Goodbye NX, hello Switch

[RussianSensation]

I will pick up Mario Kart and whichever of the two F Zero/Wipeout clones is better and that will get me to Mario (or at least Splatoon 2).

Redout is available on the PC though.

$55 CAD on the Switch vs. $39 on the PC (and it's already been as cheap as $29 on the PC).

The more I think about it the more I think the switch is the best possible console.

I bought a PS4 on release primarily to serve as a bluray player + netflix amazon etc. At the time I also thought I might buy some games on it, but here we are so many years later and I haven't bought a single game. In every case where I was seriously considering a game I realized I could play the same or similar game on my PC at better resolution better fps and better controls. Steam sales and such made the games a lot cheaper on PC as well. I don't think the situation would be much different with an xbox either.

Then clearly you bought PS4 for the wrong reasons. No offence, but the issue with Nintendo corporation, Nintendo fans/loyalists and PC gamers or multiple console owners who buy a Nintendo console as a 2nd system is that actual real world facts tell a completely different story.

"Sony has revealed that the number of games the average person buys for their PS4 is more than any other console in history. PS4 has a better software attach rate than PS2 and Wii. Analyst Daniel Ahmad confirms the rate as 7.51 games per console, which is higher than both the PlayStation 2 and Wii at the same point in their life cycle. The PlayStation 2 is the best-selling console of all time and had a 6.2 attach rate when its sales hit 50 million. The Wii is the third best-selling (just behind the PlayStation 1) and was on 7.1 when it hit the same milestone."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/24/ps4-has-a-better-software-attach-rate-than-ps2-and-wii-6402140/

PS4 is absolutely crushing it, and the irony is that there is nothing amazing about the PS4. Nintendo could have been part of that market if they released a traditional $399 x86 APU console in 2013, instead of releasing the underpowered Wii U in 2012.

I already mentioned this point when people who are PC+Nintendo gamers keep bringing up the point that there is nothing on PS4 they find worth buying -- well if you bought the PS4 and don't care for multi-player games with friends/sports games with friends or PS4 exclusives, congratulations -- you just wasted your $ since almost all 3rd party exclusives are superior on the PC. It's amazing to read how someone bought a PS4 but it's been collecting dust (for some reason) and this gamer like you has no games for it. Then why did you buy the console if it wasn't about the games? It doesn't even have a 4K BluRay capability....making it a mediocre media device. XB1S is better for that. This is why I waited almost 3 years to buy a PS4 since its 1st party exclusives I wanted took a while to release and drop in price.

I purchased my PS4 Slim on December 12, 2016 but I already have purchased:

• God of War III Remastered (I never owned a PS3)
• Bloodborne (will never come to the PC)
• Ratchet & Clank (will never come to the PC)
• Borderlands The Handsome Collection (awesome to play with friends), also price was cheaper than the PC version at any point in history of PC Steam, etc. sales
• MGS V: The Phantom Pain (price was way cheaper than the PC version at any point in history of PC Steam, etc. sales)
• Uncharted 4 (came with the console)
• Uncharted The Collection (never owned a PS3)
• Until Dawn (will never come to the PC)
• Killzone Shadow Fall (will never come to the PC)

That's 9 games already in just 1 month of ownership and I already have a 9 games attach rate. All those games combined cost me just ~$80 because they are no longer considered "new" and are on heavy discounts. In contrast to that, Nintendo's games launch at $60 and drop to $40 in maybe 2 years and to $20 in 5 years.

That doesn't include all the PS4 (console exclusive) titles I am looking forward to in 2017 and beyond: Gravity Rush 1&2, Days Gone, Gran Turismo Sport, The Last of Us Remastered, Death Stranding, God of War, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last Guardian, Tekken 7 & Mortal Kombat XL (fighting games are DOA on the PC), Yakuza 0, Nioh, Detroit Become Human, Crash Bandicoot Trilogy (never owned PS1 or PS2), Nier: Automata, Infamous First Light & Second Son, Heavy Rain & Beyond Two Souls, Journey, Uncharted 4: The Lost Legacy, The Last of Us 2, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Spider-Man, etc. That doesn't include all the amazing Japanese RPGs and indie titles.

I am thinking to myself, I have to spend $300 on the Switch, $70 on the controller and $140 on Zelda BOTW and Mario Odyssey. Maybe Xenoblade 2 might be worth buying. With 2 games I am interested in, it works out to $510 USD. Even if I remove the controller, I am at $440 USD or $220 per game!!! What an horrendous "return on investment". Why would I spend $440-510 on such a console to play just 2-3 games when I can take that $440-510 and all those PS4 games? Fact is, there are A LOT more console/PC gamers like me than like yourself -- the proof is in the horrendous sales of the Wii U, and terrible sales of the GameCube.

When looking at the Wii library, just a brief glance at the top rated games, I'd only want Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Okami, Xenoblade Chronicles and Metroid Prime Trilogy, Skyward Sword and Donkey Kong Country Return. That's barely 7 titles. On the Wii U, I'd want the Wind Waker HD, Twilight Princess HD, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Mario 3DWorld, Super Mario Bros U + Luigi U and Bayonetta 2. That's just 6 games. The kicker is that the Galaxy games require a Wii Mote, so add more cost. In the last 2 Nintendo generations, they managed to released less than 10 games per each console generation that I'd consider buying the console for.

