I kind of can’t help but wonder what the battery life on a handheld with PS5 Pro specs would be - and how it’d keep cool. Either this thing will need to be liquid cooled (expensive) or it’s gonna be massive with a huge fan. Nintendo has been good about compromising some performance for battery life and/or heat mitigation, though even the Switch 1 had problems with the casing due to heat. I can’t see Sony doing the same on a supposed PS6 equivalent.
Sorry if I’m repeating anyone, I didn’t read every comment, but I would love to have a 3D World 2 announced - different enough from DK given it’s structured levels rather than a sandbox, yet still 3D Mario. Definitely not getting my hopes up though!
I'm a bit confused by people comparing this price to a PS5 Slim/Xbox Series S. I absolutely understand, if you are only going to play the Switch 2 docked, that it feels like it should be an apples-to-apples argument. However, it misses one point - the Switch 2 is like a PS5 Slim + the PS Portal (where the Portal can be taken outside and played without some kind of connection to the base PS5 unit). The Switch 2 is really two devices in one. To me, that justifies the $450 as it's a discount on the $600 required to get both PlayStation components (and Xbox doesn't have a handheld counterpart yet).
Obviously, things are tight all over the place, so any price markup over what we already have is going to sting. I just wanted to point out that the Switch 2 has more flexibility for the price than the competitors.
@FishyS Well said! As a software engineer myself (albeit in a different industry than games), I understand the desire to move towards a more continuous and reliable revenue model, but video games - really games - are not the same thing as movies and music. My consumption models for these are extremely different, and games - especially those that aren't story-driven affairs - are meant to be played again and again, with the goal being different outcomes. In this way, video games are closer in analogy to sports than to movies - the goal is still to "win", but the path for each player can involve different decisions and interim goals that mean certain parts of the experience differs wildly between those players.
Perhaps it is that upon reflection, rather than buy a game for $70, I'd be willing to pay $17 for a month to play one game to completion (considering it a long-term rental) ... but as someone who has been gaming for 40 years now and has kids and a job, I don't really have time to think through turning on/off subscriptions just to play one game, and I am happy to pay the $70 once so that I know I at least have a digital copy of the game whenever I want it.
A subscription service, to me, is the "buffet" model of dining - so much to consume, and a lot of it questionable - and I'm just not that hungry anymore for this kind of thing.
While I love Zelda, Goldeneye, and Fire Emblem (and am excited for all of them), I choose to view this Direct more as a curiosity than as a full schedule of future Nintendo projects.
Specifically, I find it very interesting that Nintendo mostly stuck to their description and showed games for the fall and winter months, with Zelda being the only game dated past March (at least, if memory serves). The May date is also interesting. When was the last time Zelda released in May?
I'm starting to wonder if we will hear in January, after the holiday season, about an upgraded Switch model that will go on sale in early May. The games I think a lot of us hoped we could see - Metroid (Prime Remake, Prime 4, ... something new), Mario, Donkey Kong - are all going to be released around or shortly after the time of the updated hardware.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it just feels like a very managed schedule to me.
@BlueOcean You know, that's a great point - remakes, or remasters, or (insert related term here) - this type of product really requires a talented firm to understand where the nostalgia lies and tap into that to be successful porting the software forward. I'm really thankful for shops like Grezzo, HAMSTER, ArtePiazza (I really loved the DQ remakes on the DS), as they clearly understand how to make something better while keeping true to the source.
I was thinking about this in the car earlier, actually, how much I'd love to play many of the legacy Zelda games with a fully-orchestrated soundtrack. I appreciate the originals to be sure, but I'm far less nostalgic for sound than I am for visuals. There are certain sounds (Mario's 1-Up from the original SMB) I'll never forget, but I suppose this is because the music has evolved over time with new entries in these classic franchises so I'm already used to hearing the same tune a number of different ways.
@BlueOcean I certainly understand wanting physical editions of very special games. I do miss my gold Zelda NES cart and a few others, and I don't fault anyone for being nostalgic enough to find value in keeping older copies of things. That does speak to continuing to have a world in which physical media plays a part if we're to carry these nostalgic feelings forward, but I still don't know that this makes sense. If you stop and think about young kids growing up in a subscription-based world, will they have nostalgia for something tangible or for the experience they had at one point earlier in their lives? I'd argue the latter.
