and its 100m unit sales, in his 'projections' of the Switch's success? If it's pointless, why did Reggie justify the disaster that was the Wii U, when industry journalists were questioning its draw, by saying that the Wii, the most underpower of the seventh gelot, sold the most units? Because, on its own, it represented a pronounced upswing in brand equity, and they hadn't yet realised that it represented transient market.
I'm more than happy to debate you, but if you're going to say absurd things like that then just past my comments by. I have only so much free time and patience as it is.
Re: There Are Currently 'No Plans' For Final Fantasy XV On Nintendo Switch
@IceClimbers That was my assumption. For me XB1/Scorpio support was always going to be contingent on how FFXV did and, well...
I'm personally dubious about SE committing to an episodic game with the Switch being as big a question mark as it is.
Re: There Are Currently 'No Plans' For Final Fantasy XV On Nintendo Switch
@SLIGEACH_EIRE FFVII remake is coming to the Switch? Last I heard it was a PS exclusive for one year, and then Scorpio. I haven't heard a word about a Switch version.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@ThanosReXXX
So, how is it that you can accuse people of things and call them or their behavior as you see it, making baseless assumptions all around the board, regardless of the fact whether it's correct or not, but if you even suspect other people making assumptions about you, it's okay to use harsh or potentially even threatening language? I saw this reaction of yours to someone else while scrolling down the comments section:
The only thing missing to make it even more aggressive is capital letters...
There's a very stark difference between those cases, and it's gleaned easily enough if you read the comment that I posted; it turns out wasn't even addressed toward me, though since it was between two people with whom I was debating at that very moment and had no mention to show otherwise, I think you can see how that would be confusing. The comment in question seemed to intimate that irrespective of my opinion of the Switch, which ought to be very apparent, I would nonetheless purchase one because my criticism was only talk and that I essentially didn't have the courage of my own convictions. I'll more than welcome anyone to dispute my analyses, provided they do so with concrete numbers to enforce that disputation; that's the healthy and enjoyable part of debate. What I absolutely will not tolerate is that someone will impute to me a course of action that is contrary to my stated opinions. Conversely, you have been vocally positive, and shown more than a bit of cheek to those that were negative. Once can reasonably infer that you do so because you either believe that the Switch will be a success, or you're concerned that it may well not be and you're trying to keep positive momentum going. In case you're unaware, the cultivation of positive emotionalism toward an entity is the very essence of cheerleading. Since, you yourself admitted to doing so after the fact, in the sense that your outlook revolves around finding the 'good' (asses the X1 not against its competition but rather on, presumably, other past handhelds) and spread the word (post links in support), I don't see why the term rankles you so badly.
[em]All I said was "The X1 may not be entirely up to par, but it ain't no slouch either, and with the help of the custom software, NVN and Vulkan API, results on the Switch will be more than decent, I assure you.
And consider this: there's a reason why Nvidia themselves are also once again going with the X1 for their new iteration of the Shield..."
I honestly see nothing asinine about that, merely stating facts. The X1 is indeed not on par and Nvidia is still using it in its next Shield device.[/em]
And I answered why they're doing so. Because the performance profile of the Shield TV is such that it is not intended as a primary gaming platform, rather as a general media consumption device with secondary gaming functionality to give it a value prop differentiator, bolstered by nVidia's cachet as probably the leading GPU maker in the world, against the Apple TV, which was to introduce its own gaming platform at the next hardware refresh. So, they reused the existing chip, likely refreshed the memory bus speed and perhaps the amount, we don't know, made any component arrangment revisions based on in-the-wild wear that they encountered, and sent the design off to manufacture. That's how minor hardware revisions work.
You completely misread me there. AGAIN, I might add...
What I mean by that is looking for things that are constructive, makes the situation move forward and a point of view that is looking at what IS possible, and what we ARE getting, instead of constantly looking at what it can't do and what we aren't getting.
We can complain an moan about that until the cows come home, but it isn't going to change anything about them just being the facts, so what's the use?
