I am pretty likely to support this on my iPhone (though I don't like screen touch controls all that much)....
.....but if it comes to Switch? With the form factor and the controls? Then we switch [no pun intended] from "I will probably support" to "I will DEFINITELY support"!
You hear that, Sega? If you come to a Switch then you've got a guaranteed user in yours truly!
I love old Sega! I mean, big picture, I'm a "Nintendo first gamer." But in certain pockets of gaming history, Sega's top dog for me! There are only a few gaming eras where Nintendo was NOT my favorite player. One of them was the 5th gen, where I prefer PS1 over N64 (the only time I favor a Sony system over its Nintendo rival).......and one of them is 4th gen, where I passionately prefer Sega Genesis/Mega Drive over the Super NES. Additionally, Sega was my favorite company in the mid-late 80's arcade.
Otherwise, Nintendo wins or ties for the win in every other era of home gaming, but 4th gen gaming and mid-late 80's arcade are easily the two most important epochs of gaming for me, so they were HEEEEEUUUUGE things for Sega to win!!!
In any case, I know that my preferring Genesis over SNES is not likely to be a very popular sentiment here, but knowing that this service will be big on Genesis and 80s arcade stuff makes me VERY EAGER to get involved! Also, I do really love the Mastersystem, Saturn and Dreamcast, which only serve to further enrich and make tantalizing this new service!
It's gonna be AWESOME! And if it comes to Switch?.....
So, I currently have an "old" (not "new") 3DSXL. What I would like is to get for myself a "new" 3DSXL, buy an N2DSXL, and let the Mrs and the kiddo decide amongst themselves who gets the N2DSXL and who gets my old "o3DSxL".
I'm guessing the N2DSXL will go to the Mrs. because of the Super NES virtual console. But either way, I'll be happy because a) we'll be a "3DS [series] family"......and b) I'll have an "N3DSXL"!!
As far as where you stand on the matter of the Switch and the Pro, and all that, I'll say I halfway agree with you, and that where I disagree with you is pretty unlikely to cause any kind of real dissension between us.
Here's where we're alike: like you (or at least seemingly like you), the Switch is easily my favorite console, easily my favorite handheld (since it's both), easily my favorite tabletop (since there really hasn't been another of those since all the way back to the Vectrex as far as I'm aware), and maaaaaybe even my preferred platform over the PC (that one I'm going to leave as a maybe as I think the PC is AWESOME!) And like you, it wasn't til yesterday that I broke the streak started all the way back on March 3rd, where 100% of my free money that went to brand new games all went to Switch - I broke that streak with some 3DS digital download games. You and I, we see the absolute magic in the Switch, think it's capable enough graphically, but see past the graphics as the making or breaking point. In all these ways, you and I are in complete agreement.
However, where we might differ is that just because I wholeheartedly embrace the notion of "graphics are not everything" doesn't mean I move from there onto the notion "graphics are nothing". Far from it! I have a PC that's more powerful even in its present state than XB1X, and I intend as soon as possible to make it even more powerful so that it unquestionably dominates the surprisingly comparable 1X. And yet, I still plan at tax time to replace my existing PS4 and XB1 with their more powerful, more premier upgraded iterations. I also spend as much of my Switch playing time as is feasible in docked mode, mostly for the enhanced visuals over handheld mode. So I certainly still prize my graphics when I can.
But I will say this: if a game exists on PS4/XB1 that also exists either on the PC or on the Switch, then I will not buy it on PS4/XB1, choosing instead to go for either the pinnacle of visuals and customizability found only in the PC when raw power or precision interfaces (KBM) are needed, or choosing to go for the Switch version when they're not, because the "go anywhere" flexibility and dynamism of the Switch is so very unique, precious, powerful, and completely distinctive. Or heck, maybe I'll just buy both versions and call it a night.
In either case, graphics are neither everything nor are they nothing, and I want to live in that middle space between. But through it all, the Switch is ever the darling of the bunch, and the one where my heart, time - and money are going most - like you!
I've been talking for a long time of either starting a second blog besides Nerd Noise Radio, or else creating a new segment on that blog called "The Long Answer", where I can post my more comprehensive, more fully fleshed out (but totally "tl;dr") responses as a blog. Then instead of leaving these huge "chapter and verse" replies in comments sections and on FB and whatnot, I can gradually work on honing my underdeveloped abilities at writing brief, simplified responses ("the short answer"), while linking people back to the blog if they want my full thoughts ("the long answer").
Anyway, I'm toying around with that. I need to learn how to write short anyway. It seems that my responses are always either "monosyllabic caveman grunts", or else, the aforementioned "chapter and verse".
@PanurgeJ There's nothing you say here that I disagree with at all, but I would want to emphasize that all things being equal, better graphics are always better than lesser graphics. And I don't know that you disagree with that either. But I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on where I was on the matter.
I guess I find myself resistant to both the following sentiments in about equal measure, and find myself stuck squarely between them: 1) "graphics are everything", and b) "graphics are nothing". I feel that the former is "papa bear's bed" - too hard, while the latter is "mama bear's bed" - too soft. Good graphics don't make a bad game good, and bad graphics don't make a good game bad. Granted. But I also believe that good graphics make a good game better, bad graphics make a bad game worse, and if a game is squarely on the fence, then sometimes graphics can be the tie breaker.
Now, I know that may sound strange coming from someone who just so emphatically defended the Switch - and indeed, the Switch is easily my favorite console, easily my favorite handheld, and maybe even my preferred platform over PC (maybe). And like you, other than a small collection of used games between eBay and at thrift stores, from March 3rd all the way up to just yesterday, believe it or not, 100% of my free money that went towards new games went to Switch. 100%. I'm sitting at about 20 games myself. I broke that streak last night, but with what? A quartet of 3DS digital downloads, so still Nintendo, and still on the lower end of the graphics spectrum. In fact, of all the systems still active today, the 3DS is at the VERY bottom. So, clearly, I can look past the graphics and see great games that are quite desirous. This is me living out "graphics aren't everything".
But on the other hand, I do still plan to replace my XB1/PS4 with an XB1X/PS4Pro at tax time as well as add a second GTX1070 graphics card to my gaming PC, which already is more powerful than XB1X, but I want it to be way more powerful. So, I do prize great graphics and little details, and seek out the most premier iterations whenever feasible. In this way, I'm living out "graphics aren't nothing".
Now, how do I deal with the tension? Here's how: Between the raw power and utter customizability of the PC on the one hand, and the total freedom, flexibility, paradigmatic revolutionary use case and dynamism of the Switch on the other, outside of a very few, VERY RARE special circumstances, I will never buy another game on the PS4 or XB1 again that I could get on either PC and/or Switch instead. There's just no value to those ports at all when they're visually outperformed by the PC, and when they're complete non-starters against the Switch's get up and go.
Don't get me wrong, I will still prize the "traditional consoles" for their exclusives, their freebies, their nice, tight, cohesive UIs and form factors, as well as their nice cross swaths of power gaming, casual gaming, and multimedia. And wanting the best form of them I can get (living out the "all else equal, better graphics are always better than lesser graphics" thing), then I find the 1X and Pro justifiable. But even with the more premier versions of the consoles, other than having a modest collection of titles around on all platforms just for comparison purposes, that rule of "no games on PS/XB otherwise available on PC and/or Switch" will still stand.
And when a game only exists on the traditional consoles, but exists on both.....well, 1X over Pro always....doy! In fact, in light of my plans to buy the upgraded consoles, I'm going to start favoring the XB1 versions over the PS4 version even now, even though when played on the standard hardware, they are admittedly better on the PlayStation, and in the very short term, such a move would equate to me losing out a bit. It's worth it for the long term.
And at long last, this all comes home: when it comes down to PC vs Switch ports of games available on both systems: if it's a game I REALLY like, then I may just buy it for both platforms and that's problem solved. But assuming it's a game available on both, but I'm only buying one: then it'll depend on whether the premier visuals and/or precise KBM controls are more precious to the title, or whether the ability to take it with me is more precious. Whichever aspect wins will be the version I buy - a decision I'll have to make on a case by case, though in general, other than to support the AAAs on Switch thing, AAAs I'd probably largely save for PC - especially if there's a lot of online stuff going on, where smaller, lighter games (i.e. Most indie games), I'll favor on Switch. But I'm sure that sometimes I'll break from that and do the opposite on both sides of that coin.
But again, we may even be on the same page here too. There may be no disagreement between us at all. But I didn't want anyone thinking that I was either too fixated on, nor too dismissive of graphics. Both of those positions bother me.
From reading the other comments a bit, let me mention one thing:
The lack of 3rd party blockbusters is not.....no, no, that won't do....CUT! Let me try this again.....