In fact, I find myself feeling the same way. I miss Zelda 1 far more than I miss the cart, and the hardware, and the CRT TV, and the old RF switch. I find myself wanting access to the game I remember, even if it's a patched version of that same game that removed a glitch I used to exploit, and if I can get that as a subcription-based model at any point on any device, then so be it.
I feel the same way about small and/or digital-only titles I've downloaded rather than purchased on cartridge. I loved the experience I got from flower on the PS3. I don't need a physical copy of the game, but being able to have that experience again on the PS4 or some other device is sufficient for me.
But that's just me, and I hope for all of you that like the tangible ownership of games we can arrive at some solution that works for all as we move forward.
As a gamer since the mid-80s, while I have nostalgia for the old NES carts and boxes and such, I have absolutely no desire to hang on to physical media longer than necessary. I'm now 40 and much prefer less stuff in my home than more, and digital downloads has been a blessing that way.
However, I see two problems with this approach (and with digital content in general, not just games):
1. The size of the software being produced is not far off the edge of the size of the physical disks capable of storing them. Ownership in the digital world doesn't mean a whole lot when you either need (a) a multitude of SD/microSD cards, or (b) a network storage solution with a lot of disks, just to hold all your content. I'm a software developer by trade, and it's one reason why the cloud is so enticing to so many. Storage need not be on-site, and you can scale up/down your need easily. Providers will host thousands to millions of disks, and you can use what you need and can pay for. The problem? You're subleasing digital space from a potentially impermanent provider.
2. That leads right into the fact that licensing software doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Even if you had a physical copy of a game that you could install from disk, that disk might only work with game system X or operating system Y, and a new purchase or an "upgrade" is required to get your software working again. That's a part of life - you can't use a 120V hair dryer on a 240V outlet without a converter - but everything is about the point in time in which you experience something. That's not just money driving this boat (though it has its grubby hand on the wheel); it's the practical reality of life.
Personally, that leads me to prefer a subscription-based future where as many games as is possible are available for a monthly fee (provided it's something palatable). You separate your device from the licensing issues described above and simply have to worry about whether your device interfaces with the service. Plus, an account I can use on multiple devices so my kids can enjoy the same games is much better than having to buy three copies of MK8 to be used on three Switches. Even if I have to pay a little extra for multiple concurrent usages of something, it scales with my usage. The hope, of course, is that more software is available this way rather than just ten games at a time.
On the topic of preserving games - this makes sense to a degree, but everyone is going to have a strong feeling about the version they played. Now that there are smaller updates (dot releases and such) that simply fix bugs, preserving every version is both impractical and not valuable. Look at Star Wars - if you grew up with the original theater releases, the later Lucas edits may not sit well with you. If you grew up in the early 2000s and this was all you knew, those originals may be "missing something" to you. Who's right?
It would be nice if software was a guaranteed finished product, with clean expansion modules, and bug fixes weren't necessary, but the complexity of the coding involved and the difficulty of specifying sufficient use cases and testing those items, either programmatically or manually, means more issues are likely to slip through. We have a means to fix it, and we should.
I'm all for preserving games and providing access as broadly as possible (licensing issues aside); I just hate seeing people get hung up on versions. It may not be everyone's preference, but the logical answer to me is that we preserve the latest build as this was the developers' likely best version of the game they built (whether the parent company shut off funding or they simply moved on).
@DankeyKang89 - Thanks for sending the links! I'll give those a read.
I love the optimism here as well - you're absolutely right that, no matter what happens with Nintendo's hardware, they will always have their IPs to offer through software and other forms of entertainment. Personally, I'm very excited about the Universal deal! Probably more excited than a grown man should be about video game characters in an amusement park, but I'm OK with that.