The use is that, if you believe that Nintendo is on a course that will lead to failure, the last thing that you do is want to look on the bright side. They need feedback, not manufacturer adulation.
Sure, there will always be people that go overboard with their statements, and I agree with you that we don't have to be blind to the shortcomings and resort to statements like "graphics don't matter" (and you'll never hear me say that; I'd sooner go with "graphics matter just as much as gameplay"), but in similar fashion, all this nagging and idiocy about the Switch being dead in the water and such is also highly annoying.
Is it annoying because it's not based on assessment of known facts (which in my case, it is) or because it causes you emotional disquiet that you don't want when you come to what has increasingly become the same sort of echo chamber that cheered the Wii U to an early grave whilst proclaimingn that it was just want the market needed? If it's the former, and especially if it has to do with my argument, then by all means tell me what I've gotten wrong. Show me sales figures that refute Nintendo's trend of decline in both product categories. Show me attachment rates that support the Switch as something tht will be an enormous draw when the same form factor, design language, price point and gaming philosophy was display by the Vita, which was an abject failure. Show me maths, because I'm not here to debate feelings.
But the thing is, we simply don't know all of this yet, so it's quite presumptuous to assume where it's going to go at this point already. The third party story is definitely not as clear as we hoped it would be by now, or as it should be, but that doesn't mean that it is as clear cut as you and many of the more critical members seem to think. After all: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
It's not presumptuous. It's founded on a rational evaluation of the Switch's marketability on a forward basis. It's founded on the very clear rate of core install base attrition that Nintendo has experienced since its first transition (NES -> SNES) and has continued unabated. It's founded on how starkly similar the trajectory of the Switch has been to the Wii U, in terms of the dissemination of technical information and the manner in which the Nintendo community has reacted to it. It has to do with the state of third-party support as it stands, which is precisely what it was with the Wii U. It has to do with the utter lack of information regarding how Nintendo has mitigated, or intends to mitigate, the host of service issues the Wii U had; we know nothing concrete about the account system, there has not been a single explicative statement regarding the VC or purchase migration, if any, from the Wii. One month out from a product launch, this is disastrous to the mindshare of Nintendo and its value proposition.
That's kind of a harsh comparison, but I get your point, so fair enough. However, I am honestly curious to find out where you're coming from and how you've come to this conclusion, since like I already said before, we don't know and only have partial information at best. I don't know what business you're in or what your knowledge base is, but my expertise is Sales & Marketing, so a lot of what I say and think is obviously influenced by that to some extent.
It comes from having graduated uni with a CS degree, emphasis on hardware design and software development, having been a software dev for more than twenty years, and from having been employed in market research analysis, brand positioning and imaging for eleven years.
And there's also quite a bit of partial information that is actually pointing at things looking up: positive reactions, Nintendo making a good start with their marketing campaign, and Tatsumi Kimishima making some good decisions and statements.
Reactions are meaningless outside the context of real-world commerce. Even during the first initial wave of hype for BotW, the analysis of the reactions did not take into account the monetary cost of admittance. It's easy to love a game and a hardware platform in a positive-feedback environment like a con or trade show, or worse still a Nintendo-hosted event, and especially when that experience founded on a game that you didn't have to buy and a costly, unproven hardware platform you didn't have to adopt. That same vacuous PR response is precisely why Nintendo got burned last generation by third-party support. The devs certainly impressed with the Wii U, and were bullish about it, until they had to shell out the cost to develop and publish for it. You know that to be true, I do, Nintendo does and the devs do. Every time a dev comes out and says that they currently have no plans to develop for the Switch, or that they are 'committed' but only have one seventh generation port to announce at this time, they're proving that to be true.
Anyways, as it stands, we are on both ends of the spectrum, but at least we agree on statements needing to be founded, both negative AND positive ones...
The entirety of my argument is based on numbers. Can you say the same?
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@ThanosReXXX
Now why did I expect the kind of name calling reply from you that I did, hm?