The lack of 3rd party blockbusters was [ahem] ------NOT------ what killed the WiiU!!!! (....there we go)....
Instead, the lack of 3rd party blockbusters on the WiiU simply meant there wasn't that protective insulating layer to offset the comparatively sparse 1st and 2nd party support paired with a [theoretically potentially awesome but] miserably developer supported, and largely fan unloved albatross of a "special use case" (the tablet) which could never be decoupled from the system and preventing those things from doing the job instead.
The WiiU was a failure. Well, let's be honest, failure-ish - it was only a failure in a relative sense. It was actually a smash hit compared to the Atari Jaguar, Philips CD-i, Apple Bandai Pippin, and so many others. The original Wii, by comparison was a soaring success by all measures. So what was different and similar about the huge success of the Wii and the huge disappointment of the WiiU?
Was it 3rd party support? [BUZZER!]
No, both were very disappointing in terms of major 3rd party support (and both were actually pretty solid in terms of minor-tier 3rd party and indie support.)
So what was it then that set the two apart? Well, there were a thousand little things, sure.....but there were at least two super major things:
1) 1st and 2nd party software support. Volume, frequency, novelty, originality (vs upgraded re-releases, and whatnot), a cogent and robust Indie space and let's not forget - virtual console in the respective stores, useful, well-received "channels" and so on.
2) both offered innovative, unique, and at the time, completely revolutionary interface (use case) design propositions. But the difference was that the one the Wii offered was amazingly well received quite broadly and was widely believed to be refreshing and paradigmatic. Meanwhile, while all the potential was there with the WiiU tab (including a Game Boy Player style TV interface scheme for DS and 3DS games on the big screen), and while it certainly did have a small number of passionate fans and an even smaller number of committed developers, by and large, consumer and developer alike looked at the thing with reactions ranging from "eh" to "what the hell are we supposed to do with this thing?" Then you realize that the addition of the thing jacked up the price of the system, and that you were unbreakably tethered to it with no escape from it, and it's no wonder the success stories of the two systems are so vastly different.
The big 3rd party blockbusters might have provided some level of insulation for the WiiU from its fate. But -AT THE VERY MOST- it was a supremely distant tertiary cause.
So, Nintendo has proven with the Wii and the WiiU two things:
1) Nintendo can float a huge success with very little major 3rd party involvement.
2) Nintendo can sink a relative failure with very little major 3rd party involvement.
So why then are we so fixed on the matter of 3rd parties on the Switch - especially as it bears on the conversations of the system's success or failure proposition? It's like seeing smoke pouring out of a building to the south of you, and sending the fire department to the building to the north of you, and wondering why the fire's not going out. It is the absolute last place we should be looking. Most of us are smart, rational, reasonable people. But smart and simple, rational and irrational alike all become the same one-word descriptor once the fixation on 3rd party starts.....and that word is......[edit: "idiots" is probably way too strong of a term.....but "misdirected" is certainly not. Please take that term as my substitute].
Instead, for our prognostications on the outlook of the Switch, we should be examining the big picture narrative of the Wii, as well as the big picture narrative of the WiiU, and seeing which one looks more familiar to us in the Switch's 2017. Robust or lackluster 1st and 2nd party software support? Widely lauded and desired, or widely panned and undesired innovation in its form-factor / use-case? Which one of these two previous system's stories most closely matches this one's so far?
I certainly believe (and way more than half of both the industry and the commenting laity seem to agree with me) that by these standards we've got another Wii on our hands, rather than another WiiU - and the sales numbers so far seem to also agree. And also, let's make sure we don't forget this is with a March launch, rather than a holiday or pre-holiday launch window, so if the numbers are "artificial" at all, then they are far more likely "artificially low" than the other way around.
Let's be judging by those measures instead, shall we? And if so? OPTIMISM!!!
Now look, I want the major 3rd party blockbusters too! I want Doom, I want COD, and Battlefront and all the rest! And I think the system even in its infancy is already proving that it's at least powerful enough that it could handle such games just with a modest amount of graphic down-tweaking. So I think we have no reason why we couldn't have them, and by extension, SHOULDN'T. I'm quite, QUITE happy with the system as it stands, but I'm with you in that I'd be waaaaaay happier with it WITH them rather than without them, and I also agree that the major offerings have indeed been pretty sparse to date. I'm with you. I want them. Bring em on!......
......BUT......
To the question of do we -----NEEEEEEED----- them? Does the system NEED them? Does the fate of the system automatically hang in the balance on the matter of their presence and absense? A thousand times ten thousands over, the answer is -------------NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!----------- we DON'T! The Switch will live or die with or without them. And right now, the outlook is not only optimistic, but it is ---INSANELY--- optimistic!
We've got enough "sky is falling" around us in the present climes of this world. How's about we stop making too much of the 3rd party business on the Switch.....and dammit.....just enjoy the blasted thing! If you want Battlefront, there's always XBox, or Sony.....or 1000 times better than either of them.....PC!
We'll have plenty to keep us entertained here on the Nintendo. Many of those things are right here on this infograph!
I'm just glad to see the Switch getting so much more activity than the 3DS. I definitely agree with Nintendo winding the 3DS down gently rather than just going cold turkey. But I definitely want to see Nintendo putting their "everything" into the Switch", and so I'm actually happy to see the beginnings of a fade out happening on the older platform.
On the 3DS side, the one that has me the most excited, of course, is Metroid. And on the Switch side, Mario is the most brightly shining, though Splatoon and Skyrim are way up there as well! I would've added ARMS to that list as well, but since I bought it today and have already logged about an hour in it, it's kinda hard to say I'm "looking forward to it", you know?
@Luna_110 Between the raw power and customizability of the PC on the one hand, and the flexibility, diversity, and go-anywhere nature of the Switch on the other, other than a few rare one-offs for a select few special case reasons, I'll never buy another game on PS4 or XB1 if it's a game that I can get on either PC and/or Switch instead.
Don't get me wrong, I still prize the conventional consoles for their exclusives, free goodies, and tight form-factors/UIs/ecosystems. I mean, I'm planning to spend a combined $900 at tax time for the Pro and 1X for crying out loud. But when there's a PC in the house, and when there's a Switch, I'm only going to patronize them for stuff I can't get elsewhere.
Now, I imagine once I have the Pro and the XB1X, I'll make a few more exceptions to the rule for the purposes of making comparisons between versions. Or if there's a game that's so amazingly optimized that it manages to outperform the PC version despite the latter running on much superior hardware*. But the general rule itself will still stand. PC and/or Switch whenever possible and PS4/XB1 only when they're my only options - and 1X over Pro any time I have that choice!
Cheers!
*=A scenario which would've been utterly impossible on the standard PS4/XB1, but is remotely possible on PS4 Pro, and a pretty real prospect on XB1X, - may even still be remotely possible even after I add that second 1070 for SLI.
So, not even two or three hours after this last comment where I had asserted that other than CupHead, I have spent $0.00 on new games that weren't Switch games since the release of the system, I ended up making both halves of that assertion false. Not only did I end up not pre-ordering Cuphead today, but I bought a whopping four 3DS eshop games today: LoZ: Triforce Heroes, that Mario and Luigi paper game (blanking on the name), Smash Bros, and NES Remix.
However, thanks to a Father's Day gift card, I did still manage to increase my Switch software library today with a hard copy of.......ARMS!!!! YAY!!!
Big game-get day for me, 100% Nintendo game day too! Reggie Fils Aime looks down upon me from his Lakitu cloud with the warming glow of hearty approval!
Yeah. It's apples and oranges. Both fantastic devices, each scratching different itches and appealing to different markets.
I plan on buying both a Pro and a 1X, as well as a second GTX1070 for SLI, pushing my PC well beyond the reach of the 1X, which will be closer to comparability with my current single-1070 rig than I thought....or like.
But through it all, the Switch is the darling. And even with being a PC gamer, a PS4 Gamer, an XB1 gamer, a 3DS gamer, and even a Vita gamer, other than pre-ordering Cuphead, I have not spent a dime on software for any of those systems since getting the Switch - because -IT'S- where all my money's been going!
Good! It bothers the hell out of me when games are designed that take no advantage of the extra power the system has when docked. I'm very tempted to pass on Rocket League for this very reason.
Though the breadth and depth of the performance difference between docked and undocked Switch is smaller than the breadth and depth of the performance difference between, say, PS4 and PS4 Pro, and there's also the matter of not having to pay extra money to get the docked experience (at least, not that first dock), it's still premier and non-premier platforms for the same software offering premier and non-premier experiences with it.