@ballistic90 - I agree, RAM wouldn't appear to be a huge issue. The base (original) PS4, for example, seems to make about 4.5 GB of the 8 GB on-board available to devs. (I'm getting that from a quick scan on the internet, not first-hand). Having said that then, it's going to be the pure computational power of the CPU/GPU, which is where the Switch is behind the PS4/XBox ONE. Digital Foundry did some excellent analysis on this point back in October/November last year, shortly after the reveal of the Switch.
I do agree that developers are getting a lot more support from both Nintendo and nVidia - I've seen this mentioned in articles (some on this site, some elsewhere) and this was what I was alluding to in my original post. That's the big step forward this generation over the Wii/Wii U era. Unreal 4 and Unity being fully supported is huge for independent studios using the more commonly available tools, and with Nintendo and nVidia helping squash bugs and such this can only be viewed as a positive. Given more time, I think we'll see more support for additional engines, whether proprietary or otherwise ... so long as it makes sense for all parties to entertain those costs.
I hadn't seen the comment about the APIs being more intuitive, but that's really heartening. Thanks for passing that info along!
@DankeyKang89 - Thanks! I like the idea you're presenting here as well; I very much agree that Nintendo has set themselves up really well for a mobile-minded market, and for regular hardware updates and iterations. For example, a more powerful version of the Switch could be released such that someone upgrading need just purchase the screen+CPU is honestly brilliant. Similarly, different control options to the Joy-Con down the road being compatible with the physical Switch interface affords tremendous flexibility. It means the Switch isn't tied to a single form-factor (like a mobile phone or tablet) and doesn't require wholesale replacement (like a traditional console), keeping future costs down for those in the ecosystem.
If the article is available and you have a moment, would you mind sending a link? I'd love to read it if at all possible. Thanks again!
@AugustusOxy - I don't disagree with your points (though I would be careful about calling anyone lazy or half-assed). However, I think it's reasonable to take the perspective of an independent studio and understand their perceived challenges. Again, the way in which he presents his points is through griping and complaining, which undercuts him severely; that doesn't mean that, for a good swath of independent developers (though not all), Nintendo platforms don't represent a potentially difficult proposition. For third parties largely making PC or PC-like games - whether stuck in the 80s/90s or not - coming to Nintendo is business risk, and not everyone is going to have the appetite for it or handle it well.
I say this as a Nintendo fan since the 80s, and someone who very much wants to see this company succeed. I agree with your point about some devs really finding success with Nintendo (Yacht Club Games comes to mind), and it makes me both happy and hopeful that this trend continues ticking upward.
I absolutely agree it is reasonable to ask whether this was an appropriate game to port to Wii U, and that he blames Nintendo for its failure to really be a huge revenue generator for him is honestly just plain silly.
1. Given the PS4 and XBox ONE are pretty identical in terms of architecture, that Nintendo is "different" - and has been since the Wii, though PS3 and the 360 were not identical either - is a limiting factor. Basically, he can't build once and have it run everywhere. In fairness to Nintendo, they have attempted with the Switch to mitigate this factor greatly, but anyone with a custom engine (EA) or has a small studio not using a supported framework will incur costs in porting a game made for PC/PS4/XBox ONE to the Switch.
2. Nintendo "failing to promote non-Nintendo games" is an indicator of the cost of porting not being beneficial to some studios - including his own - relative to the earnings it could produce. Meaning, in his view, Nintendo should do more to defray costs through either larger marketing deals or helping studios out. However, I think this is mostly sour grapes as I don't see Sony or Microsoft promoting games they don't have a direct investment in either (whether first, second, or third party). The difference is that those platforms are so architecturally similar, and similar to the PC, that you get tremendous market exposure with three pretty similar builds. Nintendo being a different architecture - forget form-factor - means there is a non-zero cost serving as a barrier for entry.
I don't think his points are that far-fetched, but he delivered them in the most unflattering way possible. Personally, I think the Switch is and will continue to be a rousing success, as it's essentially the primary alternative to PC gaming at this point; in that respect, I disagree with his viewpoints. However, when viewed from the standpoint of someone running a software studio (or in charge of some portion of one), I can see why it presents a challenge, why Nintendo still has a long road ahead of them.
