Goodbye NX, hello Switch

[cmdrdredd]

I've said before that I've never seen anyone with a 3DS outside their house, certainly not in their pocket either. They have a phone, what need for another device on the go? I see very little issue with that.

 

[zerocool84]

I've said before that I've never seen anyone with a 3DS outside their house, certainly not in their pocket either. They have a phone, what need for another device on the go? I see very little issue with that.

That and there's no way this thing will have good battery life either. It's "portable" but no one would truly take it places they'd take a 3DS let alone phone.

 

[purbeast0]

On Friday I was talking about the Switch with some buddies that I do an old school game night with every few months. I was talking about how if I got one I'd never use the portability functionality at all since I don't care about that stuff. 2 of them mentioned that they would definitely use it and bring it with them to work daily and in some down time play it. They currently do that with the DS/PSP and really liked the fact that the same game they could play at home on their 70" TV would be the same game they could continue to play at work.

So while a lot of us don't care about that part of it, there are clearly some people out there that do.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's even more reason for me to believe the size is not much of a factor for portability if people are already saying they will use it that way.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I would. I've tried phone gaming and just can't get into it. I want buttons and controls. I take my 3DS with me when I travel....but I will admit, I feel weird playing games on it in public at my age. I think it comes with a 'for kids' stigma.

 

[Red Hawk]

I've said before that I've never seen anyone with a 3DS outside their house, certainly not in their pocket either. They have a phone, what need for another device on the go? I see very little issue with that.

That and there's no way this thing will have good battery life either. It's "portable" but no one would truly take it places they'd take a 3DS let alone phone.

I'm going to be starting a job soon where I'll be riding a train for an hour for over an hour in each direction. I'll definitely get plenty of mileage out of a Switch by playing it on the train, almost literally.

I would. I've tried phone gaming and just can't get into it. I want buttons and controls. I take my 3DS with me when I travel....but I will admit, I feel weird playing games on it in public at my age. I think it comes with a 'for kids' stigma.

I get that feeling. It does feel that the 3DS is a bit "toyish", and it stands out thanks to the clamshell design and how colorful it tends to be. The Switch looks like a slicker, less conspicuous device than the 3DS though -- I'd imagine that weird feeling would be mitigated when playing it as opposed to the 3DS.

 

[Red Hawk]

Reggie Fils-Aime showed off the Switch on the Tonight Show last night, with gameplay footage from Breath of the Wild running on the Switch!!

Looking pretty sweet to me. The first half of the video is playing Super Mario Run, second half is the Switch reveal.

 

[Lil Frier]

I think it's a great idea, I just don't know how I'll feel about the reality. The little core for making a controller looks really cramped, might be unpleasant. That, and as someone who doesn't care about Zelda in the least, I'm wondering what I'll get to play of interest, especially at launch. I'm not going to replace my Wii U with a Switch just to play Mario Kart 8 and Smash on a different piece of hardware.

 

[zerocool84]

Well now we know that the Switch won't be that powerful at all as it is using the Tegra X1 not the X2 and that when portable it downclocks the CPU by 40% and that it's up to the developer to upclock it to the higher clock when docked so we aren't guaranteed those higher clocks at all. So that means getting ports of any popular games from PS4/Xbone is highly unlikely over the course of the console. Pretty much expect only first party titles to take advantage of the system yet again. It's looking to be the same 3rd party situation they've been in, either getting highly dumbed down ports or none at all. They are relegating the Switch to be a second choice console just like the WiiU was. Why are they ok with second place?


This article is a good read on the Switch.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis

Recently, Venturebeat essentially reconfirmed a Digital Foundry report from July, revealing that Nintendo Switch is based on Nvidia's Tegra X1, featuring a GPU based on second generation Maxwell technology. For those hoping for Xbox One power in a portable, it was a blow. Uncertainty remains on how Nintendo has customised the X1 processor, but we can go one step further today in revealing how the power of the console adjusts as Switch transitions from home console into a full portable

 

[cmdrdredd]

The real question is why are they ok with 3rd place. They aren't going to be taking any customers away from the xb1 or PS4 who both have outsold the wiiU in a shorter time span.

The biggest problem for me is downclocking by 40% and then not getting that extra power when docked as a guarantee. That's terrible.

 

[Tweak155]

In the undocked mode, is it still as fast or faster than the Wii U? I thought the graphics were fine on that, I don't need the latest and greatest... just smooth and fun.

 

[KentState]

In the undocked mode, is it still as fast or faster than the Wii U? I thought the graphics were fine on that, I don't need the latest and greatest... just smooth and fun.

Looks like 360 gigaflops for the Wii U vs 400 for the switch in portable mode. With rumors of the Wii U version of Zelda being cancelled it begs to question the Switch having a bright future. You may end up paying 250+ for a Zelda and Mario game. Not enough horsepower to provide a well diverse offering of games.

