Slitth

1. Make the classic games a separate service.
2. Start adding all Nintendo games that you cannot currently buy on an active e-store
3. Add the gaming service to DS and Wii.
Now you have a earning money on people that just want to keep the Wii or DS, with still having an incentive to buy a switch.

Now the real way to earn money with advertising for the switch and new games.
Put the classic games service on other platforms, while settling controllers.
Like PC and mobile.
I do not think it would be hard to Nintendo to make a "Razer Kishi" like controller, perhaps one with a extra screen on it so you can put new DS games on the service.

Think of it like a gateway product.

@mazzel
More about power in this case.
Of the $0.99 that Epic gets from going around Apple/Google.
Some of that goes to some kind of payment provider.

After all each and every transaction cost a company money one way or another

@Octane
Epic is known for playing the "its for the players best" card.
I know not trust Epic because I well aware of their business practice.

I will not side with anyone on this case.
Nor would I recommend that anyone pick sides.
This not a matter of option, but of law.

In the worst case scenario people will take Epic side and Apple/Google will bend the knee.

@mazzel
It all depends on the amount of money flowing through the payment system and how its distributed.
Epic has a history of challenge this so it more in their favour.
They did this with Steam and when they could not get their way they started to paint Steam as a bad guy and open up a competing platform.

They are doing the same here.
Epic will lose to Google because it a more open system.
Buy Apple might lose because their system is much more closed off.

Now if the public is with Epic and the lawsuit would cost to much in the long run, Apple and Google might settle and simply drop earning money of Epic games.
But Apple and Google will be vulnerable to similar lawsuits.

On the other hand, Epic might win their right to open up stores on Apple and Google products. And that might even be worse for them.
As it open up for other companies to open up their own stores also.

This could affect other platforms like consoles.

@Caryslan
If you are talking about the copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES.
Then no, this is not the same.
As that was more about copyright infringement.

This is based on Supreme Court says Apple will have to face App Store monopoly lawsuits.

This is something Epic can win, because they can claim that Apple is holding an illegal monopoly.

I think that Epic will win this.
Not that I am a big fan of Epic winning this as it might lead the Epic store popping up on mobile devices.
Because if Epic win they can sell stuff to people through a game/program without Apple having a say.
Perhaps they can even sell DLCs to games without Apple having a say.
Perhaps Epic can put the Epic Game store up as a free program for Iphones and sell games without Apple having a say.
Because if you are force to buy it though the Apple store the players have to give Apple 30% and nice old Epic only want 80% of what you are paying now.

Oh and nice old Epic has some games that you only can get on the Epic Store.
They might have be free on the Apple store, but now Epic bought them so you have to give Epic your data so you can play them for free.

And because this worked on Apple it also gonna work on Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft.

But Epic know that games will love this because players only see that nice 20% discount. Because Epic don't have to give company X a share.

I think that they could be judged differently.
Steamers and content creators should be punished harder.
Because they as a role models are in a position of trust

Well at least is a proof of concept.
It could be useful if Nintendo decides to make a Switch without a screen.
Then you just need to show that you can run a console on a power-bank and you can make any console portable.

Not that there will be a marked for that.
There's probably a bigger market for a cheap Switch with out screen and battery for use as a more classic console.
You can even make a M64 game card for Switch and sell it with use a cheap Switch console and call it the retro console or something.
After all you can get access to the NES and SNES games too.

The only problem I have with Nintendo Switch Online is that is cannot function as a stand-alone product.
They could have chosen to make this the retro games service on all active Nintendo products (Maybe even other platforms). But they didn't.
No they chose to use it as a added value for the pay to play online service.
So what happens with the service when Nintendo moves on?
It will die like the old stores on Wii and Wii U.
So by the time the added a good SNES and newer games. The service will probably die.

I wonder if they will make a TV only version to.
I was really surprised that they Lite can be connected to a TV

@Agramonte
The 2DS was made cheaper because they drop the clam design.
This allowed a bigger motherboard and one screen to be mounted, and this lowered the price without drop in quality.

