Goodbye NX, hello Switch

[JujuFish]

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.

It's about principles. If you think that's backwards, I feel bad for you.

 

[RussianSensation]

Nintendo - Games developed for PC will take about a year to port to Switch

"Yasuda was in attendance at Nintendo’s Corporate Management Policy Briefing, and relayed a comment from Shigeru Miyamoto. Miyamoto said that games developed with PC as a base can be ported to Switch in about a year. The report also adds that the console was revealed to third-parties last summer. It’s thought that we could therefore see major multiplatform titles starting from the fall season."
http://nintendoeverything.com/miyamoto-games-made-with-pc-as-a-base-can-be-ported-to-switch-in-about-a-year/

Things just keep getting worse and worse for 3rd party games. 1 year to port an X86 PC game? Nintendo clearly lost their minds. It's like they are totally oblivious that EA makes games on the PC first and ports them to consoles:
http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-says-all-its-games-are-developed-for-high-end-pcs-first/

How in the world can it be true then that Nintendo actually listened to 3rd parties to ensure its new console was more friendly for cross-platform ports of PS4/XB1/PC games? Sounds like another Wii U disaster for 3rd party ports. Now it's starting to make sense why there are so few games slated for the Switch in 2017.

At least the console pre-orders are strong. Hopefully Nintendo can get up to 10-15M consoles soon so that 3rd parties take the console a lot more seriously.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

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.

It's called.. spite.

And I understand it. After being used to years of free online multiplay they suddenly say you gotta pay.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's called.. spite.

And I understand it. After being used to years of free online multiplay they suddenly say you gotta pay.

It's about principles. If you think that's backwards, I feel bad for you.

So Microsoft has charged forever and it's ok but as soon as Sony says "hey let's make the system better but it costs money to do that." and copies MS in that way, that's not ok? There is a reason there is basically parity between PS4 and xb1 online now. Everyone likes to talk about how PC is free but let's talk about that for real. Xbox Live and PSN offer party chat, discounted games for subscribers, free titles to download each month, a social media service where you can join groups to find other players on PSN(maybe Microsoft has something similar), a centralized friend list across all games, cloud servers to backup your game saves. Where does the pc offer that? Steam has friend lists, voice chat, and cloud storage capability for game saves but games not on steam can't access it and not all games offer the cloud save option. Voice chat you often have to host a server of some type or use Skype etc. Microsoft is attempting to bring Xbox live services to the pc, at least partially but that will only work for Microsoft published titles. On the pc it isn't centralized and you spread out different games across different services. Battle.net, origin, uplay, GoG etc.

Nintendo should have copied their system too. As it's proven to work, but it would be costly to implement...hence the subscription fee.

 

[Chiropteran]

Nintendo - Games developed for PC will take about a year to port to Switch

"Yasuda was in attendance at Nintendo’s Corporate Management Policy Briefing, and relayed a comment from Shigeru Miyamoto. Miyamoto said that games developed with PC as a base can be ported to Switch in about a year. The report also adds that the console was revealed to third-parties last summer. It’s thought that we could therefore see major multiplatform titles starting from the fall season."
http://nintendoeverything.com/miyamoto-games-made-with-pc-as-a-base-can-be-ported-to-switch-in-about-a-year/

Things just keep getting worse and worse for 3rd party games. 1 year to port an X86 PC game? Nintendo clearly lost their minds. It's like they are totally oblivious that EA makes games on the PC first and ports them to consoles:
http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-says-all-its-games-are-developed-for-high-end-pcs-first/

How in the world can it be true then that Nintendo actually listened to 3rd parties to ensure its new console was more friendly for cross-platform ports of PS4/XB1/PC games? Sounds like another Wii U disaster. Now it's
starting to make sense why there are so few games slated for the Switch in 2017.

I heard that too. But this is a comment being relayed by someone else and from another language... I think it's a bit premature to accept it at face value. It's not like the switch is some alien artifact, it's very similar (hardware wise) to some existing Android tablets. A flat figure for such a thing is absurd on it's face in any case, obviously port times will depend on the code and the size of the game and the team doing the work to port the game.

I really don't think you can draw any real conclusions from the quote.

Besides, it's already been proven false:

Bind of Isaac: Afterbirth+ was released for PC Jan 3 2017. The switch version will be released March 3rd. That is two months, not a year.

You got tricked by fake news. Do a little basic fact checking before you make crazy assumptions.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I really don't think you can draw any real conclusions from the quote.

I think you can, but maybe not the conclusions one would expect. I actually think this is Miyamoto bragging a little about how EASY it is to port games to the Switch.

When I looked into it, it turns out it often takes up to 18 months of time for companies to make ports from the PC to a console. We don't see that gap because they do the development in parallel, but getting through the MS/Sony approval process and optimizing the assets for a console does take some time.