While I have confidence that Nintendo is going to avoid many of the mistakes made with the Wii U, I sincerely hope it is willing to part with some of it's "vast cash reserves" to get some third parties to bring games over to the Switch. I think it's a mistake to try and turn the switch into yet another PC clone for many AAA games, but I suspect if they are willing to pay up for EA to bring Madden, NHL, FIFA, etc. to the Switch, this will be a hot seller in the US this fall for parents (like myself) with younger kids. Which will bring still more games to the system. Don't kid yourselves - if the Switch has 10m consoles sold in the first year, a company like Square will find a way to port larger titles (like FF7 Remake) over to the Switch, even if it means a downgrade in graphics.
I think Nintendo is going a good path here with the Switch, with platformers, local/online multiplayer games, RPGs, and some larger titles like Zelda/Mario in the first year to lend some gravitas to the system. It's a comfortable niche that, while it likely won't be the 100m seller the Wii was, it should be a good enough spot that we don't see external support completely dry up.
I also think the decision to separate the various parts of the switch means we could get an updated core unit (screen + CPU/GPU) in 18 months without having to re-buy everything, which means upgrading can be far cheaper than shelling out for a Scorpio or the PS Pro.
So fingers crossed this works out for them ... and us.
Comments 15
Re: Rumour: Sony Is Gunning For The Switch 2 With A Handheld, Dockable PS6
I kind of can’t help but wonder what the battery life on a handheld with PS5 Pro specs would be - and how it’d keep cool. Either this thing will need to be liquid cooled (expensive) or it’s gonna be massive with a huge fan. Nintendo has been good about compromising some performance for battery life and/or heat mitigation, though even the Switch 1 had problems with the casing due to heat. I can’t see Sony doing the same on a supposed PS6 equivalent.
Re: Feature: What We Expect From Nintendo For Super Mario Bros.' 40th Anniversary
Sorry if I’m repeating anyone, I didn’t read every comment, but I would love to have a 3D World 2 announced - different enough from DK given it’s structured levels rather than a sandbox, yet still 3D Mario. Definitely not getting my hopes up though!
Re: Talking Point: How Does Switch 2's Launch Price Compare To Past Nintendo Systems?
I'm a bit confused by people comparing this price to a PS5 Slim/Xbox Series S. I absolutely understand, if you are only going to play the Switch 2 docked, that it feels like it should be an apples-to-apples argument. However, it misses one point - the Switch 2 is like a PS5 Slim + the PS Portal (where the Portal can be taken outside and played without some kind of connection to the base PS5 unit). The Switch 2 is really two devices in one. To me, that justifies the $450 as it's a discount on the $600 required to get both PlayStation components (and Xbox doesn't have a handheld counterpart yet).
Obviously, things are tight all over the place, so any price markup over what we already have is going to sting. I just wanted to point out that the Switch 2 has more flexibility for the price than the competitors.
Re: Players Need To Start "Feeling Comfortable" With Not Owning Games, Says Ubisoft Subs Boss
@FishyS Well said! As a software engineer myself (albeit in a different industry than games), I understand the desire to move towards a more continuous and reliable revenue model, but video games - really games - are not the same thing as movies and music. My consumption models for these are extremely different, and games - especially those that aren't story-driven affairs - are meant to be played again and again, with the goal being different outcomes. In this way, video games are closer in analogy to sports than to movies - the goal is still to "win", but the path for each player can involve different decisions and interim goals that mean certain parts of the experience differs wildly between those players.
Perhaps it is that upon reflection, rather than buy a game for $70, I'd be willing to pay $17 for a month to play one game to completion (considering it a long-term rental) ... but as someone who has been gaming for 40 years now and has kids and a job, I don't really have time to think through turning on/off subscriptions just to play one game, and I am happy to pay the $70 once so that I know I at least have a digital copy of the game whenever I want it.
A subscription service, to me, is the "buffet" model of dining - so much to consume, and a lot of it questionable - and I'm just not that hungry anymore for this kind of thing.