And so, in this sense, I see absolutely zero difference whatsoever between a developer who releases a Switch game that offers absolutely no kind of boost for docked mode, and a developer who releases a PS4 game that takes absolutely no advantage of the Pro's additional assets. You get the non-premier experience regardless of whether you're playing on the premier or non-premier hardware (or the premier or non-premier MODE in the case of the Switch.)
This practice, if allowed to run rampant will kill the Pro and 1X, leading to a huge waste of money for the buyers, and while the stakes are certainly much lower for Switch owners, this practice will still hurt us in similar fashion by turning the Switch from a system with two tiers of performance, which makes the "portable / console hybrid" narrative credible into merely a portable, which you can simply rebroadcast on your TV screen - which the nVidia Shield handheld could already do, and offer no benefits whatsoever.....making the claim for "console hybrid" in my opinion, untenable.
So even if the stakes are lower for us, I still think it's every bit as important for we Switch owners as it is for the Pro and future 1X owners (among both of which I hope to include myself in time) for at least the sake of preserving the most unique and magical aspect of the platform that the developers take the time to invest and nurture the more premier assets to support the more premier hardware (or in our case, the fully unlocked hardware).....otherwise they'll just die off, leaving us all with less.
Cheers!
p.s. I've always held to the more maximal view of the Switch's hardware capabilities - namely, "less than XB1 but closer to it than WiiU", rather than "better than WiiU, but closer to it than XB1" - and so I never doubted Splatoon 2 could achieve 1080/60 docked. That's why I was so mad when they were talking 720p. But more and more games are coming out at 1080/60 now, so hopefully this trend continues, and hopefully more blockbuster developers are drawn in as a result as well as maybe getting patches that up the resolution on lower res games. 1080 BotW, anybody?
The 1080/720 thing is not "Deal or No Deal" for me by any means, as I intend to eventually buy this port of the game either way. HOWEVER, it IS to a certain degree a matter of "Yay vs Eh", and may impact where its purchase lands in my hierarchy of priorities. So, I suppose that this is me living out my mantra of "graphics aren't everything, but they certainly aren't nothing."
On the one hand, I love that the game can be played on the go, but on the other hand, I don't really play Minecraft unless I'm playing with the kiddo either on XB1 or over home wifi on two PCs in the house. So other than "Here Chloe, go nuts", or trying to get the bug to finally bite me "for realsies", I'm just not sure how much value there is for me in this, especially when Chloe has it already on Android tablet, WiiU, XB1, and we have it on Windows 10, with one of those PCs being GTX1070 equipped and playing at max everyrhing on a 4k UHD TV.
So, in light of the performance I get from the PC, why should it matter to me whether the Switch version is 720p or 1080p docked?
Well, a big reason is because of narrative. Everyone seems to agree that Switch slots somewhere north of WiiU and somewhere south of XB1 in terms of performance capabilities, but people still debate whether it lands closer to the top or closer to the bottom of that spectrum. While Minecraft doesn't prove anything either way single-handedly, the 1080p resolution and larger worlds lends support to my belief that it will ultimately be vindicated in proving itself to be much closer to the top than to the bottom. 720p gives the other side ammo, which is especially frustrating when the developer themselves said that the 720p thing is not a hardware limitation issue.
But "battlefields of opinion" aside, so what if I already have the game in a medium where I can play it in 4K with no aliasing and draw distance to rival the curvature of the earth, or "much closer to home" even an XB1 port that is 1080, or a WiiU port that is 720...1080 is better than 720 all day everyday, the Switch can handle 1080, 720 then, feels like a half-ass measure, and makes the experience feel incomplete.
And if I'm going to buy Minecraft, a game this household already owns umpteen times, and a game I only occasionally play with the kiddo, and virtually never play on my own, I think I would rather at least have the best, fullest experience the hardware can offer, you know?
Again, 720/1080 is not going to make or break the Switch version for me, but it is going to impact how urgent I'm going to feel about it.
I'm neither heartbroken nor furious over this. An online-only game would not work once you leave wi-fi, relying on wi-if hotspots is touch and go, and properly communicating that message to the masses could be supremely messy with very big backfire potential. And it's not like he said the Switch wasn't powerful enough for it, whichever a I believe it is (with some reasonable and tolerable scale-downs, of course), so I really don't have anything to be mad about.
Having the other systems and a PC means I'm not left out in the cold, and besides after maybe about 10hrs of playing the original Destiny on PS4, I began to lose interest. It's a neat game, and a really neat idea, but the bug just never bit me like it bit others. So, even though a I do eventually intend to probably pursue the game later, it's not a devastatingly big loss for me.
Now, all that said, I do hope that they will eventually change their minds and give it a go. Even with all the above said, I would still much rather have a 3rd party AAA blockbuster game on the Switch than not have it. That simple. They definitely have big problems to get beyond with the idea of a Switch version - perhaps the most of all is simply nothing else than to properly set expectations and communicate them effectively, but where there's a will, there's a way......and I predict that the collective Switch user, if we make enough noise could possibly cause there to be a will.
First, let me start with the compliment: this thing looks totally rad! All planes and angles and sharp edges with decorated with chrome and blue LED accents and a Sony Logo. The Switch is a very nice looking system as well, especially with colored Joycons. But it's not striking in the same kind of way that this thing is - and that beefy kickstand! WANT!!
Now, all that said, I don't have all that high an opinion of this thing in general. I think that should Sony take this seriously enough to release it, if they are very lucky, it'll be the next Vita, and if they are less lucky, it'll be the next PS Move.
I have a PS4, and every Sony system ever made other than the PS1* and the new PS4Pro. So a I don't say this as some anti-Sony Nintendo fanboy - though I am definitely a bigger Nintendo fan than a Sony fan, with the PS1 being the only Sony system that I've actually preferred over its Nintendo counterpart, well, maybe PS4 over WiiU...maybe, and I guess I consider the Wii, PS3, and XB360 as a three-way tie. Still, the PS1 is the only point where I can say "Oh, definitely Sony".
So, if not fanboyism and brand allegiance, why do I take such a dim view of this proposed PlayStation outside of hypothetical cosmetics that the real machine might not even maintain? A few reasons:
1) Size.
Assuming this thing ever sees the light of day in the first place, and assuming the final product is even passingly similar to this one then either that screen is WAAAAAAAAAAAY too big, and/or those controller halves are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too small! Based on the hands in the picture, I believe the former is the case. Way too big a screen. But wait, I willingly choose to bind myself to screen sizes no smaller than 5.5", and would be happy probably going all the way up to 6.3" or so. My 6" Nexus 6 was the best I've ever had size-wise. So don't I believe that bigger is better when it comes to screens? In a vacuum? Sure, for the most part. But there are so many contextual concerns that could work against a blanket "bigger is better" mentality, and if this device is supposed to be as much a portable as a console, this size is completely out of the question! The Switch itself pushes against the max conceivable limits of size viability for a portable and this one is clearly much bigger than the Switch......OR.....the controllers are much smaller, which, no pun intended, might be a much bigger problem even than a way too huge screen. Just as the Switch pushes against the max reasonable size of a handheld, its Joycons, especially when using only the one half already pushes against the bare minimum size viability for a controller. If this screen is not waaaaaaay bigger than the Switch screen, then the controllers are waaaaaaay smaller than the Joycons and would be just the absolute worst, most tragic, infeasible and ultimately damning kind of hilarious. Either way, the Switch, though probably not perfect at all, strikes about the best compromise they can in the size category for its given hybrid form factor. This Sony in this respect is simply ridiculous - a cartoon!
2) Price/performance/profitability trilemma:
Especially given that screen, I don't see how the PlayStation hybrid could be even as powerful as the Switch, nevermind more powerful without either being way more expensive, or else being sold at such a loss that Sony just hemorrhages over it. Or, they could resolve the price/profit problem by putting less expensive and less powerful guts in it, but that's something Sony "cant't afford" to do in a completely different sense of the word. Nintendo has established a love-it-or-hate-it dynamic of not needing cutting edge hardware and performance to be awesome and be competitive. The same can't be said about Sony. Over the past four generations, Dony and Microsoft have fist fought over the mantle of pinnacle of power and performance, which is kinda "cute" to me as a PC gamer, but from a console perspective, they are still quite powerful, and without the power, their propositions suffer much more than Nintendo ever did or probably ever will for the same reasons. So I don't see a satisfying solution to this trilemma.