A really good example I found is the game Hawken. It came out on the PC in 2012, and in June 2015 a console port of it started. The console port was released in summer 2016- a year after the port started. The developer laid out the process here:

https://community.playhawken.com/topic/4786-dev-update-catching-up-coming-soon-ps4-xbox-one/

So the 12 month porting time is actually right in line with the rest of the industry, and could be completely hidden from consumers if companies plan to port to the Switch from the start.

 

[Chiropteran]

https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/the-myopia-of-generations-and-handheld-blindness/

Some interesting arguments here.

"In the Handheld Market, one thing is true: Nintendo Wins Everytime."

 

[purbeast0]

Umm it's not hard to be the winner when you're the only one competing.

 

[Aikouka]

You got tricked by fake news. Do a little basic fact checking before you make crazy assumptions.

I wouldn't call it "fake news". The news has possibly been generalized a bit, and as you mentioned, it's hard to simply say that all games will take x amount of time to port. Anyway, presenting a game like Binding of Isaac, which exists on practically every platform, is a bit disingenuous. I think the point is meant to outline the difficulty of porting x86 code using Xbox/PlayStation APIs to ARM code using what is most likely an Nvidia API.

In some cases, the difficulty may not just be in the porting of code, but also the complete difference in approach. I believe I talked about this earlier, but UX design is different when you consider going from a television to a smaller handheld. I don't think most games are going to change things, but I would have to imagine that some smaller text may become hard to read. The difference in approach also refers to hardware as they may need to change aspects of the game to meet the hardware limitations.

 

[Chiropteran]

Umm it's not hard to be the winner when you're the only one competing.

Game gear? Playstation Portable? PS Vita? Atari Lynx? N-Gage? Nvidia Shield Portable?

There is plenty of attempted competition.

Nintendo defeats all challengers.

 

[purbeast0]

Game gear? Playstation Portable? PS Vita? Atari Lynx? N-Gage? Nvidia Shield Portable?

There is plenty of attempted competition.

Nintendo defeats all challengers.

I'm talking about the past decade or so. The 3DS has just dominated the market but there hasn't been much to compete with it. PSP and Vita were not for children, they were targeted at the bro-dude market and failed because that isn't a market for handheld. Sure they are both handhelds but I don't even really consider them competitors. It's kind of like how the Wii-U isn't even in direct competition with any of the consoles even though there are other consoles. That is how the DS/3DS has always been imo.

 

[RussianSensation]

Game gear? Playstation Portable? PS Vita? Atari Lynx? N-Gage? Nvidia Shield Portable?

There is plenty of attempted competition.

Nintendo defeats all challengers.

Ya, so what? Tens of millions of NES/SNES/N64 users couldn't care less about Nintendo portable consoles. Not 1 person from my childhood I know who owned those consoles ever bought a Nintendo portable. What happened when these kids grew up? Ya, they moved on to PlayStation/Xbox and PC. This is reflected in the declining sales of 32-33M N64 consoles -> 21M GameCube -> 13-14M Wii U.

The Wii doesn't count since it's casual shovelware. There are less than 10 games worth buying on the Wii for me. I am pretty sure I am a good representation of a typical XB/PS/PC users, which means many feel the same as I do.

Some of you keep saying the Switch is a 3DS successor and Nintendo disagrees:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/02/tatsumi_kimishima_talks_about_a_potential_3ds_successor

The Switch is first and foremost a home console.

As far as the comment about PC ports taking a year to come to the Switch, the proof is in the pudding. The Switch has the weakest game line-up across both 1st and 3rd party games among the 3 major consoles. Right now we can say 10M+ Wii U Nintendo loyalists and 10-20M+ 3DS Nintendo loyalists are all lining up to buy the Switch. That's not organic growth. Those early sales are easy. EBay is flooded with Wii U consoles on sales as Nintendo fans know that console is EOL, and will get no future support. They are selling Wii U bundles for $280-400 and will just reinvest that $ into the Switch. Again, these sales coming from Nintendo loyal customer base is easy. Same reason the first 10-20M Xbox / PS4 sales are automatic. Those sales don't matter. What matter is sales beyond 30M. That's when easy sales dry up and your console has to be well rounded to continue selling well.

It's obvious the Switch will get a bunch of easy sales to kids, and 35+ year old parents of kids, but what about the core gamers from 17-30? What about 50-70 year olds?

The current PS4+XB1 user base is crushing PS3+360 by 22M consoles during the first 38 months of their life-cycle:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/267...ligned-sales-comparison-december-2016-update/

There are already 81M combined PS4/XB1 console users before the Switch even sold 4M. That means the traditional home gamer market is huge and is growing compared to last generation. Where is Nintendo? Ya, focusing on casual consoles and portables.