Re: Best Contra Games On Nintendo Systems
@Friscobay 100% - I gave the original NES Contra a 10/10. Absolutely one of the high points of my video gaming childhood!
Re: Talking Point: What Did You Think Of The September 2022 Nintendo Direct?
While I love Zelda, Goldeneye, and Fire Emblem (and am excited for all of them), I choose to view this Direct more as a curiosity than as a full schedule of future Nintendo projects.
Specifically, I find it very interesting that Nintendo mostly stuck to their description and showed games for the fall and winter months, with Zelda being the only game dated past March (at least, if memory serves). The May date is also interesting. When was the last time Zelda released in May?
I'm starting to wonder if we will hear in January, after the holiday season, about an upgraded Switch model that will go on sale in early May. The games I think a lot of us hoped we could see - Metroid (Prime Remake, Prime 4, ... something new), Mario, Donkey Kong - are all going to be released around or shortly after the time of the updated hardware.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it just feels like a very managed schedule to me.
Re: Soapbox: I'm Secretly Terrified Of An All-Digital Gaming Future
@BlueOcean You know, that's a great point - remakes, or remasters, or (insert related term here) - this type of product really requires a talented firm to understand where the nostalgia lies and tap into that to be successful porting the software forward. I'm really thankful for shops like Grezzo, HAMSTER, ArtePiazza (I really loved the DQ remakes on the DS), as they clearly understand how to make something better while keeping true to the source.
I was thinking about this in the car earlier, actually, how much I'd love to play many of the legacy Zelda games with a fully-orchestrated soundtrack. I appreciate the originals to be sure, but I'm far less nostalgic for sound than I am for visuals. There are certain sounds (Mario's 1-Up from the original SMB) I'll never forget, but I suppose this is because the music has evolved over time with new entries in these classic franchises so I'm already used to hearing the same tune a number of different ways.
Thanks for the replies, this was fun!
Re: Soapbox: I'm Secretly Terrified Of An All-Digital Gaming Future
@BlueOcean I certainly understand wanting physical editions of very special games. I do miss my gold Zelda NES cart and a few others, and I don't fault anyone for being nostalgic enough to find value in keeping older copies of things. That does speak to continuing to have a world in which physical media plays a part if we're to carry these nostalgic feelings forward, but I still don't know that this makes sense. If you stop and think about young kids growing up in a subscription-based world, will they have nostalgia for something tangible or for the experience they had at one point earlier in their lives? I'd argue the latter.
In fact, I find myself feeling the same way. I miss Zelda 1 far more than I miss the cart, and the hardware, and the CRT TV, and the old RF switch. I find myself wanting access to the game I remember, even if it's a patched version of that same game that removed a glitch I used to exploit, and if I can get that as a subcription-based model at any point on any device, then so be it.
I feel the same way about small and/or digital-only titles I've downloaded rather than purchased on cartridge. I loved the experience I got from flower on the PS3. I don't need a physical copy of the game, but being able to have that experience again on the PS4 or some other device is sufficient for me.
But that's just me, and I hope for all of you that like the tangible ownership of games we can arrive at some solution that works for all as we move forward.
Re: Soapbox: I'm Secretly Terrified Of An All-Digital Gaming Future
As a gamer since the mid-80s, while I have nostalgia for the old NES carts and boxes and such, I have absolutely no desire to hang on to physical media longer than necessary. I'm now 40 and much prefer less stuff in my home than more, and digital downloads has been a blessing that way.
However, I see two problems with this approach (and with digital content in general, not just games):
1. The size of the software being produced is not far off the edge of the size of the physical disks capable of storing them. Ownership in the digital world doesn't mean a whole lot when you either need (a) a multitude of SD/microSD cards, or (b) a network storage solution with a lot of disks, just to hold all your content. I'm a software developer by trade, and it's one reason why the cloud is so enticing to so many. Storage need not be on-site, and you can scale up/down your need easily. Providers will host thousands to millions of disks, and you can use what you need and can pay for. The problem? You're subleasing digital space from a potentially impermanent provider.