3) Dividing their ecosystem:
Though it won't happen until 3DS gets retired which won't be this year and only maaaaaybe will be next year, Nintendo will eventually unify its entire software ecosystem under one platform (other than the few token mobile games it throws out). Nintendo could even diversify the Switch platform into multiple pieces of hardware at different price and performance points just like they did with the 3DS platform. They could have a smaller device that s portable-only, could release an active dock that is much more powerful than a stock Switch, or heck, could even release a console-only "Dock" with the core hardware built-in, and as long as the software library stays constant, and the extra assets for the more powerful dock/console are download-only and will only download on that beefier hardware, then you still play the same games across all the formfactors without having to keep rebuying (and with my extra asset download idea, you don't end up with the "extra fat" of graphics beyond the grasp of a standalone Switch / standard dock sitting useless on the system, or raising the size and possibly the price of the game cards with no added benefits. I suppose Sony could just make this their "PS5", and have a more powerful dock come along right off the bat, with standalone console and smaller "true handheld" formfactors coming along a year or two later and have them all share a software library - and that'd be okay. But otherwise, rather than moving away from two to one like Nintendo is, they'd be moving from one to two, with self-canibalizing overlap between the PS4/Pro and the console aspects of this thing. Nintendo has the same quandary with the 3DS and the portable attributes of the Switch, but a) it's something they're moving away from rather than towards like Sony would be, but b) the dual screens of the 3DS offers a unique enough experience that the overlap isn't nearly so painfully felt because one does portable with two screens with one in 3D, while the Switch does portable that can also convert to console. Other than the ability to switch from console and portable, the rest of the mitigating distinction would be lost between PS4 and this thing, and the overlap would be more apparent and more painful.
4) Trust/Support:
Nintendo had this problem as well at the very launch of the Switch, and is still not completely out of the woods. But after the disappointment that was the WiiU, and after being now the third comparably underpowered platform, 3rd parties have been slow to get onboard with it, though the tide is turning. Sony could get over their similar baggage with developers over the Vita, they have to first. The Vita turned into a disappointment too, and Sony arguably did poor by it in terms of support. How many will trust pursuing another Sony portable especially in light of my next (and final) objection. And how long/well would Sony themselves support it? Maybe wonderfully. But it's still a question and that's still a problem. Sure, if it explodes like Switch did, it'll overcome just like Switch is starting to, but if it gets off to a cold start?....which is also made more likely by the implications of my next point.....
.....which is......
5) It's a "Switch copycat":
Had this thing beat the Switch to market, the problem would be the Nintendo's as they'd have released a "PlayStation whatever" clone. But Nintendo struck first, and so, everyone will see this as a copycat system and a copycat move. That certainly wouldn't turn away everyone, but it's take a lot of the excitement and all of the magic out of it for most. Sony loyalists will spring, and as a wannabe completist, I probably eventually would as well. But unless it ends up with just a dramatically better 3rd party AAA support than Switch, it'll mostly just be overlooked. And because of Switch's primacy, paired with all the objections listed above, I think it will ever and dramatically trail the Nintendo.
Depending on whether or not Sony releases this, it would either be a "beautiful dream", or a likely "beautiful lie"....and as personally believe that the latter is the worse of the two. So hopefully they don't release this - beautiful as it is!
Cheers!
*=I use my PS2 to play PS1 games and so I gave the 1 to my sister-in-law way back in the day. I actually would love to have it back - for completions's sake.
I think it's a brilliant budget offering for the 3DS lineup. It's the machine to have for those who can not easily afford or at least not easily justify the price tag of the top tier N3DSXL, but want something better than the awkward little 2DS. And the N2DSXL is at an okay price point. Not exactly dirt cheap, but in reasonable grasp for most.
It's got a proven form factor that just about everybody loves, has all the power and beneifits of a "new" 3DSXL over against an "original" 3DSXL with the lone exception of that which supported the one feature that's been removed - the most contentious feature of the system anyway: 3D.
3D is way cool, and it offers more benefits than just the wow factor, "Nintendoes what Genesisn't" factor, and I know it's been much improved on N3DS over what it was on o3DS. But as an o3DSXL owner who doesn't currently own anything in the N3DS lineup, I have such a hard time maintaining my focus in 3D (lapsing into "double vision" waaaaaay too often) that I feel that between the N2DSXL with the more powerful internals, the c-stick, the SNES virtual console, and the support for the [admittedly still very scant] "library" of N3DS exclusives, but no 3D and my o3DSXL with 3D that's hard to manage and none of that other stuff - between the two - I'd rather have the N2DSXL and just say sayonara to 3D. Easy.
Now, to be clear, my own personal target is still the big daddy, the N3DSXL, so when I say I would be interested in buying one of these it would be for the household, for "Nerd Noise Manor", if you will, as opposed to for me personally. The wife and kiddo could use 3DS family devices. The kiddo has an old DSi that she never uses, and the wife has nothing, but has some measure of excitement for the N2DSXL. So I figure, but a N3DSXL for me, a N2DSXL for the Mrs, and give the kiddo my o3DSXL, and everybody will be happy!
But even if we never buy one, I still heartily applaud the N2DSXL for the simply perfect spot it occupies in the 3DS family lineup. In the uncharacteristicly concise words of Mojo Jojo...."Brilliant"! Don't get me wrong, I look forward to the day when [hopefully] the Switch absorbs the space currently occupied by 3DS like it did with the WiiU and becomes Nintendo's sole focus. But in the meantime, the N2DSXL is just a really great gap fill in the line.
You know, please please forgive the "tl;dr" (especially as my very first comment on Nintendo Life), but I actually sorta kinda agree with the guy. Hear me out:
I mean, let's think about it. The Wii was a huge success. The WiiU? Not so much. The difference between them was NOT 3rd party support, though. Neither one of them had very good 3rd party support on the one hand, and yet neither one of them were absolute 3rd party deserts either.
So what was the REAL difference between the two systems then? Two major things:
a) the volume and quality of 1st and 2nd party Nintendo games....
.......but EVEN MORE IMPORTANT in my opinion.....
b) that the unique use case that Nintendo offered in the Wii resonated hugely with gamers, was well supported by developers, and was widely adopted and smartly implemented all around....whereas the WiiU tablet, though a very interesting idea that did have a bunch of untapped potential and a few clever implementations here and there never really resonated with the masses, and developers never really knew what to do with it, or cared to figure it out, plus it couldn't be decoupled from the system. So even though it did have amazing potential, and even though it had features that even the Switch doesn't have, it ultimately became this "Swiss Army Albatross" that dragged the WiiU into the bog.
Now, not having 3rd party games certainly didn't help matters, granted. But at most, it was the tertiary cause of the system's lack of true success (because it wasn't exactly a total failure either). Ho-Hum 1st party support paired with the un-unpairable dead weight were both larger factors.
Therefore, while we certainly DO WANT third party games on the Switch, and while the system will certainly be even better and even more successful with them than with without them.....not to mention even more enjoyable - and even more damning to the PS4 and XB1 who already seem kinda silly now when held against the flexibility of the Switch on the one hand, and the raw power of PC gaming on the other...
...but at the end of the day, do I think the Switch really NEEDS 3rd party games? So long as we have a compelling, resonant unique use case that is consumer and developer embraced, and as long as we have a steady stream of quality 1st and 2nd party Nintendo IPs, then I am forced to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not we truly NEED them is a resounding.......No. And we already have the first of those two necessary components clinched.
Therefore, so long as Nintendo keeps the hits coming, then the system will still be a soaring success and a total delight even if we never see a single major 3rd party blockbuster in its entire life. And please understand that my saying this is in no way any sort of indictment of the Switch, but rather, a declaration of complete faith in it that it's such an amazing system, and so close to invincivibility assuming the 1st party is strong that it can stay afloat even without 3rd parties...
...now that said?......BRING ON THE FLIPPIN' 3RD PARTIES!
Comments 167
Re: Sega Forever Aims To Revive The Company's Past On Mobile, But Could Come To Switch
I am pretty likely to support this on my iPhone (though I don't like screen touch controls all that much)....
.....but if it comes to Switch? With the form factor and the controls? Then we switch [no pun intended] from "I will probably support" to "I will DEFINITELY support"!
You hear that, Sega? If you come to a Switch then you've got a guaranteed user in yours truly!
I love old Sega! I mean, big picture, I'm a "Nintendo first gamer." But in certain pockets of gaming history, Sega's top dog for me! There are only a few gaming eras where Nintendo was NOT my favorite player. One of them was the 5th gen, where I prefer PS1 over N64 (the only time I favor a Sony system over its Nintendo rival).......and one of them is 4th gen, where I passionately prefer Sega Genesis/Mega Drive over the Super NES. Additionally, Sega was my favorite company in the mid-late 80's arcade.