The Switch design makes this much harder to do.
You would need to drop the quality of some of the parts or drop some of the function to make it cheaper.
And I do not think that the removable joycons would be enough.
Add the fact that this drop this function would make some games unplayable without buying extra joycons and you have a small problem.

Improving the production line for the current Switch and removing the unneeded extra equipment would be a better way to make a cheap alternative

@Agramonte Yes, you can cut down the number of molds you would need, but you would also have to retool the production line.
And the molds and production line that handle Joycons will still be running

And it all depends on what strategy Nintendo will choose.
They can of course stop the production on the current Switch and go with a Pro and Mini.
Or will they go with a Pro and the current Switch. (My bet)
Or will the go with a Pro, current and cheap versions.

To be honest I do not see a place for the "mini" Switch because it would not be cheap enough to compete with a current Switch sold without a dock.
It might even have to compete with a current Switch sold without a dock and Joycon if we are talking selling to people that already have one Switch at home.

@Agramonte I do not think that there will be a big price drop by putting the guts of a Switch in a mini shell.
It would be more likely that the Switch "Pro" would be the new main version and the we would just see a price drop in the current Switch.

The real question would be is it the games on the Switch, the price or the hand-held feature that would be the selling point for the people how has not bought a Switch or is looking for a 2nd console.

If the handheld function is value less than a low price and/or the game that you can get.
Then a cheap "classic" version would be able to sell without competing with current Switch and a Pro version.
You could even put is a NES shell and say that is a way to play the retro NES games

@Balta666 Depends on the price.
If the cheap version was half price that a normal Switch, then yes.
And that would not be an unreasonable price drop.

With no dock, no screen and no battery.
The production cost would be far cheaper.
I bet that you could take a current Switch and make it run in a dock without the screen and battery installed

Smaller does not equal cheaper.
That why I do not think that we see a Mini Switch.
There is no marked for a smaller Switch with less function that a current Switch.

Now taking a current Switch and making it smaller would not only be determined by the controllers and the screen.
But also the motherboard and the battery.

You also have to think about the cost of running a new production line for a Mini Switch.
Having smaller hardware that differs from a Switch or Switch Pro would mane that you are dedicating money to parts and production that cannot be used on another production line.

I think it would be far easier for Nintendo to make a more "Classic" console for the cheap end of the marked.
In short a Switch or Switch Pro motherboard in a shell.
The cost of buying it would be cheaper because you are not paying for the screen and battery, but you lose the ability to game on the move.

Still a cheap "Classic" console model would be a good buy if you just and that 2nd console for home use only

I do not think there will be a "cheap" mini.
The Pro might be this size, but have the same size screen as the current Switch. (Will still have detachable controllers of course)

I think the "cheap" version with just be the Pro motherboard but in a durable case that can only be used on a TV + power source.
Durable enough to carry over to you friends in a hurry but no play on the go.

From a production perspective this will make sense because you only have to produce one motherboard and the choose if that board will be put in a "Cheap" or a Pro
And if the "Cheap" do not sell you can recall them an turn them in to a Pro

@Yorumi While I expect the worst from Epic right now.
I still think we need to see them do something bad with Rocket League before we start complaining.
I do not think they will take away copies from players that already got the game.
They will probably just keep new skins as Epic store only.
I will only complain about this if the force the game only to launch through the Epic platform, that will be the worse they can do.

@BensonUii
That will depend on how Epic will handle the Steam copies that are already sold.
And if the games will require the Epic launcher to play.

All in all this is just a business deal, it's the aftermath that will determine the feedback from the users.

It will not really compete with the Switch as it a mobil device that is not internet dependent.
And if you add the the fact the number of exclusive games that Nintendo has.
No threat.

It could compete with Xbox and Playstation if it has the game library and it really works well.
But to be honest, Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo as always battle with the games on the platform and not the console.

And then we have the PC gaming, a platform that has competition within it self. Origin vs Steam. Blizzard doing is own stuff.
Not to mention all the others.