I didn't call you any names. I said that you were engaged in 'asinine cheerleading' and I stand by that statement.
I suppose you failed to notice the smiley, meaning me just poking a bit of fun at you, that's all. People are so quick to be insulted nowadays, especially online. It's sad, really.
No, they just don't appreciate being called ignorant then proferred a coy emoji to insist that the comment was just for laughs.
[em]I'll try and give you one honest response, hope you reply in kind or I will refrain from replying. And it seems you're more than capable of doing so, because you actually make a few good points in comment #164.
Contrary to how you so eloquently labeled me, I'm anything BUT a blind, rosy-colored spectacle wearing, eat up anything that Nintendo throws at me fanboy.
I just look at possibilities and solutions instead of problems.[/em]
That likes saying that cutting on one's hand is merely a new and exciting oppportunity to learn alternative methods of opening jars. The way to fix problems is not to suggest how those problems are solutions to other, less-pressing problems.
It has been known for a LONG time already that the odds that the chipset were going to be X1 were far larger than X2, so why people continue to be so surprised and outraged by that, amazes me to no end.
And it amazes me that for months before this every comment section on Nintendo Life was full of posters insisting that the SoC was the X2. Now that we have all but ironclad confirmation that it's the same X1 that the more pessimistic posters said it was, what is the response? The exact same rubbish we saw during the Wii U's lifetime. 'Graphics are meaningless', 'Nintendo isn't competing Sony and Microsoft', 'Switch has all the power it needs, it'll get loads of third-party support'. It's absurdity that would be laughable if it weren't so painful.
And the reality you speak of, is in the link I posted, which actually paints quite a positive picture of the base X1 chipset, so my entire goal was to show people that it really isn't as bad as it looks.
It's not right this moment, but then I said as much. The issue is its forward support. Wii U adopters got burned badly, and the platform's decline wasn't just abrupt and precipitous, it was very visible. Releasing another system that will have significant problems garnering third-party support as it matures is not the strategy to turn around a hardware business. Indeed, it's a proper way to kill it.
Criticism is just fine by me, as long as it is constructive criticism and not whiney, "woe is me" stuff. And even if there are people that are blindly supporting Nintendo over here, what the hell did you expect on a Nintendo related site?
I have no problem with hope, so long as its founded, just like I have no problem with people that find comfort and meaning in religion or spirirtuality during periods of trial like terminal disease; where I have a problem is when that person says that they've given up chemo and is now seeing a naturopath and expects to be well again very soon, and then looking very cross when I cover my eyes and sigh. Nintendo has very real problems, mortal problems if they aren't corrected, and shrugging one's shoulders and saying that it doesn't matter or could be worse helps no one, least of all Nintendo.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@westman98
I hear this same nonsense all of the time. Look at the software attachment rates on the 3DS for your so-called ambitious titles. They all have sub-2% attachments, and often sub-1% attachments. The only console-style game that made any sort of sales on the 3DS was OoT and, when taking into account the N64 install base, it sold one-quarter as well as the original title. Are there gamers on the 3DS that want those sorts of experiences. Certainly. Do they constitute the majority, or even a percentage meaningful enough to contribute materially to the Switch's success? Nope.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@JaxonH Then feel free to ignore it.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@BiasedSonyFan
So, for some reason, you're making this a comparison between today's Nintendo and the ghost of Nintendo's past. Why? Nintendo isn't competing against what they did decades ago, but the current competitors in the industry.
I'm doing so because there is a quantifiable and consistent decrease in the size of Nintendo's core audience over time. That's a fact.
Do you know how many other video game companies even bother selling a handheld and a home console? There's Sony, but the Vita has struggled to sell to the point that Sony doesn't care about it anymore. Does Microsoft even sell a handheld?