The switch, on the other hand, gives me options I don't have with my PC. I can't take my PC in the car or on the metro. Even laptop gaming is not viable in those situations because a mouse doesn't work very well on the go, but the attached joycons will be fine. As well, the games I want to play the most are going to be switch exclusives. There won't be any question about buying them on PC or switch, because most of them won't ever exist for PC.

That's great, and the other gamers who want just 1 primary console will continue purchasing PS4/XB consoles, expanding their userbase well beyond 100M consoles while Nintendo throws in the towel completely.

Here is what some of you still don't seem to understand: Nintendo is replacing 2 different consoles with just 1 console. You know what that means? That means if the Switch sells just 20-30M units, it's a gigantic failure. Why is that? It's because that's only the amount of home consoles N64/GameCube sold without Nintendo's portable line-up. Most of the $ is in software sales, which means if the Switch only sells 20-40 million units in 5 years, Nintendo's total addressable install base has just shrunk dramatically since the old days of DS/3DS/New 3DS + N64/GameCube/Wii/Wii U. For Nintendo to be able to claim that the Switch is successful, they'd need to sell well over 75-80M units since they are replacing 2 different console product lines.

It's pretty clear Nintendo is in panic mode because the price of accessories is so outrageous. They don't believe the console will sell anywhere near 75-80M units in 5 years which is why they are pricing the hardware and accessories sky high to make up the lost profits due to the shrinking install base of gamers who are interested in their console.

And price... I just don't get what the issue is. Switch is the first console in ages that actually comes with two usable controllers. Even today, years after release, if you want a second controller with your PS4 total is going to be more expensive than the switch. And if you want portability, add $200 for a vita. The switch pricing is fine for what it is.

The Switch is primarily a home console and is marketed as such by Nintendo themselves. For traditional home gamers, the portability value is 0. It's Nintendo's choice to allocate resources/manufacturing costs on the portability aspect of the console that a lot of us don't want and don't need. While you are getting a $300 portable and a home console in 1, I am getting a $370 underpowered home console when my PS4 Slim with Uncharted 4 cost me $210.

By trying to make a console that's both a portable and a home console, Nintendo isn't going to make an amazing portable nor an amazing home console because each of these designs have conflicting objectives when it comes to perf/watt and power requirements (battery life vs. docked).

MatPat of the Youtube channel "The Game Theorists" had an interesting interview/debate with Reggie Fils-Aime about whether or not Nintendo should stay in the console market. It's interesting because it's actually a Nintendo executive making a direct argument for Nintendo staying in the hardware business, rather than fanboys arguing on Nintendo's behalf, and MatPat does raise some fairly tough questions regarding Nintendo's sales and stock value as of late. Worth a watch.

Yup, a lot of solid points. The lack of x86 architecture and underpowered specs matter for 3rd party support. Without Rare, N64 would have been a shell of a console. To this day, people argue what's better, Diddy Kong Racing vs. Mario Kart 64 or Super Mario 64 vs. Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie. It's always better to have quality 3rd party titles on your console and the Switch is starting off on the wrong foot. There are a lot of console gamers who don't own a gaming PC and don't have any intention of purchasing one. We are already seeing that for all of 2017, Nintendo will have just 2 strong 1st party IPs: Zelda BoTW and Mario Odyssey (sure add Mario Kart 8 Deluxe if you want). That's appealing to the most hardcore 3DS/New3DS and Nintendo loyalists/fans, but not much to anyone else. Very few people will buy a $300 console for just 1-2 games knowing the 3rd party support is practically non-existent.

Another point is, when I am buying my PS4 games, I am fairly confident I'll be able to carry the entire library to PS5 since PS5 should also be x86 (8 core Ryzen and Vega/Navi). That means PS4 right now is just a "rental" box. Once PS5 comes out, I'll just trade it in or sell it and buy a PS5 and take my entire PS4 library with me. What happens to Wii/Wii U games? Ya, those are useless, meaning I have to shell out $200 or so for Wii U console just to enjoy 14-15 games that took Nintendo 10 years+ to release.

And here is the problem for the Switch: Why should I buy one now when I can just buy the Switch 2 or improved Switch and have those 6-8 Nintendo games that for sure will take Nintendo 3-4 years to release given their track record with 1st party titles during Wii and Wii U generations.

Without an extensive 3rd party support, after the first 10-15M Switch sales, the real test starts.

And for those of you who want Japanese games, the PS4 already trounces the Switch like no one's business since there are a lot of Japanese games on the PS4 already, without needing to wait for them on the Switch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ14weBz3N8

Nintendo's problem and the fans defending is they are still living in a closed box, instead of thinking, hmmmm...how can we attract more younger gamers with this console? Or what new games can we release that appeal to 17-30 year olds. It seems the target market for the Switch are <13 year olds and >30 year olds who have young kids, and are just justifying buying that console for themselves + kids. If you are in that position that you need to keep kids busy while you enjoy Nintendo's 1st party IPs, the Switch is a great deal. However, looking the sales of the Wii U and New 3DS, this target market is nowhere near as strong as it used to be during the N64/GameCube + DS/3DS eras.