In ONLY Q4 2016, PS4 sold 9.7M consoles:
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/267285/ps4-ships-97m-in-q4-2016-total-shipments-at-571m/

The Switch sold out 2-3M units worldwide? Wow, big deal. Nintendo should be thinking Holly ****, our competitor just sold almost 10M of a 3-year-old console in just 3 months. Let's just live in an alternative reality where Nintendo doesn't compete in the same markets as MS/Sony. They don't because they gave up, while the total user install base for those consoles reaches 110-120M by December 31, 2017!

When was the last time Nintendo made a mature 1st party game? Zelda and Metroid is all they got. Mario can be entertaining but for only so long. Even during N64 days, Rare's Conker Bad Fur Day, Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie were much better than Super Mario 64. Nintendo has no one making that level of AAA 3rd party games. SNES was stacked with a galore of amazing 3rd party games.

Nintendo's core franchisees are aimed at kids. They have Pikmin, Sony has Uncharted/The Last of Us. Nintendo has Yoshi, Sony has God of War. Nintendo has Mario, Sony has Bloodborne/Horizon Zero Dawn/Nioh/Gravity Rush. Nintendo has Splatoon, Sony has BF/COD/Overwatch/SW:BF/The Division. Nintendo has PS360 FIFA port, Sony has every 2017 sports game: basketball, football, soccer, skiing, UFC, baseball, etc. Nintendo has Mario Kart, Sony has Gran Turismo and countless other driving games. Nintendo has Smash, Sony has Tekken, Mortal Kombat, Dead or Alive. For every 1 major franchise Nintendo has, Sony has at least 3-4 games in the same genre. The Japanese RPG scene of PS4 is so strong, it will take years for the Switch just to catch up. By that time, Sony will be on PS5. If a gamer wants a well rounded console full of all kinds of games, Nintendo isn't even on the map anymore, a far cry from NES/SNES days.

Why did Xbox 360 sell so well? It's huge 3rd party library that in many cases was superior than PS3's versions made the console highly attractive.

Seemingly the entire catalog of Nintendo games is aimed at casuals, kids and nastalgia, with very few new games aimed at adults and core gamers who grew up during NES->N64 eras. I want modern Conker's Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, 1080 Snowboarding, World Driver Championship, Wrestling/UFC/Mortal Kombat, not Mario Kart 14 and Mario 35. This was exciting for me when I was 5-16 years old. Even wrt to Zelda BoTW, there is almost no chance it will come close to the story line and quests of The Witcher 3 GOTY, the mature themes of MGS V. Fallout 4, GTA V/VI, Elder Scrolls 6, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Red Dead Redemption, For Honor? Ya, most likely, not, happening. Ya, the Switch looks appealing as a 2nd, 3rd or 4th gaming device. That's not the place Nintendo was during NES/SNES generations; and back then the Genesis had an amazing library of games for its time.

For every one great Nintendo game, Sony and MS have 10X as many mature games aimed at 17-80 year old gamers. Let's face it, most 5-16 year old kids don't have $40-60 to buy games. It's no wonder Sony's PS4 already has the highest game attach rate out of all consoles of all time -- the average age of a gamer is getting closer to 35 and they have $ to buy games.

Sony offers Resident Evil 7 in VR, while Nintendo gives us 1-2 Switch, Arms and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

2017 will have the absolute best games Nintendo has to offer with SM: Odyssey, Zelda BoTW, and Splatoon 2. Lets see if any of them win GOTY.

The issues with Nintendo's approach to console to consoles is theirs narroe focus on gaming choices. If you don't want Nintendo games, the console has almost no value. This has been true since GameCube era. They don't want to offer consumers a console that has casual, kiddie and mature/core games. Even now I read on other forums how DKK Tropical Freeze is too challenging. That's the type of gamers Nintendo now attracts? Modern Nintendo gamers don't want Demon souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne. They want a Zelda that can be beaten with 3-5 hearts without dying once. It took Nintendo 21 years to create an open-world 3D Super Mario 64 successor. That's mind-blowing. If only Nintendo had more 1st party mature characters, they wouldn't need to create 20 different games with Mario in them. They could have superceded Super Mario 64 with some new character/mascot and made an awesome 3rd person open-world platformer. It seems even the people designing Nintendo games are making them for 5-16 year olds. No diverification towards older gamers has been shown in the last 20 years.

The vast majority of 3DS games is casual fest and grind fest games that appeal to Japanese gaming culture. Toronto Public Transit has 2.7M daily ridership:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Transit_Commission

Yet, in more than 10 years of living there, it's very rare to see people playing portable consoles on public transit. Usually, it's people playing casual games on smartphones and tablets instead.

What's so damn hard about Nintendo making a console where we can play RDR2, The Witcher 3, MGS V, Zelda BOTW, FIFA, Borderlands? So many Nintendo fans just ignore all 3rd party games as if everyone owns multiple consoles and PCs? Or do some of you just care for Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, etc.?

Sooner or later, the 5-16 year olds who want the Switch will grow up and their 30-40-year-old parents will be 50-70. These younger gamers will move on to Sony/MS and PC and Nintendo will keep pretending they can't win those gamers [well since they flat out gave up during GameCube->Wii U generations].