It's not just a handheld. It's a home console as well; it's being positioned as one both in its messaging (Nintendo itself calls it a home console and a successor to the Wii U), and in terms of its software lineup. Whether or not Sony or Microsoft make handheld is immaterial. What matters is that the Switch is positioned as a category consolidation, but the attributes of that consolidated product do not meet the standard notional language of either of those categories. It's a home console, but it's underpowered versus its competition in that space. It's a handheld, but its design language is contrary to the established winning formula (small, energy efficient, broad stable of games that geared to short, serial play sessions), and is positioned more as a successor to the Vita, which was a disaster.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@BiasedSonyFan
He only talks alot. He'll likely get a Switch once Super Mario Odyssey is released, so he'll help the same company that he talks crap about so much to make a profit.
I'll thank you not to visit my intentions, ever. Do you understand me?
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@JaxonH
[em]
Sure, Nintendo by default competes with Sony and MS. Sure. But they're not going to do it very well unless they bring something different to the table, both in terms of hardware and software. They nailed the hardware. And seem to have a good line of games coming now too.
So, what's the problem again? You think they specifically need Western AAA? Nonsense. It'd be great to have, and I'm sure a handful will come (proving to everyone the 'it's too weak" argument is nonsense in light of modern architecture and PC settings gaps that far exceed the difference between rival consoles). They just need good games that sell to the audience who's buying the console. Basically, they just need games, doesn't matter what kind. It's a large world out there, and AAA western games aren't the be all end all of gaming.
And ya, Nintendo's been declining lately. And... that's their problem, not ours. Marketing, image, having an appealing console, no droughts... all things that can affect decline. And they can just as easily carry on fine by improving some or all of the above. 62 million 3DS (and it's not even done yet) ain't bad in the modern era smartphone age in light of GBA only doing 80. It'll probably hit 70 by the time it's a wrap. So oh well, they lost 10 mil to smartphones, they'll live.
But even if they consolidate, find a good 50-70 million base and keep it, so what? So it's less than it used to be... The market shifts all the time.
Just sit back relax and enjoy the games and let them worry about all that stuff. We got a slick hybrid console to look forward to, years of great games... what's the beef
[/em]
You responded to my post with not a single figure or any sort of analysis. You're excited for the Switch, we know, just like we know others here aren't. Till you can actually back up any of what you're suggesting with numbers, hush whilst the adults are speaking 'ya'?
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
First of all, Nintendo has sold over 60 million 3DS handhelds. Combine that with the 13 million Wii U consoles they sold, and those sales indicate that plenty of gamers still play Nintendo video games. The Switch will likely appeal to both the Nintendo handheld and home console market, so the consolidation of Nintendo's handheld and home console divisions is actually a sound business strategy.
And how did those devices do when compared historically? 3DS sold 61m, no doubt, but it did so as a 60% drop generationally (vs the 154m sales of the DS), despite having strong third party support and virtually no competition in the space, certainly not compared to the PSP which actually was more than a blip on the DS' radar. And the Wii U? Constituted an 87% drop generationally. Granted, that's coming off of the Wii, but the Wii's sales were between 70 and 75% non-core casuals. How can we know that? Simply by attachment rates. Despite being the hardware winner for that generation, it had the smallest overall library and the lowest software attachment rate. The software that did attach, aside from Mario Kart, Smash, and a 2D Mario, were entirely non-core IPs like Wii Sports, Wii Fitness and Just Dance. For instance, Wii Sports had an 82% attachment rate. The next nearest title was Mario Kart with a comparatively laughable 35%. That said, the performance of the Wii U was precisely in line with the install base attrition that has afflicted Nintendo since its very first console, when you factor out casuals from the Wii install base.
Let's assume that the entire Wii U and 3DS install base are unique buyers. They aren't, I'd estimate that some 35 - 40% of the 3DS population overlaps into the console category, but let's assume it anyway. Even the rosiest projections would allow 70% translation from both of those sources, which would put the Switch at somewhere near 50m lifetime sales, fairly strong until you realise that it represents a one-quarter decline in overall hardware sales versus when they had traditionally-defined console and handheld systems. That Nintendo, which has always made money on hardware where no other manufacturer has, has opted to produce one less device let's you know that they know precisely what the situation is, and it isn't a good one at all.