2. That leads right into the fact that licensing software doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Even if you had a physical copy of a game that you could install from disk, that disk might only work with game system X or operating system Y, and a new purchase or an "upgrade" is required to get your software working again. That's a part of life - you can't use a 120V hair dryer on a 240V outlet without a converter - but everything is about the point in time in which you experience something. That's not just money driving this boat (though it has its grubby hand on the wheel); it's the practical reality of life.
Personally, that leads me to prefer a subscription-based future where as many games as is possible are available for a monthly fee (provided it's something palatable). You separate your device from the licensing issues described above and simply have to worry about whether your device interfaces with the service. Plus, an account I can use on multiple devices so my kids can enjoy the same games is much better than having to buy three copies of MK8 to be used on three Switches. Even if I have to pay a little extra for multiple concurrent usages of something, it scales with my usage. The hope, of course, is that more software is available this way rather than just ten games at a time.
On the topic of preserving games - this makes sense to a degree, but everyone is going to have a strong feeling about the version they played. Now that there are smaller updates (dot releases and such) that simply fix bugs, preserving every version is both impractical and not valuable. Look at Star Wars - if you grew up with the original theater releases, the later Lucas edits may not sit well with you. If you grew up in the early 2000s and this was all you knew, those originals may be "missing something" to you. Who's right?
It would be nice if software was a guaranteed finished product, with clean expansion modules, and bug fixes weren't necessary, but the complexity of the coding involved and the difficulty of specifying sufficient use cases and testing those items, either programmatically or manually, means more issues are likely to slip through. We have a means to fix it, and we should.
I'm all for preserving games and providing access as broadly as possible (licensing issues aside); I just hate seeing people get hung up on versions. It may not be everyone's preference, but the logical answer to me is that we preserve the latest build as this was the developers' likely best version of the game they built (whether the parent company shut off funding or they simply moved on).
Re: Oddworld Creator Lorne Lanning "Has No Faith" In Switch
@DankeyKang89 - Thanks for sending the links! I'll give those a read.
I love the optimism here as well - you're absolutely right that, no matter what happens with Nintendo's hardware, they will always have their IPs to offer through software and other forms of entertainment. Personally, I'm very excited about the Universal deal! Probably more excited than a grown man should be about video game characters in an amusement park, but I'm OK with that.
Re: Oddworld Creator Lorne Lanning "Has No Faith" In Switch
@ballistic90 - I agree, RAM wouldn't appear to be a huge issue. The base (original) PS4, for example, seems to make about 4.5 GB of the 8 GB on-board available to devs. (I'm getting that from a quick scan on the internet, not first-hand). Having said that then, it's going to be the pure computational power of the CPU/GPU, which is where the Switch is behind the PS4/XBox ONE. Digital Foundry did some excellent analysis on this point back in October/November last year, shortly after the reveal of the Switch.
I do agree that developers are getting a lot more support from both Nintendo and nVidia - I've seen this mentioned in articles (some on this site, some elsewhere) and this was what I was alluding to in my original post. That's the big step forward this generation over the Wii/Wii U era. Unreal 4 and Unity being fully supported is huge for independent studios using the more commonly available tools, and with Nintendo and nVidia helping squash bugs and such this can only be viewed as a positive. Given more time, I think we'll see more support for additional engines, whether proprietary or otherwise ... so long as it makes sense for all parties to entertain those costs.
I hadn't seen the comment about the APIs being more intuitive, but that's really heartening. Thanks for passing that info along!
Re: Oddworld Creator Lorne Lanning "Has No Faith" In Switch
@DankeyKang89 - Thanks! I like the idea you're presenting here as well; I very much agree that Nintendo has set themselves up really well for a mobile-minded market, and for regular hardware updates and iterations. For example, a more powerful version of the Switch could be released such that someone upgrading need just purchase the screen+CPU is honestly brilliant. Similarly, different control options to the Joy-Con down the road being compatible with the physical Switch interface affords tremendous flexibility. It means the Switch isn't tied to a single form-factor (like a mobile phone or tablet) and doesn't require wholesale replacement (like a traditional console), keeping future costs down for those in the ecosystem.