Nintendo may very well continue to dominate the casuals, kids and hardcore Nintendo fan markets, but it seems they don't really care about going after the XB/PS/PC customer. That's a 500M market [150M XB1/PS4 users by the end of the generation and at least 350M PC gamers per Nvidia].

At least I hope the Switch 2 is BC so I can finally pick up the key 1st party titles once the collection builds up to large enough to warrant owning 8-10 games. As it stands, I view the first 10-15M Switch sales as easy guaranteed sales.

Soon PS4 will gain the ability to use external HDDs. What's Nintendo doing? Some of you keep living in denial that MicroSD cards cost significantly more than shipping a game with multiple BluRays. Fallout 4 High-Resolution texture pack is 58GB, while a slow 200GB MicroSD card costs $50-70:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00V...card+micro&dpPl=1&dpID=41hicAWNJiL&ref=plSrch

It's just a matter of time before AAA games balloon to 100-150GB in size. How much is that going to cost in 2-3 BluRays? $5-7? What are developers going to do to fit 64-128GB games in the Switch? They'll be forced to keep prices of games high for a longer time since physical SD media takes 18-24 months to drop 50% in price for the same size capacity. It's going to be a repeat of $50-60 USD N64 expensive cartridge games competing with 100s of discounted $10-40 games on the PC/PS4/XB1. If the Switch is a portable, why are its games $60, not $40?

 

[JujuFish]

So Microsoft has charged forever and it's ok but as soon as Sony says "hey let's make the system better but it costs money to do that." and copies MS in that way, that's not ok?

I have never paid for XBL Gold, so no, it's not OK.

 

[JujuFish]

The Switch sold out 2-3M units worldwide? Wow, big deal. Nintendo should be thinking Holly ****, our competitor just sold almost 10M of a 3-year-old console in just 3 months.

Makes one think Nintendo doesn't even consider Sony a competitor. Like they live in their own little bubble. That said, as someone (poofy?) pointed out earlier in the thread, handhelds drive the Japanese market and that might be all Nintendo really cares about. In that sense, I suppose they would be right that Sony isn't a competitor.

 

[KentState]

I heard that too. But this is a comment being relayed by someone else and from another language... I think it's a bit premature to accept it at face value. It's not like the switch is some alien artifact, it's very similar (hardware wise) to some existing Android tablets. A flat figure for such a thing is absurd on it's face in any case, obviously port times will depend on the code and the size of the game and the team doing the work to port the game.

I really don't think you can draw any real conclusions from the quote.

Besides, it's already been proven false:

Bind of Isaac: Afterbirth+ was released for PC Jan 3 2017. The switch version will be released March 3rd. That is two months, not a year.

You got tricked by fake news. Do a little basic fact checking before you make crazy assumptions.

You can't point to a game like that and say this is fake news. Lets see how long it takes to port a AAA game from PC/console to the Switch. Probably not going to happen without a years worth of compromises to get it playable. It's not even optimizing for one level of performance, it has to work undocked and the GUI has to scale to something usable at 720p on a small screen without the fonts being unreadable.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Some of you keep saying the Switch is a 3DS successor and Nintendo disagrees:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/02/tatsumi_kimishima_talks_about_a_potential_3ds_successor

Turns out that was a mistranslation:

http://nintendoeverything.com/clarification-on-3ds-successor-news/

But the reality is it comes down to the success of the Switch. If it does well the 3DS line is dead. If it flops we will see a HDS or something in 2020.

Soon PS4 will gain the ability to use external HDDs. What's Nintendo doing?

Actually Nintendo has been open that they are looking into external HDs. The dock does have a USB3 port thank god.

If the Switch is a portable, why are its games $60, not $40?

Some are. Hell I pre-ordered a game last week that was $20 in a cartridge. The reason the top tier games are $60 because without that price point Nintendo will NEVER get serious third party support. That is also part of the reason they don't want to call it a 3DS replacement because it would inherit the 3DS game prices.

It's obvious the Switch will get a bunch of easy sales to kids, and 35+ year old parents of kids, but what about the core gamers from 17-30? What about 50-70 year olds?

I think you discount how big the potential market is. Kids who want Pokemon plus 30 something who want nostalgia plus a slice of hardcore gamers who want a secondary machine to get at Nintendo titles (or who want the best portable system ever) plus the Japanese could altogether be a big enough market to survive on. I guess we will see.

Where is Nintendo? Ya, focusing on casual consoles and portables.

Which might be the best move for them.

I think this is a good discussion point so I will be frank here: I don't think Nintendo COULD make a console that would be successful with hardcore gamers.

Let us pretend for a second that Nintendo did what you wanted, and instead of making the Switch made a PS4 clone (that knowing them would have a power level somewhere between the Xbone and PS4 regular for $300 plus a crappier online service). Would you actually be praising them today? No offense, but I bet you and the hundreds of hardcore youtube bloggers who all rip on the Switch (after admitting that they themselves pre-ordered it) wouldn't have been happy with their best shot.