Second, in an important respect, Nintendo is not running the same race as Sony and Microsoft. They're not marketing their console to the same markets as Sony and Microsoft; they're not using the same business strategies; and they're not directly competing against Sony and Microsoft.
Nintendo doesn't get to decide the terms of the contest, mate. They're selling to same home console audience that Sony and Microsoft are, period. They may do it differently, and clearly don't do it as successfully, but its utterly disingenuous to cast it as being something other than what it is.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@PlywoodStick I know it has a hefty price tag, but it's a competition, however much Nintendo stamps its feet and tries to deny that it's running the same race as Sony and Microsoft. If they intend for console buyers to purchase the Switch, then that's precisely what they're doing, and in that particular race, they come out of the blocks all confounded. To make matters worse, by consolidating their console and handheld offerings, keeping with the metaphor, Nintendo has had, at its own request, hurdles set up in its lane. It's running two vastly different races at once, and it has to be perfect to have a prayer of competing.
Nintendo isn't in the position to play for the clock. Both their console and handheld install bases are cratering, generation over generation, and now they're consolidating them because they don't have the talent to support two devices and they know full well that the third-party support on a forward basis is not going to be there.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@Grez That's entirely my point. The X1 does what it needs to do for the Shield TV's intended service profile. You'll note that I said previously that it makes sense to include better tech if it's cost-efficient and beneficial. Including a more expensive SoC for a platform that will not utilise it is pointless, and I said as much. The other fellow intimated that it was because the X1 was still a powerhouse comparatively.
And you make another point for me: custom ports. Special hardware consideration, i.e. custom dev overhead, to the low side is a suicide pill for broad and continuing third party support over a platform's lifespan, and doubly so when the basis for it is already a generation behind. The game streaming may be brilliant for the Shield TV, but then that's predicated on your service bandwidth, the remote servers are doing all of the heaving lifting graphically.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@ThanosReXXX
No, that's not it, really. But I'll forgive you your ignorance...
Oh, thank you ever so much! /s
Also great going picking that single thing out of my comment. Goes to show that you can't ever convince the "glass half-empty" prophets that things might not nearly be as bad as they seem to want it to be...
It's interesting that you cast aspersions of negativity on anyone that doesn't share the 'ZOMG Switch Triumphs!' narrative. I don't want Nintendo to be in the situation that it's in, but I don't control reality any more than your attempts at asinine cheerleading or passive-aggressive quips will be able to.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@PlywoodStick
Or it's because the current Tegra X2 (Parker) and X3 (Xavier) are being used for non-gaming applications, especially car AI...
If it were cost effective and beneficial to use a chip in something they would, it's that simple. nVidia caters to the PC gaming set first and foremost, and they know that a majority of western gamers are specs. If they intended the Shield TV to be a proper gaming platform, it's entirely in their interest to load it with the best tech they can whilst meeting their standard cost. It isn't because they don't. Like the Switch, it's a category consolidation oddity, an attempt to add gaming functionality as a differentiator to proper Android competitor to the Apple TV.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@ThanosReXXX
And consider this: there's a reason why Nvidia themselves are also once again going with the X1 for their new iteration of the Shield...
Because it's cheap and they don't want to have a niche product as a loss leader.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@westman98 You don't know anything about PR do you? Saying something is unofficial does not mean that it isn't true, it means that the entity in question is denying legal attribution, likely because there's an NDA in place for ARM, since any optimisation built into the Switch's chipset that was added in the partnership between nVidia and Nintendo had to be vetted through ARM to make certain that it wasn't infringing on any IP. ARM knows what's inside the switch, it just didn't have permission to specify what it was. Hence, the denial that it's an official statement.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
@OorWullie Its removal almost certainly confirms that it's accurate. ARM knows better than anyone what the Switch's chipset is, it's based on their spec. Someone got loose-lipped and likely broke an NDA in the process, but the information is corroborative of everything that had been leaked or confirmed thus far, especially when looking at the battery performance. It's a X1, probably with an extended instruction set for optimisation to offset the near-certainty that it will be underclocked versus the nominal performance.