No. Google will not threaten PC gaming for some time.

But what if Google didn't want to compete in these ways?
Maybe we will start to see games that are bought on Origin, Steam and the like start of have a "Stadia supported" just like we get PC, Mac and SteamOS support if we buy a game on steam?

Now game developers would really love that as they can sell directly on the own storefront, instead of sharing with the different platforms.

And players would feel safe, because they would have a "classic" gaming option if Stadia did not works. As you still we have the PC, Steam... whatever platform to play on this way

I could se this as a replacement for hardware, but I would still expect Steam, Origin and the like selling the games you play.
Just with the install be om the google instead of the harddrive

For some reason I could see this becoming a battle of the "streaming" services.
Xbox Live vs PlayStation Now vs Nintendo Switch Online.

The battle of Nostalgia is going cross platform.

(And getting us use to streaming gaming while doing it)

Looks like a trailer of a trailer.
If you take away the logo and the brief mention of Doomslayer, I would not be able to say what the movie was about.
I wouldn't even be able to say how the main character is.

Hmm, if you made the contorler part so it fits most phones
And then have some company like Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony made a app that could steam classic games that can support this controller
Then you could have a nice cheap portable "classic system" that could earn nice bit of subscription money

In the end it all come down to if Nintendo wants to marked the Switch Lite current users.
If they do, then the Lite has to be able to play the physical copies one way or another.
Now if Nintendo started a aggressive campaign to make more people get digital copies, then a pure digital version might happen

@SwitchForce
I did when I was younger.
Even manage to kill two PS2.
The CD drive gave up on me.
And it the battery that kill the safe function on my Pokemon red/blue

@Grumblevolcano
Big microSD cards are expensive now, but microSD readers are not.
Having 4 or more card readers on the Switch would not cost much.
I think you can get a USB2 microSD cards reader for about 2 $

@SwitchForce
True, but my Pokemon red and blue can no longer save.
And things are no long made to last in the same way, they more or less have a expiration date built in.
Companies knows that is better business to make stuff that wear out a few years after the warranty expires, than making stuff that last.

@ClassSonicSatAm
Piracy will only lead in 2 directions.
1 more security message like account lock games or always online.
2 the death of the game company that makes the games you like.

@cacnea310
True, but Nintendo want us to buy the games again in 20 years.
And there is no guarantee that the physical copies will last that long anyway

@cacnea310
The big HDs that would be needed for a digital only Switch will be too expensive to be worth the trouble for Nintendo.
But you might see the consoles just be an "external" storage device and the user rights lock to your account

I do not think we will see the Switch Lite go digital only.
But we might start to see games that will be account locked.
So the games card will just be storage media and you will need to have the game on your Nintendo account to play it.
This will force players to buy the games from Nintendo and the partners are buying pre owned will not longer be possible.
And where will still be need for some form of physical media to give use a way to do quick installs.
Mostly to be sure that you do not exclude customer that may have slow internet.

Then again they could put a game card reader on the Switch lite dock and allow the Switch Lite to store 1 to 5 game copied from game cards

@BumpkinRich
I do not think the internet is ready for streaming just yet.
I have seen players complain about digital only consoles because it would take the forever to download a game.

Still it would be wise to get ready for it by getting cross systems game stores/subscription in place.
It would also make a company more secure if a console flops

@Marios-love-child
I love the Nintendo games I have too.
But right now I can get more more quality gaming time for the 299.00 Dollars for PC games than buying a Switch.

But that decision that neither right or wrong as we all have a own sets of criteria when judging a game.

And there is no denying there are some really good games on the Switch.

@Marios-love-child
Getting a Switch primarily for playing Switch games is common sense.

But that also make the Switch only worth the games that are no it.

From a cost benefit point of view a Switch console done not add any benefit to my current game library.
So I have to start a new game library from scratch.
That in and of itself it self is not a bad thing, but that means that each time I look at the Switch I have to think it that one game worth the price of the Switch and the game?
And how does this compared to other games where I already own the system.