Otherwise, Nintendo wins or ties for the win in every other era of home gaming, but 4th gen gaming and mid-late 80's arcade are easily the two most important epochs of gaming for me, so they were HEEEEEUUUUGE things for Sega to win!!!
In any case, I know that my preferring Genesis over SNES is not likely to be a very popular sentiment here, but knowing that this service will be big on Genesis and 80s arcade stuff makes me VERY EAGER to get involved! Also, I do really love the Mastersystem, Saturn and Dreamcast, which only serve to further enrich and make tantalizing this new service!
It's gonna be AWESOME! And if it comes to Switch?.....
.......
WELCO
METOT
HENEX
TLEVEL!!
Cheers!!!
Re: Video: Unboxing and Testing the New Nintendo 2DS XL
So, I currently have an "old" (not "new") 3DSXL. What I would like is to get for myself a "new" 3DSXL, buy an N2DSXL, and let the Mrs and the kiddo decide amongst themselves who gets the N2DSXL and who gets my old "o3DSxL".
I'm guessing the N2DSXL will go to the Mrs. because of the Super NES virtual console. But either way, I'll be happy because a) we'll be a "3DS [series] family"......and b) I'll have an "N3DSXL"!!
Re: Nintendo Infographic Outlines Switch and 3DS Games for 2017
@KayOL78 Thank you very much for the compliment!
As far as where you stand on the matter of the Switch and the Pro, and all that, I'll say I halfway agree with you, and that where I disagree with you is pretty unlikely to cause any kind of real dissension between us.
Here's where we're alike: like you (or at least seemingly like you), the Switch is easily my favorite console, easily my favorite handheld (since it's both), easily my favorite tabletop (since there really hasn't been another of those since all the way back to the Vectrex as far as I'm aware), and maaaaaybe even my preferred platform over the PC (that one I'm going to leave as a maybe as I think the PC is AWESOME!) And like you, it wasn't til yesterday that I broke the streak started all the way back on March 3rd, where 100% of my free money that went to brand new games all went to Switch - I broke that streak with some 3DS digital download games. You and I, we see the absolute magic in the Switch, think it's capable enough graphically, but see past the graphics as the making or breaking point. In all these ways, you and I are in complete agreement.
However, where we might differ is that just because I wholeheartedly embrace the notion of "graphics are not everything" doesn't mean I move from there onto the notion "graphics are nothing". Far from it! I have a PC that's more powerful even in its present state than XB1X, and I intend as soon as possible to make it even more powerful so that it unquestionably dominates the surprisingly comparable 1X. And yet, I still plan at tax time to replace my existing PS4 and XB1 with their more powerful, more premier upgraded iterations. I also spend as much of my Switch playing time as is feasible in docked mode, mostly for the enhanced visuals over handheld mode. So I certainly still prize my graphics when I can.
But I will say this: if a game exists on PS4/XB1 that also exists either on the PC or on the Switch, then I will not buy it on PS4/XB1, choosing instead to go for either the pinnacle of visuals and customizability found only in the PC when raw power or precision interfaces (KBM) are needed, or choosing to go for the Switch version when they're not, because the "go anywhere" flexibility and dynamism of the Switch is so very unique, precious, powerful, and completely distinctive. Or heck, maybe I'll just buy both versions and call it a night.
In either case, graphics are neither everything nor are they nothing, and I want to live in that middle space between. But through it all, the Switch is ever the darling of the bunch, and the one where my heart, time - and money are going most - like you!
Cheers!
Re: Nintendo Infographic Outlines Switch and 3DS Games for 2017
@WiltonRoots Thanks!
I've been talking for a long time of either starting a second blog besides Nerd Noise Radio, or else creating a new segment on that blog called "The Long Answer", where I can post my more comprehensive, more fully fleshed out (but totally "tl;dr") responses as a blog. Then instead of leaving these huge "chapter and verse" replies in comments sections and on FB and whatnot, I can gradually work on honing my underdeveloped abilities at writing brief, simplified responses ("the short answer"), while linking people back to the blog if they want my full thoughts ("the long answer").
Anyway, I'm toying around with that. I need to learn how to write short anyway. It seems that my responses are always either "monosyllabic caveman grunts", or else, the aforementioned "chapter and verse".
Cheers!
Re: Nintendo Infographic Outlines Switch and 3DS Games for 2017
@PanurgeJ There's nothing you say here that I disagree with at all, but I would want to emphasize that all things being equal, better graphics are always better than lesser graphics. And I don't know that you disagree with that either. But I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on where I was on the matter.
I guess I find myself resistant to both the following sentiments in about equal measure, and find myself stuck squarely between them: 1) "graphics are everything", and b) "graphics are nothing". I feel that the former is "papa bear's bed" - too hard, while the latter is "mama bear's bed" - too soft. Good graphics don't make a bad game good, and bad graphics don't make a good game bad. Granted. But I also believe that good graphics make a good game better, bad graphics make a bad game worse, and if a game is squarely on the fence, then sometimes graphics can be the tie breaker.
Now, I know that may sound strange coming from someone who just so emphatically defended the Switch - and indeed, the Switch is easily my favorite console, easily my favorite handheld, and maybe even my preferred platform over PC (maybe). And like you, other than a small collection of used games between eBay and at thrift stores, from March 3rd all the way up to just yesterday, believe it or not, 100% of my free money that went towards new games went to Switch. 100%. I'm sitting at about 20 games myself. I broke that streak last night, but with what? A quartet of 3DS digital downloads, so still Nintendo, and still on the lower end of the graphics spectrum. In fact, of all the systems still active today, the 3DS is at the VERY bottom. So, clearly, I can look past the graphics and see great games that are quite desirous. This is me living out "graphics aren't everything".
But on the other hand, I do still plan to replace my XB1/PS4 with an XB1X/PS4Pro at tax time as well as add a second GTX1070 graphics card to my gaming PC, which already is more powerful than XB1X, but I want it to be way more powerful. So, I do prize great graphics and little details, and seek out the most premier iterations whenever feasible. In this way, I'm living out "graphics aren't nothing".
Now, how do I deal with the tension? Here's how: Between the raw power and utter customizability of the PC on the one hand, and the total freedom, flexibility, paradigmatic revolutionary use case and dynamism of the Switch on the other, outside of a very few, VERY RARE special circumstances, I will never buy another game on the PS4 or XB1 again that I could get on either PC and/or Switch instead. There's just no value to those ports at all when they're visually outperformed by the PC, and when they're complete non-starters against the Switch's get up and go.
Don't get me wrong, I will still prize the "traditional consoles" for their exclusives, their freebies, their nice, tight, cohesive UIs and form factors, as well as their nice cross swaths of power gaming, casual gaming, and multimedia. And wanting the best form of them I can get (living out the "all else equal, better graphics are always better than lesser graphics" thing), then I find the 1X and Pro justifiable. But even with the more premier versions of the consoles, other than having a modest collection of titles around on all platforms just for comparison purposes, that rule of "no games on PS/XB otherwise available on PC and/or Switch" will still stand.
And when a game only exists on the traditional consoles, but exists on both.....well, 1X over Pro always....doy! In fact, in light of my plans to buy the upgraded consoles, I'm going to start favoring the XB1 versions over the PS4 version even now, even though when played on the standard hardware, they are admittedly better on the PlayStation, and in the very short term, such a move would equate to me losing out a bit. It's worth it for the long term.
And at long last, this all comes home: when it comes down to PC vs Switch ports of games available on both systems: if it's a game I REALLY like, then I may just buy it for both platforms and that's problem solved. But assuming it's a game available on both, but I'm only buying one: then it'll depend on whether the premier visuals and/or precise KBM controls are more precious to the title, or whether the ability to take it with me is more precious. Whichever aspect wins will be the version I buy - a decision I'll have to make on a case by case, though in general, other than to support the AAAs on Switch thing, AAAs I'd probably largely save for PC - especially if there's a lot of online stuff going on, where smaller, lighter games (i.e. Most indie games), I'll favor on Switch. But I'm sure that sometimes I'll break from that and do the opposite on both sides of that coin.
But again, we may even be on the same page here too. There may be no disagreement between us at all. But I didn't want anyone thinking that I was either too fixated on, nor too dismissive of graphics. Both of those positions bother me.
Cheers!
Re: Nintendo Infographic Outlines Switch and 3DS Games for 2017
From reading the other comments a bit, let me mention one thing:
The lack of 3rd party blockbusters is not.....no, no, that won't do....CUT! Let me try this again.....
The lack of 3rd party blockbusters was [ahem] ------NOT------ what killed the WiiU!!!! (....there we go)....