All the complaining would instead focus on how that clone console was behind the PS4 Pro or Scorpio, or how Nintendo's online wasn't good enough, or how Nintendo's game prices (which you know they would stick to) makes it such a worse deal than consoles it is almost exactly like. Once you take away the kid games and Mario and nostalgia what you are left with is very little. You aren't just asking Nintendo to make a Xbone/PS4 clone, but to clone everything those companies have done for 15 years. I don't think anyone who knows this market thinks that is realistic at all or even necessary. Hell the Wii U WAS their best shot to make a "real" console after the Wii and it was a huge huge flop, so huge they are basically leaving the home console market to just focus on the portable market.

I mean, if you are a hardcore gamer do you really have NO modern console (or gaming PC) this deep into this generation? I bet not. I bet most have a PS4 or Xbone or nice PC by now. So then if an AAA hardcore game comes out for all these consoles plus the Nintendo Clone, would you be willing to buy the Nintendo clone just to play a worse version of that game because it's in the same library as Mario 64 Version 3 (Sunshine was the first sequel BTW)? No way, you would get the game on the PS4/PC/Scorpio, maybe two months later for $20 off because they will do that and Nintendo won't, and then Nintendo is stuck still selling just their first party games. It's a catch 22 for them, and one they can easily avoid because their IP is worth so much that they CAN crap out a casual console and get 60+ million people to buy it just because it has Mario and Pokemon on it.

For every one great Nintendo game, Sony and MS have 10X as many mature games aimed at 17-80 year old gamers. Let's face it, most 5-16 year old kids don't have $40-60 to buy games. It's no wonder Sony's PS4 already has the highest game attach rate out of all consoles of all time -- the average age of a gamer is getting closer to 35 and they have $ to buy games.

I think in this part you basically point out why the Switch is what it is without realizing it.

The hardcore market IS basically a niche. It's a pretty big niche full of 30 somethings willing to blow thousands of $ a year to play games, but it isn't some sort of diverse group like the people who buy iPhones or the people who bought Wiis. Basically what we have seen is the generation of kids who grew up with NESes stayed the core group of people who game seriously- boomers don't seem to have much nostalgia for arcades and many millennials seem more focused on social media than Halo or Tomb Raider. This 30 something group is who Sony and Microsoft target because they probably spend 90% of the money spent on video games every year, but by focusing on this group so much both of those companies have basically abandoned ever trying to appeal to young kids or parents of young kids or hell even the Japanese. Microsoft TRIED to go that direction with the Xbone being this media center/Kinect box and failed bigtime, which means going forward both companies are just going to target this core gaming group like you and me who get older every year.

If Nintendo can target young children, or women who love animal crossing, or the once NES-owning 30 something who DOESN'T play games anymore (except on a smartphone) because they are too much of a time commitment then they might create a new market that Microsoft or Sony don't even try to go after. To me that seems much less risky than trying to change everything they are and not just clone the PS4 but clone the entire Playstation division down to the bone.

I think what you are really saying, what all hardcore gamers are really saying, is that you are sick of Nintendo being in the hardware business period. You want Nintendo on your terms, which means Mario on the PS4 and on sale for $20 off three months later and you want all the old NES and SNES games but not for the $5 a pop Nintendo wants to charge. I get that want, but I don't get how that makes better business sense for them. At least not until the pokemon/portable market completely dies off if it ever does.

So many Nintendo fans just ignore all 3rd party games as if everyone owns multiple consoles and PCs? Or do some of you just care for Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, etc.?

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question, but I obviously did pre-order a Switch and I don't mind answering it. To preface: I don't own a 3DS or Wii U.

What appeals to me about the Switch most of all is it is a powerful portable console. Very often I am traveling or on trips for business, and after years of trying I am sick of the mobile game experience and the garbage that is mobile bluetooth gaming controllers. I want games better than what I can get on my iPhone in my briefcase, and the Switch hopefully will provide that. Hell there are a pile of indie games I will rebuy on the Switch because I never play them on a PC because when I get PC time I want to play AAA games. But in a hotel room or on a plane? Sign me up for some Shovel Knight.

The second most appealing thing to me is the obvious fact that if the Switch is a success it will be the only Nintendo console I have to own. I didn't buy the Wii U or the 3DS because that would have been $450+ total to get all the good Nintendo games. But $300 total for all the Nintendo games plus a good portable? That has more value as a secondary console.

Nintendo merged their mobile and console game divisions a few years ago when they realized they didn't have the resources to make enough Wii U games and enough 3DS games. For a while there they got by porting games between the two, but the 3DS was too much of a step down to make that viable longterm. The Switch is their solution to that problem. They have building towards this for years.