The same goes for the ports.
If I already own the game on one system, does the conveniently of owning a extra copy match the price?

And when we look at other media I often get extra service.
My Blu-ray player still plays DVDs
My Steam game comes with a PC and Mac version when available.

Not that is matter much, the Switch sales numbers show that players prefer gaming in the now, instead of looking back.
And it makes sense for Nintendo to follow that trend.

@Marios-love-child
The Game Boy series has Backward support.
True its not across the full series.
And most systems has a shift in game card/CD
Digital does not have the same problem as its just user rights stored on a username. The only limit is if the program can run on the system

@Marios-love-child
Well done ports can be good for business and keeping games alive.

But I still think its bad when a company do not offer some kind of backward support when possible.
Sure you can use a Wii U CD on a Switch, but the digital copies could get some support.

Unless there is at least a good 90% discount to digital Wii U owners I would see this as bad deal,

I had all the Nintendo systems before the Switch
I got the Wii U because of it backwards support.
I am skipping the Switch because of 0% backwards support.

There is no doubt that Switch is a good system, but they 0% backward support broke my trust in Nintendo.
I hope the next system will regain my trust

Think that real card games have become to limited.
Both in what you can sell to the people and what it can offer.
PC, mobile and console games are a fare easier way now to get the product out to the consumer.
And a digital card can do something a real card cannot, it can evolve and change.
Imagine a Pikachu card where you can permanently change move-set, just because you played enough official battles with it.

I have played 0 games on the Switch.
The closest I got was BotW on my Wii U that I bought digitally.
I have decided not to get the Switch because I do not like the lack of backward compatibility the Switch has on it digital games.

Still think that is a good console

@AlexSora89
I was thinking about Nintendo getting more user for the same development cost.
If Nintendo works on a separate Classic Console that has a fix game setup it will have only so much sales value.
If they make another way to get the cheap Nintendo Switch Online console all the game development cost will be divided over all users.
I believe that is more profit in releasing games on the Nintendo Switch Online service that selling as a stand alone game.

Let say for the argument that Nintendo Online has 6 million users.
If half of the monthly income pays for the online service cost (likely as most games offer this as a free service), then the 3 million of the users are paying for the games.
If Nintendo releases 3 "new" games each month, that would be that same as if each game sold 1 million copies at a pieces of 1,5 dollars per copy.
That (in theory) 1,5 million dollars for a old NES or SNES game.

@BanjoPickles
Or double the users.

@AlexSora89
Instead of a retro console they could just make a cheap Nintendo Switch Online and release more game the online service and that will do.

Diddy Kong Racing Deluxe

Would it not be better to put the games part of Nintendo Online on mobile devices.
More games for a monthly fee instead of one game with one time price + micro transactions

It a bit too slow moving for my taste even if the SNES are coming out now.
This service may only last the Switch lifetime. So they have to speed things up if we are gonna have access to classic game for a reasonable amount of time.

I would be fare more positive if the Online class games library was a separate project that would run beyond the Switch and across all future Nintendo platforms

Hmmm, If we take a Switch Lite and give it the option to mount a exta screen on the top when you have new 3DS.
Then extra screen will be of course be sold separately.
Perhaps as a main screen protection cover

Maybe they will make a new DS series that is close to the Switch.
In short a Switch that playes DS, 2DS and 3DS games only

With the pressure of the marked it would be better for the users if there was one console type that has a store/app from each of the big companies. (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft)

So they do not want to sell anymore classic consoles.
No problem, just put the game collections on a Switch game card and move on.

Its because Nintendo want to legally make clear that the e-store on the Switch is a separate entity from the Wii U and 3DS stores.

Yes, it a strange move from Nintendo, but the brand of the digital stores is not that important.
But preventing legal action because the current branding signals a kind of unity accorse the concoels is.

I alway find it funny that the retro consoles do not have some kind of game card slot or e-store that allow for more purchases.

The PlayStation Classic could just have be a nice platform for the PlayStation Now.