The more expensive to manufacture cartridges and their inherent space limitations will ensure that the Switch will have a hard time gaining sufficient 3rd party support. For $40 Nintendo could have included a BluRay player inside the dock to allow traditional home console gamers to get 3rd party titles like Borderlands, Doom, COD, etc. Better yet, if Nintendo claims that it's easy to port x86 games to ARM+NV GPU, they should have just released the Switch alongside a separate $400 home console and have developer makes games for both consoles (i.e., The Switch would have 720/1080p 30 fps games, while the home console would have 1080p 60Hz -> 4K 30Hz games). Games nowadays scale very well with more powerful hardware. As a result, there wouldn't have been much disadvantage for Nintendo to have a home console + portable (that can connect to a TV) console combo.

If Nintendo is smart, they would realize that a lot of gamers who owned NES/SNES/N64 skipped GameCube, Wii and Wii U and never had a chance to play their 1st party exclusive titles. I am very disappointed with the Switch's 2017 line-up but if I could buy those 13-15 Wii/Wii U games I mentioned and be able to play them on the Switch, I'd buy the Switch right away. Is it going to be possible to play these games on Virtual Console at least, and then carry them over to the Switch 2? If so, I'd actually strongly consider the Switch because then I'd save myself the $200 from not buying a used Wii U. This is also why remasters have a place in the marketplace. A lot of gamers skip console generations but still want to play some of those older gem titles.

===

Looks like the Switch's battery will take 3 hours to charge while in sleep mode. The only way to replace the battery would be via Nintendo service.
http://twinfinite.net/2017/01/ninte...n-be-replaced-for-a-price/?utm_source=dlvr.it

 

[poofyhairguy]

MatPat of the Youtube channel "The Game Theorists" had an interesting interview/debate with Reggie Fils-Aime about whether or not Nintendo should stay in the console market. It's interesting because it's actually a Nintendo executive making a direct argument for Nintendo staying in the hardware business, rather than fanboys arguing on Nintendo's behalf, and MatPat does raise some fairly tough questions regarding Nintendo's sales and stock value as of late. Worth a watch.

Yeah I think that was interesting. Reggie was at a disadvantage because as a corporate guy he couldn't give real counterpoints (like the counterpoint that Super Mario Run was basically a flop), but I feel like he did a good job defending his position. The most interesting part is when he basically said Nintendo stays in the hardware market because no one else in the hardware market caters to young children. Shows you how far gaming has come since the NES days when everything was for children, but I don't think Nintendo stays in that segment out of the goodness of their hearts. They are just very conservative and it is all they know.

Redout is available on the PC though.

$55 CAD on the Switch vs. $39 on the PC (and it's already been as cheap as $29 on the PC).

Amazon has the Switch version on sale already for pre-order, and with the Prime discount it is about $30 US. I think I will get Fast RMX for the Switch, that one looks more like F Zero and will be less than $30 digitally. I will probably get Redout for my PC in a Steam sale. Frankly the graphics for Fast RMX are the best I have seen for the Switch, it looks like they really used every fancy library Nvidia gave Nintendo (I have seen a lot of those same effects on Tegra devices).

Here is what some of you still don't seem to understand: Nintendo is replacing 2 different consoles with just 1 console. You know what that means? That means if the Switch sells just 20-30M units, it's a gigantic failure. Why is that? It's because that's only the amount of home consoles N64/GameCube sold without Nintendo's portable line-up. Most of the $ is in software sales, which means if the Switch only sells 20-40 million units in 5 years, Nintendo's total addressable install base has just shrunk dramatically since the old days of DS/3DS/New 3DS + N64/GameCube/Wii/Wii U. For Nintendo to be able to claim that the Switch is successful, they'd need to sell well over 75-80M units since they are replacing 2 different console product lines.

I get your logic but I don't completely agree with it. Markets change, and a 3DS released today wouldn't do as well as the 3DS did when it was released. Hell its a miracle the 3DS did so well going against mobile devices like iPhones and iPads, it really shows the power of the third party developers that develop for the 3DS (Pokemon, Monster Hunter). I think if the Switch could duplicate the 3DS's success in the more competitive market of 2017 it will be considered a success by Nintendo. Hell, thanks to the Wii U failure Nintendo is basically getting out of the home market if we are being realistic about it- the Wii U was probably the last real Nintendo home console.

I expect the Switch to do much better than the Wii U or maybe even the 3DS. According to polls it is already a marketing hit in Japan:

https://mynintendonews.com/2017/01/...r-10-of-japan-plans-to-buy-a-nintendo-switch/

By trying to make a console that's both a portable and a home console, Nintendo isn't going to make an amazing portable nor an amazing home console because each of these designs have conflicting objectives when it comes to perf/watt and power requirements (battery life vs. docked).

The Switch looks like the best portable ever to me. Better hardware and a better screen than the Vita, backed by the company that made the best games for the 3DS. What was sacrificed to get there is the home console market, even if Nintendo won't admit that. Someone could get a Switch, sell the dock for $50-60 and have the best portable ever for $250 which is close to what the 3DS and Vita originally cost. I think if you want a portable gaming machine the Switch is a must-have. The battery life is in line with the original 3DS and Vita, so no sacrifices there.