With all that said, I concede the Switch could flop and then it's $300 wasted (somewhat, Zelda and Mario will go a long way with me). But I feel like I can at least see why Nintendo is doing what they are doing and I placed my bet (put my money where my mouth is) that they will succeed.

 

[KentState]

Theoretically it's the merger of console and portable, but when they are talking about the potential for a new DS it makes that seem even less likely. If anything, it's Wii U 2.0 and instead of the processor in the base, they moved it to the tablet section and dumped the optical drive.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The hardcore market IS basically a niche. It's a pretty big niche full of 30 somethings willing to blow thousands of $ a year to play games, but it isn't some sort of diverse group like the people who buy iPhones or the people who bought Wiis. Basically what we have seen is the generation of kids who grew up with NESes stayed the core group of people who game seriously- boomers don't seem to have much nostalgia for arcades and many millennials seem more focused on social media than Halo or Tomb Raider. This 30 something group is who Sony and Microsoft target because they probably spend 90% of the money spent on video games every year, but by focusing on this group so much both of those companies have basically abandoned ever trying to appeal to young kids or parents of young kids or hell even the Japanese. Microsoft TRIED to go that direction with the Xbone being this media center/Kinect box and failed bigtime, which means going forward both companies are just going to target this core gaming group like you and me who get older every year.
.

In the gaming market this demographic is not a niche market within it. It IS the market that gives record sales to games like GTA. Nintendo is free to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist but that is their mistake.

 

[poofyhairguy]

In the gaming market this demographic is not a niche market within it. It IS the market that gives record sales to games like GTA.

No offense (seriously, I am just trying to have a discussion) but you aren't completely correct. I think it is more accurate to say that currently the hardcore gaming niche is the dominant force currently in the gaming market, but it isn't all of the market.

Sure GTA V sold a ton, but you know what Xbox 360 game sold the most copies? Kinect Adventures! By a lot actually. And you know what console sold more than either the 360 or the PS3? The Wii! By a lot actually.

Cue the hardcore gamer refrain of "that was an exception to the rule as all those casual gamers have moved to mobile devices and they are never coming back!" But I think often that refrain is more wishful thinking than it is reality, as hardcore gamers LIKE that the market caters only to them. They HATED the success of the Wii, and the direction the whole industry went for a couple of years trying to appeal to casuals instead of them.

The reality is that no one since the Wii/Kinect has really tried to cater to the semi-casual gamers that made those pieces of hardware (and their associated software) a success. Instead the last generation MS and Sony pretty much catered only to the hardcore, and the gaming industry we see today is simply a reflection of that.

Meanwhile, mobile gaming revenues are booming despite the low quality of many (most?) mobile titles. The mobile market is right where the console market was prior to Nintendo stepping in with their seal of quality and they see that. I think the mobile market is ready for a midway point between smartphones and consoles, with higher quality games on that go. And I am not alone on that:

Speaking with GI.biz, Ubisoft’s French studios boss Xavier Poix said there’s a need for Nintendo Switch because many who play games play both on console and mobile.

“Today, we have two ways of playing – and a lot of people are doing both,” said Poix. “There is the high-end, high value, experience that you have at home in front of your TV… but when the TV isn’t there anymore, if someone else is using it for example, then you are left alone with your mobile phone.

“So there is a need for Switch, and we probably don’t realize it right now, which is what makes this so interesting.”

As far as consumers getting on board, Poix feels confident Nintendo can “create a bridge between the worlds of mobile and TV.”

https://www.vg247.com/2017/01/18/ub...ble-to-create-a-bridge-between-mobile-and-tv/

Nintendo is free to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist but that is their mistake.

Take a step back for a second and consider that MAYBE, just maybe, trying to be the second best hardcore gamer console (because the PS4 won this generation period) isn't the best strategy for Nintendo.

Microsoft put WAY more resources into appealing to hardcore gamers than Nintendo would, and the Xbox One has sold about the same number of consoles as the original Xbox (which wasn't considered a huge success). What you are basically saying is "it is Nintendo's mistake if they don't try to sub-divide that piece of the pie Microsoft has in second place." That doesn't even make sense logically, especially not when every Nintendo portable console Nintendo has ever made has sold twice as many units as the Xbox One at worst, and the fact that Nintendo COULDN'T compete toe-to-toe with a Microsoft willing to spend billions to subsidize their Xbox division.

Am I saying the Switch will outsell the PS4, or that the hardcore market isn't important? No way. What I am saying is if Nintendo can take the people they already have in their camp, and get back just a FRACTION of the Wii casuals who moved on to smartphones, they could be the #2 in the industry without having to spend the billions Microsoft has spent or without trying and failing to appease hardcore gamers who ask too much from them.

When the Wii U came out Reggie said that it was their attempt to court hardcore gamers. It had the most power of any console the day it was launched, early in its life it got plenty of AAA hardcore gaming ports, and it really did mostly move away from motion controls despite the Wii being so successful. The end result was hardcore gamers rejected the console because it wasn't good enough, it wasn't Sony enough. Given that their best wasn't good enough I don't see what option Nintendo has other than to target someone other than hardcore gamers.