Re: ARM Confirms That The Nintendo Switch's Chipset Is Very Close To Tegra X1 Spec
To the sunshine and rainbow crowd, the reason that this is disconcerting news to me, and presumably to @SLIGEACH_EIRE, is not because it represents an immediate loss of power. We've seen what the Switch can do irrespective of specs now confirmed. The reason why it's disastrous is that it shows that Nintendo DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF HARDWARE NEAR-PARITY IN DEVELOPMENT. Nintendo does not have the install base or industry clout to coax broad third party support for a platform that will be antiquated a year into its lifecycle. They have built in an expiration date that is catastrophic for broad third-party support and thus longevity. We're already hearing rumblings from EA that it's essentially forced to build a separate version of FIFA for release on the Switch, and which will come out later than for other systems. This is precisely the same thing that happened to the Wii U and it doomed the console.
'But it's great for a portable!'
Nintendo's portable install base is haemorrhaging, (look at generational transition from DS to 3DS despite having no meaningful competition, and software attachment rates as well), and has been for a long time. It can't afford to cater only its handheld business. By abandoning the traditional console hardware and opting for product category consolidation, its signalling a set of product attributes that it clearly will not be able to meet on a forward basis.
Re: Feature: The Rollercoaster Ride of Nintendo's Financial Reports
@NEStalgia
'OTOH, so far it is exclusively an iOS app, so it's not fair to compare it's total mobile earnings when it's yet to reach the largest mobile market (by far.) We'll have a better picture in May or so after it's been on Android for a while if it's just a rejection of flat payments, or if the Google market is more conducive to that model than the Apple market. I think there's a fair possibility of better success there. The Apple market definitely has some weird behavioral trends. Nothing guaranteed though.'
And why do you think it was released on iOS first and why it's been an exclusive for the time that it has been? It had nothing to do with similar 'walled-garden' philosophies. Nintendo had a decent idea about how their quarterly results were going, so they release the app where it had the greatest chance of generating revenues. iOS features pay conversions rates much higher than Android; that's why iOS consistently gets apps first and for longer periods of exclusivity from paid app developers despite having a much lower market share.
Android is a pay-for-play paradise where flat-fee expensive apps go to die.
Re: Official Nintendo Switch Technical Specifications Have Been Shared
@JayPley Remember it? I have one in the garage.
Re: Official Nintendo Switch Technical Specifications Have Been Shared
@iGen Was obviously referring to portable play. You know, the other part of what the Switch is purported to be. The long car rides when the local co-op evangelists say are prime Mario Kart territory, or Splatoon tournaments between drooling over booth bints at conventions or other such nonsense.
In point of fact, I won't be owning the Switch. Nothing about it has a value for me, but I also am going to criticise something that is yet one more lacklustre or compromised feature. I welcome the ire of the Nintendo cultists, though, it really truly is adorable.
Re: Official Nintendo Switch Technical Specifications Have Been Shared
@memoryman3 Switch has a USB-C connector, which means it ought to have QC included; 3DS also lasts me 6 - 7 hours of playtime for virtually all of its titles, not the 3hrs offered by the Switch for its target media (console-class titles).
Re: Official Nintendo Switch Technical Specifications Have Been Shared
Three hour charge time in sleep mode. They've really gone out of their way to design the least portable device conceived since the Macintosh Portable.
Re: Switch Will Succeed By Offering Something You Can't Get On PlayStation Or Xbox, Says Randy Pitchford
I find it hysterical that the Kool-Aid drinkers are taking his PR spin so seriously. I suppose that's because most of you were on the Wii U you that you weren't subject to the Colonial Marines debacle. Most of us that were wouldn't believe Pitchford if he said that sky was blue. By all means though, continue to believe the Switch will be a smash success because of all of the games it won't be able to offer to the preponderance of consoles gamers that are used to a certain experience.