The only real issue is the price is too much for parents to buy one for each kid like they did with the 3DS, but I think some parents will already see the Switch as a deal at $300 as is. Instead of having to buy a $300 PS4 for home (and games for it) and another $150 for a 3DS for the kid to play in the car on the way to soccer practice (plus games for it), a parent can just buy one Switch and one set of games and the kid is occupied in the car and in the home. The kid forced to have just a Switch might complain that the Switch doesn't play some mature AAA title the PS4 does play, but I have to figure there are some parents out there that DON'T want their kids to have access to Grand Theft Murder or Soldier Simulator 14 or whatever other mature games the other consoles depend on for sales. We have all been that kid that got socks for Christmas instead of Mortal Kombat, parents make decisions that are the best from their perspective not what the kid thinks is the coolest toy to impress their friends.

We are already seeing that for all of 2017, Nintendo will have just 2 strong 1st party IPs: Zelda BoTW and Mario Odyssey (sure add Mario Kart 8 Deluxe if you want).

I really don't think that point is fair. Splatoon 2 is a sequel to their best new IP in over a decade it has to count. Plus I think even though gamers want to discount ARMs everyone who has played it says it is a great game. I will admit though even 4 or 5 first party games isn't enough to carry the Switch deep into 2018. I hope at E3 Nintendo announces some more titles for 2018 that are quality.

Another point is, when I am buying my PS4 games, I am fairly confident I'll be able to carry the entire library to PS5 since PS5 should also be x86 (8 core Ryzen and Vega/Navi). That means PS4 right now is just a "rental" box. Once PS5 comes out, I'll just trade it in or sell it and buy a PS5 and take my entire PS4 library with me. What happens to Wii/Wii U games? Ya, those are useless, meaning I have to shell out $200 or so for Wii U console just to enjoy 14-15 games that took Nintendo 10 years+ to release.

I think that is the exact reason for the longterm partnership with Nvidia. I expect a backwards compatible Switch Pro one day, and I expect that Switch Pro will play every game the Switch can play. Nintendo was already doing that with the Wii U (can play Wii games) and the 3DS (can play DS games), but the Switch is them hitting the reset switch for their platforms for next ten years.

If Nintendo is smart, they would realize that a lot of gamers who owned NES/SNES/N64 skipped GameCube, Wii and Wii U and never had a chance to play their 1st party exclusive titles. I am very disappointed with the Switch's 2017 line-up but if I could buy those 13-15 Wii/Wii U games I mentioned and be able to play them on the Switch, I'd buy the Switch right away. Is it going to be possible to play these games on Virtual Console at least, and then carry them over to the Switch 2? If so, I'd actually strongly consider the Switch because then I'd save myself the $200 from not buying a used Wii U. This is also why remasters have a place in the marketplace. A lot of gamers skip console generations but still want to play some of those older gem titles.

I agree 100% with that. Even though it screws over Wii U owners, I think Nintendo is smart to release all these Wii U ports for the Switch and I think they should try to port every Wii and Wii U game that can help sell current games (like for example a VC Xenoblade 1 so people who missed that can play it before Xenoblade 2). If Nintendo is going to be a "second console" they need to be the best second console they can be and leverage everything they can going back to the N64 era when more people payed attention to them. Every single Wii U owner I know IRL is getting a Switch anyway to get the best version of Zelda/Mario Kart/etc. so there probably isn't a lot of harm in scorching that earth. Heck if they wanted to they could placate almost every Wii U owner tomorrow by letting them know their VC purchases will transfer to the Switch. I just don't think their VC setup (or their online setup) is fully baked for the Switch yet, and that makes me more nervous than anything else.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I really don't think that point is fair. Splatoon 2 is a sequel to their best new IP in over a decade it has to count. Plus I think even though gamers want to discount ARMs everyone who has played it says it is a great game. I will admit though even 4 or 5 first party games isn't enough to carry the Switch deep into 2018. I hope at E3 Nintendo announces some more titles for 2018 that are quality.

I think the problem for Splatoon is that people bought it because there was literally nothing else coming out and the system was starved for games that could be played online. Once it launched it sold well but it took nearly 9 months to sell 4million. Compare that with games that sell that many in a week on other platforms with established online communities and services. I also think a great number of buyers didn't like that Nintendo decided that it's fan base was too immature to be able to have voice chat which is just idiotic. So I'm not sure a sequel will see the same success at all. It could, but I doubt it.

 

[zerocool84]

I have yet to see one commercial for the Switch on TV yet. Hopefully they have something going on the Superbowl. Come on Nintendo, it's basically a month from release. How is the average person supposed to know that's it's even coming out?

 

[Chiropteran]

Redout is available on the PC though.

$55 CAD on the Switch vs. $39 on the PC (and it's already been as cheap as $29 on the PC).



Then clearly you bought PS4 for the wrong reasons. No offence, but the issue with Nintendo corporation, Nintendo fans/loyalists and PC gamers or multiple console owners who buy a Nintendo console as a 2nd system is that actual real world facts tell a completely different story.