 

[Tweak155]

Looks like 360 gigaflops for the Wii U vs 400 for the switch in portable mode. With rumors of the Wii U version of Zelda being cancelled it begs to question the Switch having a bright future. You may end up paying 250+ for a Zelda and Mario game. Not enough horsepower to provide a well diverse offering of games.

Yeah when put that way, it's kind of concerning. How can Switch run it but not Wii U? Makes no sense... resolution requirements maybe?

 

[ecosse_011172]

Looks like 360 gigaflops for the Wii U vs 400 for the switch in portable mode. With rumors of the Wii U version of Zelda being cancelled it begs to question the Switch having a bright future. You may end up paying 250+ for a Zelda and Mario game. Not enough horsepower to provide a well diverse offering of games.

Wii U = 176 GFLOPS, before we even take into account the huge advances in the architecture differences nor AMD FLOPs vs Nvidia.
In portable mode Switch is definitely more powerful than WiiU and docked probably 3-4x.
I've no idea whatsoever how the horsepower will somehow limit the diverse range of games.

 

[KentState]

Wii U = 176 GFLOPS, before we even take into account the huge advances in the architecture differences nor AMD FLOPs vs Nvidia.
In portable mode Switch is definitely more powerful than WiiU and docked probably 3-4x.

Seems that there are two numbers being thrown around for Wii U. I got my number from https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1903/wii-u-gpu.

I've no idea whatsoever how the horsepower will somehow limit the diverse range of games.

Very simple. Nintendo is limited to first party games which come out at a snails pace and zero AAA third party titles. Having just a Zelda and Mario at launch will not provide long term revenue which hit the Wii U hard.

 

[RussianSensation]

Wii U = 176 GFLOPS, before we even take into account the huge advances in the architecture differences nor AMD FLOPs vs Nvidia.
In portable mode Switch is definitely more powerful than WiiU and docked probably 3-4x.
I've no idea whatsoever how the horsepower will somehow limit the diverse range of games.

176Gflops number keeps being thrown around but the specs are 352Tflops:

RV770 = 320 stream processors x 550mhz x 2 ops/cycle = 352Tflops

I realize VLIW-5 is not comparable to Maxwel, but the Switch's rumoured specs are downright pathetic. 256 Maxwell cores @ 307-768mhz with a measly 16 ROPs, 16 TMUs and memory clocked at 1333-1600mhz, implying 21.3-25.6GB/sec.

Considering even NV Shield Android TV struggled to hit 1080p 30 fps in modern games with a 2Ghz ARM and 1Ghz Tegra X1, we should expect most Switch games to run at 504-720p 30-60fps. This is OK for a handheld but for a 2017 home console that will cost $200-300 (once the price of a 64-128GB SDXC card and Pro controller are added), a complete fail.

All the mistakes of the Wii and Wii U are being repeated again. Nintendo should just market it as a handheld with HDTV out and save themselves the embarrassment of calling it a next gen home console.

 

[zerocool84]

Seems that there are two numbers being thrown around for Wii U. I got my number from https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1903/wii-u-gpu.



Very simple. Nintendo is limited to first party games which come out at a snails pace and zero AAA third party titles. Having just a Zelda and Mario at launch will not provide long term revenue which hit the Wii U hard.

Yup, they aren't going to port the most popular 3rd party games yet again so Nintendo is seemingly happy with being second choice yet again. Sorry but you aren't going to get games like Battlefield 1, Titanfall, Dishonored, the list goes on. Basically the huge third party games that everyone talks about.

I'm a huge Zelda and and yes I will buy the Switch solely because of Zelda but this huge disparity in power doesn't look good for third party ports at all.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yup, they aren't going to port the most popular 3rd party games yet again so Nintendo is seemingly happy with being second choice yet again. Sorry but you aren't going to get games like Battlefield 1, Titanfall, Dishonored, the list goes on. Basically the huge third party games that everyone talks about.

I'm a huge Zelda and and yes I will buy the Switch solely because of Zelda but this huge disparity in power doesn't look good for third party ports at all.

If the consumer pays $250 for a console with the intention of only buying Nintendo's exclusive titles, how many worthwhile games would that be over 4 years? Maybe 6? 1-2 Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, 1-2 Mario games? $250+$60x6 = $610/6 exclusive games works out to more than $100 per game. A lot of people on our forum don't represent the console market consumer accurately. We have PC users with $500-700 graphics cards complaining that a $400 PS4 Pro is too weak for 4K, we have users who own all the consoles. Most consumers just want 1 console that does it all. Even if Nintendo's 1st party titles are great, who wants to miss out on Japanese RPGs, FPS games, racing games, 3rd person action adventure games, large open world RPGs, indie games? Looking at statistics of Millenials, a lot of us are either single, dating and not married or divorced. A significant portion of 18-35-year-old gamers don't need a console that their kids can enjoy (ie, this requirement isn't her applicable). This is another reason why having a solid 3rd party library is pretty important. Just looking at the Wii U, gimped specs and lack of 3rd party games were largely responsible for its early downfall.