If the article is available and you have a moment, would you mind sending a link? I'd love to read it if at all possible. Thanks again!
Re: Oddworld Creator Lorne Lanning "Has No Faith" In Switch
@AugustusOxy - I don't disagree with your points (though I would be careful about calling anyone lazy or half-assed). However, I think it's reasonable to take the perspective of an independent studio and understand their perceived challenges. Again, the way in which he presents his points is through griping and complaining, which undercuts him severely; that doesn't mean that, for a good swath of independent developers (though not all), Nintendo platforms don't represent a potentially difficult proposition. For third parties largely making PC or PC-like games - whether stuck in the 80s/90s or not - coming to Nintendo is business risk, and not everyone is going to have the appetite for it or handle it well.
I say this as a Nintendo fan since the 80s, and someone who very much wants to see this company succeed. I agree with your point about some devs really finding success with Nintendo (Yacht Club Games comes to mind), and it makes me both happy and hopeful that this trend continues ticking upward.
I absolutely agree it is reasonable to ask whether this was an appropriate game to port to Wii U, and that he blames Nintendo for its failure to really be a huge revenue generator for him is honestly just plain silly.
Re: Oddworld Creator Lorne Lanning "Has No Faith" In Switch
I take his comments to mean two things:
1. Given the PS4 and XBox ONE are pretty identical in terms of architecture, that Nintendo is "different" - and has been since the Wii, though PS3 and the 360 were not identical either - is a limiting factor. Basically, he can't build once and have it run everywhere. In fairness to Nintendo, they have attempted with the Switch to mitigate this factor greatly, but anyone with a custom engine (EA) or has a small studio not using a supported framework will incur costs in porting a game made for PC/PS4/XBox ONE to the Switch.
2. Nintendo "failing to promote non-Nintendo games" is an indicator of the cost of porting not being beneficial to some studios - including his own - relative to the earnings it could produce. Meaning, in his view, Nintendo should do more to defray costs through either larger marketing deals or helping studios out. However, I think this is mostly sour grapes as I don't see Sony or Microsoft promoting games they don't have a direct investment in either (whether first, second, or third party). The difference is that those platforms are so architecturally similar, and similar to the PC, that you get tremendous market exposure with three pretty similar builds. Nintendo being a different architecture - forget form-factor - means there is a non-zero cost serving as a barrier for entry.
I don't think his points are that far-fetched, but he delivered them in the most unflattering way possible. Personally, I think the Switch is and will continue to be a rousing success, as it's essentially the primary alternative to PC gaming at this point; in that respect, I disagree with his viewpoints. However, when viewed from the standpoint of someone running a software studio (or in charge of some portion of one), I can see why it presents a challenge, why Nintendo still has a long road ahead of them.
Re: Soapbox: It's Nintendo's Job To Make Switch A Success, Not EA's, Ubisoft's Or Capcom's
While I have confidence that Nintendo is going to avoid many of the mistakes made with the Wii U, I sincerely hope it is willing to part with some of it's "vast cash reserves" to get some third parties to bring games over to the Switch. I think it's a mistake to try and turn the switch into yet another PC clone for many AAA games, but I suspect if they are willing to pay up for EA to bring Madden, NHL, FIFA, etc. to the Switch, this will be a hot seller in the US this fall for parents (like myself) with younger kids. Which will bring still more games to the system. Don't kid yourselves - if the Switch has 10m consoles sold in the first year, a company like Square will find a way to port larger titles (like FF7 Remake) over to the Switch, even if it means a downgrade in graphics.
I think Nintendo is going a good path here with the Switch, with platformers, local/online multiplayer games, RPGs, and some larger titles like Zelda/Mario in the first year to lend some gravitas to the system. It's a comfortable niche that, while it likely won't be the 100m seller the Wii was, it should be a good enough spot that we don't see external support completely dry up.
I also think the decision to separate the various parts of the switch means we could get an updated core unit (screen + CPU/GPU) in 18 months without having to re-buy everything, which means upgrading can be far cheaper than shelling out for a Scorpio or the PS Pro.
So fingers crossed this works out for them ... and us.