"Sony has revealed that the number of games the average person buys for their PS4 is more than any other console in history. PS4 has a better software attach rate than PS2 and Wii. Analyst Daniel Ahmad confirms the rate as 7.51 games per console, which is higher than both the PlayStation 2 and Wii at the same point in their life cycle. The PlayStation 2 is the best-selling console of all time and had a 6.2 attach rate when its sales hit 50 million. The Wii is the third best-selling (just behind the PlayStation 1) and was on 7.1 when it hit the same milestone."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/24/ps4-has-a-better-software-attach-rate-than-ps2-and-wii-6402140/

PS4 is absolutely crushing it, and the irony is that there is nothing amazing about the PS4. Nintendo could have been part of that market if they released a traditional $399 x86 APU console in 2013, instead of releasing the underpowered Wii U in 2012.

I already mentioned this point when people who are PC+Nintendo gamers keep bringing up the point that there is nothing on PS4 they find worth buying -- well if you bought the PS4 and don't care for multi-player games with friends/sports games with friends or PS4 exclusives, congratulations -- you just wasted your $ since almost all 3rd party exclusives are superior on the PC. It's amazing to read how someone bought a PS4 but it's been collecting dust (for some reason) and this gamer like you has no games for it. Then why did you buy the console if it wasn't about the games? It doesn't even have a 4K BluRay capability....making it a mediocre media device. XB1S is better for that. This is why I waited almost 3 years to buy a PS4 since its 1st party exclusives I wanted took a while to release and drop in price.

I purchased my PS4 Slim on December 12, 2016 but I already have purchased:

• God of War III Remastered (I never owned a PS3)
• Bloodborne (will never come to the PC)
• Ratchet & Clank (will never come to the PC)
• Borderlands The Handsome Collection (awesome to play with friends), also price was cheaper than the PC version at any point in history of PC Steam, etc. sales
• MGS V: The Phantom Pain (price was way cheaper than the PC version at any point in history of PC Steam, etc. sales)
• Uncharted 4 (came with the console)
• Uncharted The Collection (never owned a PS3)
• Until Dawn (will never come to the PC)
• Killzone Shadow Fall (will never come to the PC)

That's 9 games already in just 1 month of ownership and I already have a 9 games attach rate. All those games combined cost me just ~$80 because they are no longer considered "new" and are on heavy discounts. In contrast to that, Nintendo's games launch at $60 and drop to $40 in maybe 2 years and to $20 in 5 years.

That doesn't include all the PS4 (console exclusive) titles I am looking forward to in 2017 and beyond: Gravity Rush 1&2, Days Gone, Gran Turismo Sport, The Last of Us Remastered, Death Stranding, God of War, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Last Guardian, Tekken 7 & Mortal Kombat XL (fighting games are DOA on the PC), Yakuza 0, Nioh, Detroit Become Human, Crash Bandicoot Trilogy (never owned PS1 or PS2), Nier: Automata, Infamous First Light & Second Son, Heavy Rain & Beyond Two Souls, Journey, Uncharted 4: The Lost Legacy, The Last of Us 2, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Spider-Man, etc. That doesn't include all the amazing Japanese RPGs and indie titles.

Not sure your argument supports itself as you intended. On one hand you mention how the PS4 buyers buy 7.5 games each on average, cool, that sounds great for Sony. Then you point out that you bought 9 games for $80 total. So, hmm. Is Sony actually doing things right, or are they just giving the games away for free to make for nice looking statistics? Based on your numbers, if nintendo can sell 1-2 games to each switch buyer, they will be doing better than Sony (since 2 Nintendo games are going to cost more than $80).

Personally, I get my fill of cheap discount games from Steam. It's amazing how many games I have and how I'll never have time to play them all. In a console, I'm looking for games I really want to play, not games that are just a "good value" or really cheap $/hr.

I am thinking to myself, I have to spend $300 on the Switch, $70 on the controller and $140 on Zelda BOTW and Mario Odyssey. Maybe Xenoblade 2 might be worth buying. With 2 games I am interested in, it works out to $510 USD. Even if I remove the controller, I am at $440 USD or $220 per game!!! What an horrendous "return on investment". Why would I spend $440-510 on such a console to play just 2-3 games when I can take that $440-510 and all those PS4 games? Fact is, there are A LOT more console/PC gamers like me than like yourself -- the proof is in the horrendous sales of the Wii U, and terrible sales of the GameCube.

If the joycons are literally worthless to you, you can probably sell them for close to original value given the shortages. If you aren't selling them, then you need to account for that in your comparison- add the cost of PS4 motion controllers to your PS4. I'm still not sure how you came up with $510. $300 + $70 +$50 +$50 = $470. Sell the joycons and more like $400. Which interestingly enough is exactly the cost of a PS4 on release with ZERO games. You have a really high tax rate or shipping costs or something? I didn't see you adding tax and shipping when you were talking about the PS4, so what gives?

Here is what some of you still don't seem to understand: Nintendo is replacing 2 different consoles with just 1 console. You know what that means? That means if the Switch sells just 20-30M units, it's a gigantic failure. Why is that? It's because that's only the amount of home consoles N64/GameCube sold without Nintendo's portable line-up. Most of the $ is in software sales, which means if the Switch only sells 20-40 million units in 5 years, Nintendo's total addressable install base has just shrunk dramatically since the old days of DS/3DS/New 3DS + N64/GameCube/Wii/Wii U. For Nintendo to be able to claim that the Switch is successful, they'd need to sell well over 75-80M units since they are replacing 2 different console product lines.