Nintendo is just playing it safe. They think hmmm... "as long as we make money on each console sold and each game sold, even if we sell 20-30M, we are good for another generation."

SNES was one of the best systems and it launched roughly 2 years after the Genesis in North America iirc. Here we have a Nintendo "home" console launching 3.5 years after XB1/PS4, that costs no less, and is weaker than both.

If PS4 was a Nintendo console and Sony released the Switch 3.5 years later, the entire console market would be stunned and the console would instant fail. But because it's Nintendo, generation after generation excuses are made for them.

The NV Android Shield TV was $199 with a controller almost 2 years relative to the launch of the Switch. This console should cost $149-199 because it's even weaker than the Shield Android TV and the tech inside is 2 years old.

 

[ecosse_011172]

176Gflops number keeps being thrown around but the specs are 352Tflops:

RV770 = 320 stream processors x 550mhz x 2 ops/cycle = 352Tflops

I realize VLIW-5 is not comparable to Maxwel, but the Switch's rumoured specs are downright pathetic. 256 Maxwell cores @ 307-768mhz with a measly 16 ROPs, 16 TMUs and memory clocked at 1333-1600mhz, implying 21.3-25.6GB/sec.

Considering even NV Shield Android TV struggled to hit 1080p 30 fps in modern games with a 2Ghz ARM and 1Ghz Tegra X1, we should expect most Switch games to run at 504-720p 30-60fps. This is OK for a handheld but for a 2017 home console that will cost $200-300 (once the price of a 64-128GB SDXC card and Pro controller are added), a complete fail.

All the mistakes of the Wii and Wii U are being repeated again. Nintendo should just market it as a handheld with HDTV out and save themselves the embarrassment of calling it a next gen home console.

Wii U GPU isn't an RV770, it's based on it but hugely cut down, only has 160 Stream Processors.
It's not calling it a next gen home console, it's a hybrid, with a hybrid either battery life of power has to be sacrificed.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it were more powerful, but I don't think it's that bad as a hybrid.

 

[purbeast0]

If the consumer pays $250 for a console with the intention of only buying Nintendo's exclusive titles, how many worthwhile games would that be over 4 years? Maybe 6? 1-2 Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, 1-2 Mario games?

You are giving Nintendo WWWWAAAAAYYYYY too much credit. No chance they would put 6 quality titles in 4 years at the pace they move. Maybe 4 if they are up to snuff.

And not a chance in 2 Zelda titles, those seem to take them about a decade each. It's like the Gran Turismo of Nintendo.

 

[Tweak155]

They seem to alternate Zelda releases between 3DS and console, so yeah they don't come out all that often on just 1 platform.

 

[JujuFish]

You are giving Nintendo WWWWAAAAAYYYYY too much credit. No chance they would put 6 quality titles in 4 years at the pace they move. Maybe 4 if they are up to snuff.

I think you're ignoring the portable side of things. As Nintendo's only console going forward, that would mean in addition to their home console stuff, they're getting Pokemon games, Fire Emblem games, Mario & Luigi games, Phoenix Wright games, Professor Layton games, Etrian Odyssey games, Shin Megami Tensei games, and Dragon Quest games, as well as others I'm sure.

 

[zerocool84]

I think you're ignoring the portable side of things. As Nintendo's only console going forward, that would mean in addition to their home console stuff, they're getting Pokemon games, Fire Emblem games, Mario & Luigi games, Phoenix Wright games, Professor Layton games, Etrian Odyssey games, Shin Megami Tensei games, and Dragon Quest games, as well as others I'm sure.

We have no idea if it's Nintendo's only console going forward. The install base for the 3DS is HUGE and they'd be dumb to stop supporting it right.

 

[JujuFish]

We have no idea if it's Nintendo's only console going forward. The install base for the 3DS is HUGE and they'd be dumb to stop supporting it right.

Sure. What you'll likely see is the the major portable games come out on both platforms for a while. Pokemon and Dragon Quest XI, for example, are reported to be coming to the Switch.

 

[Lil Frier]

Yeah, 6 games in 4 years? I can't say that's what my Wii U got me. I mean, yeah, there are people who like a lot more Nintendo stuff for me. However, I beat New Super Mario Bros. U, played a lot of Kart and Smash, and that's basically it. Woolly World is nice, but got played just a few times. Didn't care for Donkey Kong, and Mario Party and Tennis were both outright bad. 3D World was OK, but we played it once. So, 3 games got heavily played on my Wii U, I think.