Instead, the lack of 3rd party blockbusters on the WiiU simply meant there wasn't that protective insulating layer to offset the comparatively sparse 1st and 2nd party support paired with a [theoretically potentially awesome but] miserably developer supported, and largely fan unloved albatross of a "special use case" (the tablet) which could never be decoupled from the system and preventing those things from doing the job instead.
The WiiU was a failure. Well, let's be honest, failure-ish - it was only a failure in a relative sense. It was actually a smash hit compared to the Atari Jaguar, Philips CD-i, Apple Bandai Pippin, and so many others. The original Wii, by comparison was a soaring success by all measures. So what was different and similar about the huge success of the Wii and the huge disappointment of the WiiU?
Was it 3rd party support? [BUZZER!]
No, both were very disappointing in terms of major 3rd party support (and both were actually pretty solid in terms of minor-tier 3rd party and indie support.)
So what was it then that set the two apart? Well, there were a thousand little things, sure.....but there were at least two super major things:
1) 1st and 2nd party software support. Volume, frequency, novelty, originality (vs upgraded re-releases, and whatnot), a cogent and robust Indie space and let's not forget - virtual console in the respective stores, useful, well-received "channels" and so on.
2) both offered innovative, unique, and at the time, completely revolutionary interface (use case) design propositions. But the difference was that the one the Wii offered was amazingly well received quite broadly and was widely believed to be refreshing and paradigmatic. Meanwhile, while all the potential was there with the WiiU tab (including a Game Boy Player style TV interface scheme for DS and 3DS games on the big screen), and while it certainly did have a small number of passionate fans and an even smaller number of committed developers, by and large, consumer and developer alike looked at the thing with reactions ranging from "eh" to "what the hell are we supposed to do with this thing?" Then you realize that the addition of the thing jacked up the price of the system, and that you were unbreakably tethered to it with no escape from it, and it's no wonder the success stories of the two systems are so vastly different.
The big 3rd party blockbusters might have provided some level of insulation for the WiiU from its fate. But -AT THE VERY MOST- it was a supremely distant tertiary cause.
So, Nintendo has proven with the Wii and the WiiU two things:
1) Nintendo can float a huge success with very little major 3rd party involvement.
2) Nintendo can sink a relative failure with very little major 3rd party involvement.
So why then are we so fixed on the matter of 3rd parties on the Switch - especially as it bears on the conversations of the system's success or failure proposition? It's like seeing smoke pouring out of a building to the south of you, and sending the fire department to the building to the north of you, and wondering why the fire's not going out. It is the absolute last place we should be looking. Most of us are smart, rational, reasonable people. But smart and simple, rational and irrational alike all become the same one-word descriptor once the fixation on 3rd party starts.....and that word is......[edit: "idiots" is probably way too strong of a term.....but "misdirected" is certainly not. Please take that term as my substitute].
Instead, for our prognostications on the outlook of the Switch, we should be examining the big picture narrative of the Wii, as well as the big picture narrative of the WiiU, and seeing which one looks more familiar to us in the Switch's 2017. Robust or lackluster 1st and 2nd party software support? Widely lauded and desired, or widely panned and undesired innovation in its form-factor / use-case? Which one of these two previous system's stories most closely matches this one's so far?
I certainly believe (and way more than half of both the industry and the commenting laity seem to agree with me) that by these standards we've got another Wii on our hands, rather than another WiiU - and the sales numbers so far seem to also agree. And also, let's make sure we don't forget this is with a March launch, rather than a holiday or pre-holiday launch window, so if the numbers are "artificial" at all, then they are far more likely "artificially low" than the other way around.
Let's be judging by those measures instead, shall we? And if so? OPTIMISM!!!
Now look, I want the major 3rd party blockbusters too! I want Doom, I want COD, and Battlefront and all the rest! And I think the system even in its infancy is already proving that it's at least powerful enough that it could handle such games just with a modest amount of graphic down-tweaking. So I think we have no reason why we couldn't have them, and by extension, SHOULDN'T. I'm quite, QUITE happy with the system as it stands, but I'm with you in that I'd be waaaaaay happier with it WITH them rather than without them, and I also agree that the major offerings have indeed been pretty sparse to date. I'm with you. I want them. Bring em on!......
......BUT......
To the question of do we -----NEEEEEEED----- them? Does the system NEED them? Does the fate of the system automatically hang in the balance on the matter of their presence and absense? A thousand times ten thousands over, the answer is -------------NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!----------- we DON'T! The Switch will live or die with or without them. And right now, the outlook is not only optimistic, but it is ---INSANELY--- optimistic!
We've got enough "sky is falling" around us in the present climes of this world. How's about we stop making too much of the 3rd party business on the Switch.....and dammit.....just enjoy the blasted thing! If you want Battlefront, there's always XBox, or Sony.....or 1000 times better than either of them.....PC!
We'll have plenty to keep us entertained here on the Nintendo. Many of those things are right here on this infograph!
Cheers!
Re: Nintendo Infographic Outlines Switch and 3DS Games for 2017
I'm just glad to see the Switch getting so much more activity than the 3DS. I definitely agree with Nintendo winding the 3DS down gently rather than just going cold turkey. But I definitely want to see Nintendo putting their "everything" into the Switch", and so I'm actually happy to see the beginnings of a fade out happening on the older platform.
On the 3DS side, the one that has me the most excited, of course, is Metroid. And on the Switch side, Mario is the most brightly shining, though Splatoon and Skyrim are way up there as well! I would've added ARMS to that list as well, but since I bought it today and have already logged about an hour in it, it's kinda hard to say I'm "looking forward to it", you know?
Cheers!
Re: Reggie Fils-Aime Dismisses Threat To Switch From Microsoft's Xbox One X
@Luna_110 Between the raw power and customizability of the PC on the one hand, and the flexibility, diversity, and go-anywhere nature of the Switch on the other, other than a few rare one-offs for a select few special case reasons, I'll never buy another game on PS4 or XB1 if it's a game that I can get on either PC and/or Switch instead.
Don't get me wrong, I still prize the conventional consoles for their exclusives, free goodies, and tight form-factors/UIs/ecosystems. I mean, I'm planning to spend a combined $900 at tax time for the Pro and 1X for crying out loud. But when there's a PC in the house, and when there's a Switch, I'm only going to patronize them for stuff I can't get elsewhere.
Now, I imagine once I have the Pro and the XB1X, I'll make a few more exceptions to the rule for the purposes of making comparisons between versions. Or if there's a game that's so amazingly optimized that it manages to outperform the PC version despite the latter running on much superior hardware*. But the general rule itself will still stand. PC and/or Switch whenever possible and PS4/XB1 only when they're my only options - and 1X over Pro any time I have that choice!
Cheers!
*=A scenario which would've been utterly impossible on the standard PS4/XB1, but is remotely possible on PS4 Pro, and a pretty real prospect on XB1X, - may even still be remotely possible even after I add that second 1070 for SLI.
Re: Reggie Fils-Aime Dismisses Threat To Switch From Microsoft's Xbox One X
UPDATE:
So, not even two or three hours after this last comment where I had asserted that other than CupHead, I have spent $0.00 on new games that weren't Switch games since the release of the system, I ended up making both halves of that assertion false. Not only did I end up not pre-ordering Cuphead today, but I bought a whopping four 3DS eshop games today: LoZ: Triforce Heroes, that Mario and Luigi paper game (blanking on the name), Smash Bros, and NES Remix.
However, thanks to a Father's Day gift card, I did still manage to increase my Switch software library today with a hard copy of.......ARMS!!!! YAY!!!
Big game-get day for me, 100% Nintendo game day too! Reggie Fils Aime looks down upon me from his Lakitu cloud with the warming glow of hearty approval!
You're welcome, Reg! You're VERY welcome!
Re: Reggie Fils-Aime Dismisses Threat To Switch From Microsoft's Xbox One X
Yeah. It's apples and oranges. Both fantastic devices, each scratching different itches and appealing to different markets.
I plan on buying both a Pro and a 1X, as well as a second GTX1070 for SLI, pushing my PC well beyond the reach of the 1X, which will be closer to comparability with my current single-1070 rig than I thought....or like.
But through it all, the Switch is the darling. And even with being a PC gamer, a PS4 Gamer, an XB1 gamer, a 3DS gamer, and even a Vita gamer, other than pre-ordering Cuphead, I have not spent a dime on software for any of those systems since getting the Switch - because -IT'S- where all my money's been going!
Cheers!
Re: Splatoon 2 Gets A Resolution Boost Over The Previous Global Testfire Build
Good! It bothers the hell out of me when games are designed that take no advantage of the extra power the system has when docked. I'm very tempted to pass on Rocket League for this very reason.