It's not that simple, you are making a lot of assumptions. What if people have a set level of disposable "video game" cash? Prior to switch, they might spend $300 on a wii u, $200 on a 3ds, and $200 on games. With switch, they spend $300 on switch and $400 on games, because they still have the same amount of cash available. If customers save money because they don't need to buy two sets of consoles, I think there is an excellent chance that money will be spent on additional games or accessories.

It's pretty clear Nintendo is in panic mode because the price of accessories is so outrageous. They don't believe the console will sell anywhere near 75-80M units in 5 years which is why they are pricing the hardware and accessories sky high to make up the lost profits due to the shrinking install base of gamers who are interested in their console.

Are they? Set of joycons is $80, PS4 motion controllers are $100. Pro controller is $70, equivalent Xbox controller is $65. There will be some gouging because of shortages and there won't be much selling below MSRP until it's been out for some time, but the pricing is perfectly in line with the competition.

The Switch is primarily a home console and is marketed as such by Nintendo themselves. For traditional home gamers, the portability value is 0. It's Nintendo's choice to allocate resources/manufacturing costs on the portability aspect of the console that a lot of us don't want and don't need. While you are getting a $300 portable and a home console in 1, I am getting a $370 underpowered home console when my PS4 Slim with Uncharted 4 cost me $210.

By trying to make a console that's both a portable and a home console, Nintendo isn't going to make an amazing portable nor an amazing home console because each of these designs have conflicting objectives when it comes to perf/watt and power requirements (battery life vs. docked).

No question that some sacrifices are made for portability. If portability is of no value to you, switch is probably a tough sell. But hey, even in that crazy case, you do have a free built in battery backup. Adding that to your PS4 would cost you money.

Yup, a lot of solid points. The lack of x86 architecture and underpowered specs matter for 3rd party support. Without Rare, N64 would have been a shell of a console. To this day, people argue what's better, Diddy Kong Racing vs. Mario Kart 64 or Super Mario 64 vs. Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie. It's always better to have quality 3rd party titles on your console and the Switch is starting off on the wrong foot. There are a lot of console gamers who don't own a gaming PC and don't have any intention of purchasing one. We are already seeing that for all of 2017, Nintendo will have just 2 strong 1st party IPs: Zelda BoTW and Mario Odyssey (sure add Mario Kart 8 Deluxe if you want). That's appealing to the most hardcore 3DS/New3DS and Nintendo loyalists/fans, but not much to anyone else. Very few people will buy a $300 console for just 1-2 games knowing the 3rd party support is practically non-existent.

The launch lineup isn't huge, I'll give you that, but talk about "just 1-2 games" is a bit absurd. There are literally a hundred games announced for switch. It might not have as many titles as the PS4 or Xbox, but it's a bit of an exaggeration when you say there are only a handful of games.

https://twitter.com/Dystify/status/826164933087920130

Another point is, when I am buying my PS4 games, I am fairly confident I'll be able to carry the entire library to PS5 since PS5 should also be x86 (8 core Ryzen and Vega/Navi). That means PS4 right now is just a "rental" box. Once PS5 comes out, I'll just trade it in or sell it and buy a PS5 and take my entire PS4 library with me. What happens to Wii/Wii U games? Ya, those are useless, meaning I have to shell out $200 or so for Wii U console just to enjoy 14-15 games that took Nintendo 10 years+ to release.

I agree, the Wii U was a dud. I am not buying one, I am not telling you to buy one. In fact I am one of the people saying don't buy wii-u zelda, because I don't see the point in investing further in a dead system.

That said, Nintendo may have some system in place to transfer your digital wii u games to the switch. At least, people hope. There was some cryptic quote from nintendo about how they are trying to get the technology in place.

And here is the problem for the Switch: Why should I buy one now when I can just buy the Switch 2 or improved Switch and have those 6-8 Nintendo games that for sure will take Nintendo 3-4 years to release given their track record with 1st party titles during Wii and Wii U generations.

As you said above, Nintendo doesn't discount their games much. Waiting a few years and buying them you might find they still cost the same amount. Besides, the same argument applies to literally every single piece of technology. Why buy your PS4 slim, knowing that a PS4 pro will probably be the same price or cheaper in a few years? Waiting will always save you money, that is nothing new.

The more expensive to manufacture cartridges and their inherent space limitations will ensure that the Switch will have a hard time gaining sufficient 3rd party support. For $40 Nintendo could have included a BluRay player inside the dock to allow traditional home console gamers to get 3rd party titles like Borderlands, Doom, COD, etc. Better yet, if Nintendo claims that it's easy to port x86 games to ARM+NV GPU, they should have just released the Switch alongside a separate $400 home console and have developer makes games for both consoles (i.e., The Switch would have 720/1080p 30 fps games, while the home console would have 1080p 60Hz -> 4K 30Hz games). Games nowadays scale very well with more powerful hardware. As a result, there wouldn't have been much disadvantage for Nintendo to have a home console + portable (that can connect to a TV) console combo.