Hell you know the industry better than me. You know deep down the bridge Nintendo has to cross to actually compete with the PS4 for hardcore gamers is a bridge too far for them. I don't see why you can't make the next logical leap that maybe it's not in their best interests to try when they won't go far enough for hardcore gamers, they won't spend the resources needed to get those types of games and to take a loss on the kind of hardware that delivers those types of experiences.

Will the Switch be a success? Who knows, but I am confident it will be more successful than a halfway there PS4 clone would have ever been. And I feel pretty confident given their corporate culture, and their massive moat of IP, that a halfway there PS4 clone would have been the best they could have done in a direct competition. I for one wouldn't be interested in the Switch if it was a little weaker PS4 with Nintendo games on top. I want portable, I want flexible and I think I am not alone. We will see.

 

[JujuFish]

When the Wii U came out Reggie said that it was their attempt to court hardcore gamers. It had the most power of any console the day it was launched, early in its life it got plenty of AAA hardcore gaming ports, and it really did mostly move away from motion controls despite the Wii being so successful. The end result was hardcore gamers rejected the console because it wasn't good enough, it wasn't Sony enough. Given that their best wasn't good enough I don't see what option Nintendo has other than to target someone other than hardcore gamers.

It was approximately as powerful as the PS3 which released 6 years earlier. Of course hardcore gamers were going to reject it. If that was actually Nintendo's best at courting hardcore gamers, that's truly, truly pathetic. One year after the WiiU, the PS4 came out and was 5 times more powerful (1.84 TFLOPS vs. 0.352).

 

[Chiropteran]

Ya, so what? Tens of millions of NES/SNES/N64 users couldn't care less about Nintendo portable consoles. Not 1 person from my childhood I know who owned those consoles ever bought a Nintendo portable. What happened when these kids grew up? Ya, they moved on to PlayStation/Xbox and PC. This is reflected in the declining sales of 32-33M N64 consoles -> 21M GameCube -> 13-14M Wii U.

The Wii doesn't count since it's casual shovelware. There are less than 10 games worth buying on the Wii for me. I am pretty sure I am a good representation of a typical XB/PS/PC users, which means many feel the same as I do.

Why do you keep bringing up sales figures if you just ignore them whenever they go against your point?

If the PS4 selling a lot of units proves it's good or a success or whatever, then why do you disregard the Wiis unit sales? Why do you disregard the 3ds unit sales?

Despite your childhood friends, there are people who own both a 3ds and a ps4, or a 3ds and an xbox. I see the Switch being super tempting for these sorts of people- it's really only a little bit more expensive than the 3DS upfront, for a LOT more power and the ability to dock to a TV or play multiplayer games, motion sense, etc.

I mean, whenever I hear about all these doom and gloom predictions because of the Switch costing $300, I just look at ebay sold listings for 3ds and laugh.

For example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-3DS-XL-...257715?hash=item1c7ba15ff3:g:CUwAAOSwA3dYZa9n

You seriously think $300 for switch is overpriced, while some people are willing to pay $300+ for a 3DS, even knowing they could get it cheaper for MSRP if there wasn't a shortage? Compared to a 3DS, the Switch is a tremendously better deal, and the 3DS is sold out EVERYWHERE. Try to buy one for MSRP, you just can't find them in stores.

Now people are paying that much (or close to it, many sell for $250-$280 range) for a 3DS that doesn't double as a home console. You don't think that market is going to jump on the opportunity the Switch represents? Maybe you think the Switch is a lame home console compared to the PS$, but compared to the 3DS is a god damn AMAZING handheld console and the best value we have seen for ages. combine that with the fact that it serves BOTH roles, I think this is going to be one incredibly successful product for Nintendo. It might not kill the PS4, but it doesn't need to.

 

[ImpulsE69]

@RussianSensation: I think you are lying or don't know many people. Everyone I know had at least some form of GB over the years, and many have 3DS's. You may not have seen them out and about playing them, but they had them.

The most hardcore gamers are RPG gamers, not CoD gamers. CoD gamers play 1 game only (until the next CoD clone), while RPG gamers move from one to the next, and play other things while waiting. Since it became the norm for more of that to be released on mobile systems than home consoles, the market went with it.

Also, the Wii U was not an attempt to lure hardcore gamers, it was an attempt to lure the phone gamer market....and a badly thought out one at that. No one wanted the Wii U gamepad.

 

[zerocool84]

Why do you keep bringing up sales figures if you just ignore them whenever they go against your point?

If the PS4 selling a lot of units proves it's good or a success or whatever, then why do you disregard the Wiis unit sales? Why do you disregard the 3ds unit sales?