Though the breadth and depth of the performance difference between docked and undocked Switch is smaller than the breadth and depth of the performance difference between, say, PS4 and PS4 Pro, and there's also the matter of not having to pay extra money to get the docked experience (at least, not that first dock), it's still premier and non-premier platforms for the same software offering premier and non-premier experiences with it.
And so, in this sense, I see absolutely zero difference whatsoever between a developer who releases a Switch game that offers absolutely no kind of boost for docked mode, and a developer who releases a PS4 game that takes absolutely no advantage of the Pro's additional assets. You get the non-premier experience regardless of whether you're playing on the premier or non-premier hardware (or the premier or non-premier MODE in the case of the Switch.)
This practice, if allowed to run rampant will kill the Pro and 1X, leading to a huge waste of money for the buyers, and while the stakes are certainly much lower for Switch owners, this practice will still hurt us in similar fashion by turning the Switch from a system with two tiers of performance, which makes the "portable / console hybrid" narrative credible into merely a portable, which you can simply rebroadcast on your TV screen - which the nVidia Shield handheld could already do, and offer no benefits whatsoever.....making the claim for "console hybrid" in my opinion, untenable.
So even if the stakes are lower for us, I still think it's every bit as important for we Switch owners as it is for the Pro and future 1X owners (among both of which I hope to include myself in time) for at least the sake of preserving the most unique and magical aspect of the platform that the developers take the time to invest and nurture the more premier assets to support the more premier hardware (or in our case, the fully unlocked hardware).....otherwise they'll just die off, leaving us all with less.
Cheers!
p.s. I've always held to the more maximal view of the Switch's hardware capabilities - namely, "less than XB1 but closer to it than WiiU", rather than "better than WiiU, but closer to it than XB1" - and so I never doubted Splatoon 2 could achieve 1080/60 docked. That's why I was so mad when they were talking 720p. But more and more games are coming out at 1080/60 now, so hopefully this trend continues, and hopefully more blockbuster developers are drawn in as a result as well as maybe getting patches that up the resolution on lower res games. 1080 BotW, anybody?
Re: 4J Studios Exploring a 1080p Update for Minecraft on Switch, As Screenshot Bug Fix is Released
The 1080/720 thing is not "Deal or No Deal" for me by any means, as I intend to eventually buy this port of the game either way. HOWEVER, it IS to a certain degree a matter of "Yay vs Eh", and may impact where its purchase lands in my hierarchy of priorities. So, I suppose that this is me living out my mantra of "graphics aren't everything, but they certainly aren't nothing."
On the one hand, I love that the game can be played on the go, but on the other hand, I don't really play Minecraft unless I'm playing with the kiddo either on XB1 or over home wifi on two PCs in the house. So other than "Here Chloe, go nuts", or trying to get the bug to finally bite me "for realsies", I'm just not sure how much value there is for me in this, especially when Chloe has it already on Android tablet, WiiU, XB1, and we have it on Windows 10, with one of those PCs being GTX1070 equipped and playing at max everyrhing on a 4k UHD TV.
So, in light of the performance I get from the PC, why should it matter to me whether the Switch version is 720p or 1080p docked?
Well, a big reason is because of narrative. Everyone seems to agree that Switch slots somewhere north of WiiU and somewhere south of XB1 in terms of performance capabilities, but people still debate whether it lands closer to the top or closer to the bottom of that spectrum. While Minecraft doesn't prove anything either way single-handedly, the 1080p resolution and larger worlds lends support to my belief that it will ultimately be vindicated in proving itself to be much closer to the top than to the bottom. 720p gives the other side ammo, which is especially frustrating when the developer themselves said that the 720p thing is not a hardware limitation issue.
But "battlefields of opinion" aside, so what if I already have the game in a medium where I can play it in 4K with no aliasing and draw distance to rival the curvature of the earth, or "much closer to home" even an XB1 port that is 1080, or a WiiU port that is 720...1080 is better than 720 all day everyday, the Switch can handle 1080, 720 then, feels like a half-ass measure, and makes the experience feel incomplete.
And if I'm going to buy Minecraft, a game this household already owns umpteen times, and a game I only occasionally play with the kiddo, and virtually never play on my own, I think I would rather at least have the best, fullest experience the hardware can offer, you know?
Again, 720/1080 is not going to make or break the Switch version for me, but it is going to impact how urgent I'm going to feel about it.
Re: "No Plans" For Destiny 2 On Switch, Says Project Lead Who Loves Nintendo's Console
I'm neither heartbroken nor furious over this. An online-only game would not work once you leave wi-fi, relying on wi-if hotspots is touch and go, and properly communicating that message to the masses could be supremely messy with very big backfire potential. And it's not like he said the Switch wasn't powerful enough for it, whichever a I believe it is (with some reasonable and tolerable scale-downs, of course), so I really don't have anything to be mad about.
Having the other systems and a PC means I'm not left out in the cold, and besides after maybe about 10hrs of playing the original Destiny on PS4, I began to lose interest. It's a neat game, and a really neat idea, but the bug just never bit me like it bit others. So, even though a I do eventually intend to probably pursue the game later, it's not a devastatingly big loss for me.
Now, all that said, I do hope that they will eventually change their minds and give it a go. Even with all the above said, I would still much rather have a 3rd party AAA blockbuster game on the Switch than not have it. That simple. They definitely have big problems to get beyond with the idea of a Switch version - perhaps the most of all is simply nothing else than to properly set expectations and communicate them effectively, but where there's a will, there's a way......and I predict that the collective Switch user, if we make enough noise could possibly cause there to be a will.
Cheers!
Re: Random: German Tech Blog Imagines What The PlayStation Switch Would Look Like
First, let me start with the compliment: this thing looks totally rad! All planes and angles and sharp edges with decorated with chrome and blue LED accents and a Sony Logo. The Switch is a very nice looking system as well, especially with colored Joycons. But it's not striking in the same kind of way that this thing is - and that beefy kickstand! WANT!!
Now, all that said, I don't have all that high an opinion of this thing in general. I think that should Sony take this seriously enough to release it, if they are very lucky, it'll be the next Vita, and if they are less lucky, it'll be the next PS Move.
I have a PS4, and every Sony system ever made other than the PS1* and the new PS4Pro. So a I don't say this as some anti-Sony Nintendo fanboy - though I am definitely a bigger Nintendo fan than a Sony fan, with the PS1 being the only Sony system that I've actually preferred over its Nintendo counterpart, well, maybe PS4 over WiiU...maybe, and I guess I consider the Wii, PS3, and XB360 as a three-way tie. Still, the PS1 is the only point where I can say "Oh, definitely Sony".
So, if not fanboyism and brand allegiance, why do I take such a dim view of this proposed PlayStation outside of hypothetical cosmetics that the real machine might not even maintain? A few reasons:
1) Size.
Assuming this thing ever sees the light of day in the first place, and assuming the final product is even passingly similar to this one then either that screen is WAAAAAAAAAAAY too big, and/or those controller halves are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too small! Based on the hands in the picture, I believe the former is the case. Way too big a screen. But wait, I willingly choose to bind myself to screen sizes no smaller than 5.5", and would be happy probably going all the way up to 6.3" or so. My 6" Nexus 6 was the best I've ever had size-wise. So don't I believe that bigger is better when it comes to screens? In a vacuum? Sure, for the most part. But there are so many contextual concerns that could work against a blanket "bigger is better" mentality, and if this device is supposed to be as much a portable as a console, this size is completely out of the question! The Switch itself pushes against the max conceivable limits of size viability for a portable and this one is clearly much bigger than the Switch......OR.....the controllers are much smaller, which, no pun intended, might be a much bigger problem even than a way too huge screen. Just as the Switch pushes against the max reasonable size of a handheld, its Joycons, especially when using only the one half already pushes against the bare minimum size viability for a controller. If this screen is not waaaaaaay bigger than the Switch screen, then the controllers are waaaaaaay smaller than the Joycons and would be just the absolute worst, most tragic, infeasible and ultimately damning kind of hilarious. Either way, the Switch, though probably not perfect at all, strikes about the best compromise they can in the size category for its given hybrid form factor. This Sony in this respect is simply ridiculous - a cartoon!
2) Price/performance/profitability trilemma:
Especially given that screen, I don't see how the PlayStation hybrid could be even as powerful as the Switch, nevermind more powerful without either being way more expensive, or else being sold at such a loss that Sony just hemorrhages over it. Or, they could resolve the price/profit problem by putting less expensive and less powerful guts in it, but that's something Sony "cant't afford" to do in a completely different sense of the word. Nintendo has established a love-it-or-hate-it dynamic of not needing cutting edge hardware and performance to be awesome and be competitive. The same can't be said about Sony. Over the past four generations, Dony and Microsoft have fist fought over the mantle of pinnacle of power and performance, which is kinda "cute" to me as a PC gamer, but from a console perspective, they are still quite powerful, and without the power, their propositions suffer much more than Nintendo ever did or probably ever will for the same reasons. So I don't see a satisfying solution to this trilemma.