I disagree. You can already buy a 256GB microsd. Cartridge size scales to much larger than blu-ray, in a smaller footprint. Costs will be minor by the time that much capacity is needed. For truly budget level games, where the couple dollars cost of the cartridge is a problem, they can be download exclusives.

I hate disc systems. Discs are too fragile with kids around, the drives fail, and they don't travel well.

If Nintendo is smart, they would realize that a lot of gamers who owned NES/SNES/N64 skipped GameCube, Wii and Wii U and never had a chance to play their 1st party exclusive titles. I am very disappointed with the Switch's 2017 line-up but if I could buy those 13-15 Wii/Wii U games I mentioned and be able to play them on the Switch, I'd buy the Switch right away. Is it going to be possible to play these games on Virtual Console at least, and then carry them over to the Switch 2? If so, I'd actually strongly consider the Switch because then I'd save myself the $200 from not buying a used Wii U. This is also why remasters have a place in the marketplace. A lot of gamers skip console generations but still want to play some of those older gem titles.

I hope so too. It seems like am obvious needed feature, but the radio silence does leave it up as a bit of an unknown.

Looks like the Switch's battery will take 3 hours to charge while in sleep mode. The only way to replace the battery would be via Nintendo service.
http://twinfinite.net/2017/01/ninte...n-be-replaced-for-a-price/?utm_source=dlvr.it

That might be annoying, but it's a standard USB C plug. Android phones, tablets, even some laptops are going in that direction, so finding a plug should be pretty easy. I think you could even use a power bank to extend your game time. Standardized connection is a big plus.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth+ is on sale on Amazon so I picked up a pre-order. I have never played the game before, but from videos it looks like a Link to the Past ripoff with sacrilegious stuff added. That sounds worth $32.

I also went to Gamestop today and preordered a physical copy of Has-Been-Heros. The treehouse video of it looked interesting, like if you mixed Plants vs Zombies with a JRPG. For $20 for a physical game I couldn't pass it up.

Also I have two pro-controller pre-orders but I don't know why. Reports of those who have played the Switch have said the Joycons plus dock are fine, and the Pro controller dpad (aka the reason to buy it) kinda sucks. Either I will cancel the pre-orders or keep them and be an evil scalper. I haven't decided yet.

Wal-Mart for some reason put the Switch and the joycons on sale yesterday. Some people had luck getting Bestbuy to pricematch the Switch price, I didn't even want to try. Some customer service person accidentally canceling my pre-order isn't worth $15. I did force them to price-match the joycons though, I wanted a set of blue ones eventually (before Mario Kart for sure) so I will take the deal.

Now I am stuck chosing what case to get. I want an "adult" case (aka none of the zelda ones), so I have narrowed it down to these four:

https://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-Swi...85902262&sr=8-1&keywords=nintendo+switch+case

https://www.amazon.com/Hyperkin-Har...85902262&sr=8-9&keywords=nintendo+switch+case

https://www.amazon.com/Industries-N...85902262&sr=8-6&keywords=nintendo+switch+case

https://www.amazon.com/Tough-Pouch-...5902262&sr=8-14&keywords=nintendo+switch+case

Leaning towards the Hori, but the RDS one looks very premium.

 

[nurturedhate]

Gamestop.com currently has pro controllers in stock as of 7pm est 01/31/2017.

 

[Sonikku]

Bah I'm going to sell my special edition zelda on ebay and hold off on the Switch. I just don't have the money.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Finally some good news from Nintendo. The online service will be $17.50 - $26.50. I predict $20 or $25 for the American market. I would pay that in a heartbeat even if I can't keep the games, that would only be $100 for four years.

 

[nurturedhate]

Finally some good news from Nintendo. The online service will be $17.50 - $26.50. I predict $20 or $25 for the American market. I would pay that in a heartbeat even if I can't keep the games, that would only be $100 for four years.

That's great news. Now I just have to wait til release day. Have my Switch and Zelda preordred at the local gamestop.Have my pro controller preordred online. Too bad I have a ski trip planned for 3/4-3/6. I also want to pick up super bomberman, not sure how I missed that being released on 3/03 as well.

 

[zerocool84]

Finally some good news from Nintendo. The online service will be $17.50 - $26.50. I predict $20 or $25 for the American market. I would pay that in a heartbeat even if I can't keep the games, that would only be $100 for four years.

The problem is that they confirmed that you have to use your smartphone for voice chat. Seriously, what the hell.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The problem is that they confirmed that you have to use your smartphone for voice chat. Seriously, what the hell.

I think part of the reason for a cheaper price is so people will have lower expectations. The smartphone voice chat is baked in the crust now, the Pro Controller and Joycons have no place for a headphone jack, and bluetooth headphones would probably have range issues. I just don't see them digging out of that hole.

What I see more people getting upset about is the voice chat can only talk to your friends (at least in Splatoon). Nintendo is really really paranoid about cursing 12 year olds.

 

[Ranulf]

The problem is that they confirmed that you have to use your smartphone for voice chat. Seriously, what the hell.