Despite your childhood friends, there are people who own both a 3ds and a ps4, or a 3ds and an xbox. I see the Switch being super tempting for these sorts of people- it's really only a little bit more expensive than the 3DS upfront, for a LOT more power and the ability to dock to a TV or play multiplayer games, motion sense, etc.

I mean, whenever I hear about all these doom and gloom predictions because of the Switch costing $300, I just look at ebay sold listings for 3ds and laugh.

For example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-3DS-XL-...257715?hash=item1c7ba15ff3:g:CUwAAOSwA3dYZa9n

You seriously think $300 for switch is overpriced, while some people are willing to pay $300+ for a 3DS, even knowing they could get it cheaper for MSRP if there wasn't a shortage? Compared to a 3DS, the Switch is a tremendously better deal, and the 3DS is sold out EVERYWHERE. Try to buy one for MSRP, you just can't find them in stores.

Now people are paying that much (or close to it, many sell for $250-$280 range) for a 3DS that doesn't double as a home console. You don't think that market is going to jump on the opportunity the Switch represents? Maybe you think the Switch is a lame home console compared to the PS$, but compared to the 3DS is a god damn AMAZING handheld console and the best value we have seen for ages. combine that with the fact that it serves BOTH roles, I think this is going to be one incredibly successful product for Nintendo. It might not kill the PS4, but it doesn't need to.

That is not $300 for a regular 3DS, it's a special edition with two games and there are just straight 3DS systems right in there for $200 so only no, normal people don't spend $300 on a 3DS.

And yes the Switch is overpriced as are its accessories. It's the same price as its competition yet its not as powerful, has less games, and costs more to play with your friends. $250 would have been crazy awesome pricing, even $275 would have been great pricing. For $300 you can go with two other systems that come with games bundled, have great ecosystems and online, cheaper accessories, great third party support, you know you are purchasing something that is going to last. Unfortunately with the Switch you are hoping they don't screw you again like last time. You are buying this to yet again only rely on first party games coming out which are always few and far between.

People need to stop saying you can't compare it to a PS4 or an Xbox One. Nintendo themselves are comparing it so we have to. They are saying and marketing it as a home console, not a portable console and Nintendo has said the 3DS is not going anywhere. They know they would be foolish to kill their guaranteed money maker which is the 3DS.

It's too big and bulky and not good enough battery life to be a good portable console and its not powerful enough and lacks 3rd party support of a good home console. It's a too much of a compromise in all areas.

I'm literally buying this because I'm a Zelda nut but I know it will sit most of the time after I finish Zelda as there is literally nothing until Mario Odyssey that matters. That's why I have a PS4 and Xbox One, and if Switch is someone's only console, they are going to be waiting yet again for good games to hit just like the WiiU.

 

[cmdrdredd]

As far as market demographics, nobody caters to casuals because it has been proven they don't spend money on games like those who are buying the shooters and action games. Most of the market that purchased the wii played the pack in game and maybe bought one or two more. Meanwhile the so called hardcore market is buying two or more every couple of months. There is simply more money to be made in that demographic. They go where the money is.

 

[Chiropteran]

That is not $300 for a regular 3DS, it's a special edition with two games and there are just straight 3DS systems right in there for $200 so only no, normal people don't spend $300 on a 3DS.

Please show me one of these $200 New 3DS XL. I don't see them in stock ANYWHERE.

And yes the Switch is overpriced as are its accessories. It's the same price as its competition yet its not as powerful, has less games, and costs more to play with your friends. $250 would have been crazy awesome pricing, even $275 would have been great pricing. For $300 you can go with two other systems that come with games bundled, have great ecosystems and online, cheaper accessories, great third party support, you know you are purchasing something that is going to last. Unfortunately with the Switch you are hoping they don't screw you again like last time. You are buying this to yet again only rely on first party games coming out which are always few and far between.

It doesn't cost more if you include portability. To get that portability with a PS4, you need to add a $200 VITA.

People need to stop saying you can't compare it to a PS4 or an Xbox One. Nintendo themselves are comparing it so we have to. They are saying and marketing it as a home console, not a portable console and Nintendo has said the 3DS is not going anywhere. They know they would be foolish to kill their guaranteed money maker which is the 3DS.

I just don't get this. If you are going to compare devices, then compare the PS4 or XBOX with the PC, and they both lose by a landslide. If you want high performance highest settings, PC wins hands done in every case. It's a given that if you are playing on a console, you have given up on having the performance crown in exchange for some first party games, easier casual gaming, or whatever.

It's too big and bulky and not good enough battery life to be a good portable console and its not powerful enough and lacks 3rd party support of a good home console. It's a too much of a compromise in all areas.

It's battery life is the same as the 3DS playing 3DS games, both are rated for 3-6 hours. Easier to recharge too thanks to ubiquitous USB-C chargers and power-banks. It's size is very comparable. Okay, it can't be folded, but it's only slightly larger. Either one fits easily in a small backpack, neither fits in pockets comfortably.