3) Dividing their ecosystem:
Though it won't happen until 3DS gets retired which won't be this year and only maaaaaybe will be next year, Nintendo will eventually unify its entire software ecosystem under one platform (other than the few token mobile games it throws out). Nintendo could even diversify the Switch platform into multiple pieces of hardware at different price and performance points just like they did with the 3DS platform. They could have a smaller device that s portable-only, could release an active dock that is much more powerful than a stock Switch, or heck, could even release a console-only "Dock" with the core hardware built-in, and as long as the software library stays constant, and the extra assets for the more powerful dock/console are download-only and will only download on that beefier hardware, then you still play the same games across all the formfactors without having to keep rebuying (and with my extra asset download idea, you don't end up with the "extra fat" of graphics beyond the grasp of a standalone Switch / standard dock sitting useless on the system, or raising the size and possibly the price of the game cards with no added benefits. I suppose Sony could just make this their "PS5", and have a more powerful dock come along right off the bat, with standalone console and smaller "true handheld" formfactors coming along a year or two later and have them all share a software library - and that'd be okay. But otherwise, rather than moving away from two to one like Nintendo is, they'd be moving from one to two, with self-canibalizing overlap between the PS4/Pro and the console aspects of this thing. Nintendo has the same quandary with the 3DS and the portable attributes of the Switch, but a) it's something they're moving away from rather than towards like Sony would be, but b) the dual screens of the 3DS offers a unique enough experience that the overlap isn't nearly so painfully felt because one does portable with two screens with one in 3D, while the Switch does portable that can also convert to console. Other than the ability to switch from console and portable, the rest of the mitigating distinction would be lost between PS4 and this thing, and the overlap would be more apparent and more painful.
4) Trust/Support:
Nintendo had this problem as well at the very launch of the Switch, and is still not completely out of the woods. But after the disappointment that was the WiiU, and after being now the third comparably underpowered platform, 3rd parties have been slow to get onboard with it, though the tide is turning. Sony could get over their similar baggage with developers over the Vita, they have to first. The Vita turned into a disappointment too, and Sony arguably did poor by it in terms of support. How many will trust pursuing another Sony portable especially in light of my next (and final) objection. And how long/well would Sony themselves support it? Maybe wonderfully. But it's still a question and that's still a problem. Sure, if it explodes like Switch did, it'll overcome just like Switch is starting to, but if it gets off to a cold start?....which is also made more likely by the implications of my next point.....
.....which is......
5) It's a "Switch copycat":
Had this thing beat the Switch to market, the problem would be the Nintendo's as they'd have released a "PlayStation whatever" clone. But Nintendo struck first, and so, everyone will see this as a copycat system and a copycat move. That certainly wouldn't turn away everyone, but it's take a lot of the excitement and all of the magic out of it for most. Sony loyalists will spring, and as a wannabe completist, I probably eventually would as well. But unless it ends up with just a dramatically better 3rd party AAA support than Switch, it'll mostly just be overlooked. And because of Switch's primacy, paired with all the objections listed above, I think it will ever and dramatically trail the Nintendo.
Depending on whether or not Sony releases this, it would either be a "beautiful dream", or a likely "beautiful lie"....and as personally believe that the latter is the worse of the two. So hopefully they don't release this - beautiful as it is!
Cheers!
*=I use my PS2 to play PS1 games and so I gave the 1 to my sister-in-law way back in the day. I actually would love to have it back - for completions's sake.
Re: Poll: What Do You Think of the New Nintendo 2DS XL?
I voted 2, 2, 2, 3, 2.
I think it's a brilliant budget offering for the 3DS lineup. It's the machine to have for those who can not easily afford or at least not easily justify the price tag of the top tier N3DSXL, but want something better than the awkward little 2DS. And the N2DSXL is at an okay price point. Not exactly dirt cheap, but in reasonable grasp for most.
It's got a proven form factor that just about everybody loves, has all the power and beneifits of a "new" 3DSXL over against an "original" 3DSXL with the lone exception of that which supported the one feature that's been removed - the most contentious feature of the system anyway: 3D.
3D is way cool, and it offers more benefits than just the wow factor, "Nintendoes what Genesisn't" factor, and I know it's been much improved on N3DS over what it was on o3DS. But as an o3DSXL owner who doesn't currently own anything in the N3DS lineup, I have such a hard time maintaining my focus in 3D (lapsing into "double vision" waaaaaay too often) that I feel that between the N2DSXL with the more powerful internals, the c-stick, the SNES virtual console, and the support for the [admittedly still very scant] "library" of N3DS exclusives, but no 3D and my o3DSXL with 3D that's hard to manage and none of that other stuff - between the two - I'd rather have the N2DSXL and just say sayonara to 3D. Easy.
Now, to be clear, my own personal target is still the big daddy, the N3DSXL, so when I say I would be interested in buying one of these it would be for the household, for "Nerd Noise Manor", if you will, as opposed to for me personally. The wife and kiddo could use 3DS family devices. The kiddo has an old DSi that she never uses, and the wife has nothing, but has some measure of excitement for the N2DSXL. So I figure, but a N3DSXL for me, a N2DSXL for the Mrs, and give the kiddo my o3DSXL, and everybody will be happy!
But even if we never buy one, I still heartily applaud the N2DSXL for the simply perfect spot it occupies in the 3DS family lineup. In the uncharacteristicly concise words of Mojo Jojo...."Brilliant"! Don't get me wrong, I look forward to the day when [hopefully] the Switch absorbs the space currently occupied by 3DS like it did with the WiiU and becomes Nintendo's sole focus. But in the meantime, the N2DSXL is just a really great gap fill in the line.
Cheers!
Re: Weirdness: 35-Year-Old Review Of Game & Watch Title Octopus Surfaces Online
February 2nd, 1982.....that was the day before my 2nd birthday!
Re: Stardock CEO Says Nintendo Switch Doesn't Need Third Party Support To Succeed
You know, please please forgive the "tl;dr" (especially as my very first comment on Nintendo Life), but I actually sorta kinda agree with the guy. Hear me out:
I mean, let's think about it. The Wii was a huge success. The WiiU? Not so much. The difference between them was NOT 3rd party support, though. Neither one of them had very good 3rd party support on the one hand, and yet neither one of them were absolute 3rd party deserts either.
So what was the REAL difference between the two systems then? Two major things:
a) the volume and quality of 1st and 2nd party Nintendo games....
.......but EVEN MORE IMPORTANT in my opinion.....
b) that the unique use case that Nintendo offered in the Wii resonated hugely with gamers, was well supported by developers, and was widely adopted and smartly implemented all around....whereas the WiiU tablet, though a very interesting idea that did have a bunch of untapped potential and a few clever implementations here and there never really resonated with the masses, and developers never really knew what to do with it, or cared to figure it out, plus it couldn't be decoupled from the system. So even though it did have amazing potential, and even though it had features that even the Switch doesn't have, it ultimately became this "Swiss Army Albatross" that dragged the WiiU into the bog.
Now, not having 3rd party games certainly didn't help matters, granted. But at most, it was the tertiary cause of the system's lack of true success (because it wasn't exactly a total failure either). Ho-Hum 1st party support paired with the un-unpairable dead weight were both larger factors.
Therefore, while we certainly DO WANT third party games on the Switch, and while the system will certainly be even better and even more successful with them than with without them.....not to mention even more enjoyable - and even more damning to the PS4 and XB1 who already seem kinda silly now when held against the flexibility of the Switch on the one hand, and the raw power of PC gaming on the other...
...but at the end of the day, do I think the Switch really NEEDS 3rd party games? So long as we have a compelling, resonant unique use case that is consumer and developer embraced, and as long as we have a steady stream of quality 1st and 2nd party Nintendo IPs, then I am forced to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not we truly NEED them is a resounding.......No. And we already have the first of those two necessary components clinched.
Therefore, so long as Nintendo keeps the hits coming, then the system will still be a soaring success and a total delight even if we never see a single major 3rd party blockbuster in its entire life. And please understand that my saying this is in no way any sort of indictment of the Switch, but rather, a declaration of complete faith in it that it's such an amazing system, and so close to invincivibility assuming the 1st party is strong that it can stay afloat even without 3rd parties...
...now that said?......BRING ON THE FLIPPIN' 3RD PARTIES!
Cheers!