Saves on battery life and unit cost. The Switch connects through a tether right? Wifi only?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Saves on battery life and unit cost. The Switch connects through a tether right? Wifi only?

No, it isn't for tethering.

They will have an app that serves as the command center for Switch online gaming. Maybe. The details are still fuzzy because we don't know what is Splatoon 2 specific.

 

[Sonikku]

The problem is that they confirmed that you have to use your smartphone for voice chat. Seriously, what the hell.

As someone who has to deal with the Vizio Smart Cast app as they won't let you use a conventional remote to toggle brightness/contrast, I can tell you right now this is a bad idea.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I think part of the reason for a cheaper price is so people will have lower expectations. The smartphone voice chat is baked in the crust now, the Pro Controller and Joycons have no place for a headphone jack, and bluetooth headphones would probably have range issues. I just don't see them digging out of that hole.

What I see more people getting upset about is the voice chat can only talk to your friends (at least in Splatoon). Nintendo is really really paranoid about cursing 12 year olds.

And that is what will cost them yet again. The app will have to contend with a thousand different phones, on different revisions of android, with different specs. We already see tons of issues with apps not working across different devices and updates being necessary almost daily. The whole idea behind a closed ecosystem is everything works, their online system is a disaster before it even launches.

 

[zerocool84]

Nintendo could have outright copied PlayStation or Xbox for their online infrastructure and everyone would have been perfectly fine with that, finally bringing themselves into the new century, but for some reason they are giving us this abomination. Needing a phone/tablet to do any type of adding friends or chat with friends, only able to voice chat with friends, not having headphone jack built into the already expensive controllers, no bundling of a headset, come on Nintendo. It's not like this thing has mobile Internet, it has WiFi.

Kids that get this that want to play with their friends, parents are going to have to buy their children a phone or tablet just to be able to play with them.

 

[Sonikku]

I didn't have a smart phone until a year ago. And even then, the android 4.4.3 OS wouldn't work with a ton of apps. This is just going to be a nightmare for all involved. I can't believe after all this time Nintendo hasn't gotten serious about getting their shit together online.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I didn't have a smart phone until a year ago. And even then, the android 4.4.3 OS wouldn't work with a ton of apps. This is just going to be a nightmare for all involved. I can't believe after all this time Nintendo hasn't gotten serious about getting their shit together online.

This is what I was getting at. A lot of people have the free or $50 phones thrown in with most providers. These devices don't have the latest updates and often don't get updated at all. Then you have to figure the app will be using your data so unless you are on wifi all the time you will be eating your data up.

I also don't know how it will work with the audio side. I find it much better to have a headset that handles both voice and game audio but with this configuration you will be communicating through an earpiece or the cheap earbuds that came with the phone and the audio will be from the system's speakers or your tv/audio system. The problem with this is when you decide to do voice chat you can't wear headphones and hear game audio. So for someone who has to use a headset at night to not disturb the house or whatnot it presents a bit of a problem. How do you use headphones with the console and voice chat at the same time?

 

[purbeast0]

I think part of the reason for a cheaper price is so people will have lower expectations. The smartphone voice chat is baked in the crust now, the Pro Controller and Joycons have no place for a headphone jack, and bluetooth headphones would probably have range issues. I just don't see them digging out of that hole.

What I see more people getting upset about is the voice chat can only talk to your friends (at least in Splatoon). Nintendo is really really paranoid about cursing 12 year olds.

It's like $5 cheaper than XBL/PSN. If you are paying more than $30 for XBL or PSN for a year you're doing it wrong. I don't know how anyone could be willing to pay for an online service by Nintendo after using their previous/current gen online infrastructure. I guess it's good that it's free for a while first, so at least people can try it out without paying for it.

The fact that there is no voice chat on a pay service is laughable though. I mean I've been voice chatting in games for free since Action Quake in early 2000.

 

[JujuFish]

Finally some good news from Nintendo. The online service will be $17.50 - $26.50. I predict $20 or $25 for the American market. I would pay that in a heartbeat even if I can't keep the games, that would only be $100 for four years.

Depends on how you look at it. Personally, I see that as terrible news. Coming from the viewpoint of a PC gamer, paying for online service at all is a joke, let alone the craptastic service Nintendo seems to be offering.

 

[ViRGE]

Gamestop.com currently has pro controllers in stock as of 7pm est 01/31/2017.

Heck, it's more than a day later and it's still in stock. Given how quickly it went the first time, I'm incredibly shocked.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Depends on how you look at it. Personally, I see that as terrible news. Coming from the viewpoint of a PC gamer, paying for online service at all is a joke, let alone the craptastic service Nintendo seems to be offering.

There are benefits to XBL and PSN+ beyond online play. Multiple games per month to download for free, discounted games etc

 

[JujuFish]

There are benefits to XBL and PSN+ beyond online play. Multiple games per month to download for free, discounted games etc

Indeed, and I subscribed to PS+ on my PS3 for those reasons. However, when they announced the PS4 would require PS+ for online play, I didn't renew my subscription.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Indeed, and I subscribed to PS+ on my PS3 for those reasons. However, when they announced the PS4 would require PS+ for online play, I didn't renew my subscription.

That is as backwards as it gets. When it wasn't required you paid for it anyway but when it is you won't pay.