Nintendo Switch

[Alshain]

What do you guys think?

 

Personally as  Wii U user, I don't like that it doesn't appear to support dual screen play even though you have to buy a second screen.  I could be wrong on that but the evidence kinda tells a story.

[Xannari Ferrows]

The new Nintendo console, previously known as NX, is now known officially as the Nintendo Switch. The reveal came out literally like 2 hours ago, and here it is:

Spoiler

 

As a lot of you may know, Nintendo suffered a crippling blow with the Wii U, mostly due to lack of third party support, lack of marketing, complex console design, and really just bad business choices. Because of the absolutely massive economic loss Nintendo endured, they had no other choice but to buckle down and figure out a way to bring in the next generation of gaming, while fixing the issues reported with the Wii U. It's refreshing to see them taking and implementing feedback from the community

That aside though, this was the result of their efforts. The Switch is a next generation gaming console aimed at proving a quality gaming experience anywhere, as it is both a home and handheld console. There are some facts, as well as some inferences that can be made from watching the reveal. First off though, the facts:

As it is right now, the Switch will be both a home and handheld. The raised a lot of questions in the community that Nintendo has raised as to how it can handle performance and graphical transitions upon switching [get it?], especially midgame. Well, Nintendo has never really been about raw power. Good games don't need the fastest processing power to be able to operate, though it does place limits on what you can do with the console. Power will be up in the air for a bit longer until some experts can get their hands on this and see for themselves, but we do know that graphics are covered. The Switch will be powered by a completely custom designed Nvidia Tegra, which are among the best performing graphics cards in the entire world. This should cover the kind of games expecting to be seen

 

Now for the inferences. From looking at the video, the Switch seems to have a pretty simple, yet pretty in-depth design. It doesn't seem like it's bringing anything particularly revolutionary to the table, but rather is combining the ingredients in ways that no one has before. It's a very interesting design, and looks extremely versatile, first off being both home and handheld, but also by all the little tricks seen in the video. It appears as though there is going to be a proper controller for home use, but it wont strictly be required, as the little half-controller things on the sides can be their own controllers, and be mounted onto a controller body for use as a proper controller. You also have them likely being used for multiplayer in games that are designed for it, which might be a challenge in game development, but not impossible. Showing off all these little things is one thing, but for the first video, they did a very decent job at showing it off, and I would be content if their marketing was as decent as this. Nothing amazing required

Of course though, a game console can only really be as successful as the games it plays. For the Switch, it seems like it could be starting off strong with a new Splatoon, though it could just be a port in the video. A new Mario title is always a good thing; never hurts, and maybe some new ones thrown in there. If Nintendo can secure some third party support and have a nice flow of new games every now and then, this could be a very high performing console. It may have the versatility, but it's all gonna depend on how it gets used. Personally, I think it has tons of potential, but I don't want to be too optimistic and say it's going to be the next big thing. I hope it is, because Nintendo is going to be dead in the water otherwise

Right, now for the part where I actually try to involve those of you that reply. I wouldn't like expectations being put on this, because over-the-top and unrealistic expectations were placed on the Wii U, and with that came massive disappointment. This deserves a chance

[Gaarst]

The Switch has a big list of partners, of which a lot of AAA developers/editors; and Unity. Who knows, there might even be KSP on that thing.

Not that I care the least about it though.

Edit: duplicate with this one:

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gaarst

[TopHeavy11]

Well, looks like you won't have to "switch" consoles. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

EDIT: First!

Edited October 20, 2016 by TopHeavy11

[Alshain]

Lol, true except Nintendo and other developers will certainly stop making games for Wii U.  Watching the video again it doesn't appear to have Motion controls or touch screen features highlighted either, which may mean they don't exist.

It just feels like a backward step really.

[TopHeavy11]

Just now, Alshain said:

Lol, true except Nintendo and other developers will certainly stop making games for Wii U.  Watching the video again it doesn't appear to have Motion controls or touch screen features highlighted either, which may mean they don't exist.

*le gasp*

[TopHeavy11]

6 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Who knows, there might even be KSP on that thing.

 

6 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

might even be KSP

 

6 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

KSP

[Xannari Ferrows]

12 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Lol, true except Nintendo and other developers will certainly stop making games for Wii U.  Watching the video again it doesn't appear to have Motion controls or touch screen features highlighted either, which may mean they don't exist.

It just feels like a backward step really.

There's certainly an argument to be made about this, but I feel like the whole motion control thing kind of had it's fame already, and only really works when in compliment with some of the other new innovations in gaming, rather than by itself. Going with the more simple and traditional methods is certainly nothing bad, but doesn't necessarily mark a step back in development. If it proves to be as versatile of a console as advertised, and has plenty of games to play that can work both while at home and while mobile, that would more than make up for it for me

[Alshain]

Just now, Xannari Ferrows said:

There's certainly an argument to be made about this, but I feel like the whole motion control thing kind of had it's fame already, and only really works when in compliment with some of the other new innovations in gaming, rather than by itself. Going with the more simple and traditional methods is certainly nothing bad, but doesn't necessarily mark a step back in development. If it proves to be as versatile of a console as advertised, and has plenty of games to play that can work both while at home and while mobile, that would more than make up for it for me

I'm not talking about Wii Remote type motion control, I'm talking about Wii U gamepad style.  It was much more subtle, and much more balanced.  If you played either of the Zelda re-makes on Wii U, the targeting for things like the Hookshot and Bow were impeccable.  Lack of dual screen play probably inhibits that anyway.  But personally I would prefer both remain.

[Elthy]

Im quite excited for it. Finaly proper mobile gaming hardware, there wasnt something good since the old PSP. The PS Vita didnt have (good) games while the 3DS resolution gave me cancer, also its hardware wasnt better than the PSP stuff...

This thing combined with Monster Hunter could prove fatal for my studies

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

Lol, true except Nintendo and other developers will certainly stop making games for Wii U.  Watching the video again it doesn't appear to have Motion controls or touch screen features highlighted either, which may mean they don't exist.

It just feels like a backward step really.

Personally Nintendo has been huge taking huge steps back since the Wii. It was a great novel idea for an accessory that they took to the extreme by marketing as it's own console which was great for a few years but once the gimmick caught on, the idea tanked.

As much as I hate to say it... The PlayStation Move was a better motion based concept than the Wii. Mostly because of the fact it remained an accessory to the primary controller input, the default remote control. The Wii had that clunky stick of a remote which was very uncomfortable to hold unlike PlayStation and Xbox' controllers.

Granted Nintendo is already in the hole for the portable gaming market already thanks to the Virtual Boy.

This might be the first Nintendo console I'd actually purchase since the Gamecube since I'm hoping it'll be cheaper and capable of similar games as it's rivals and many of it's own.

 

[Alshain]

The vitual boy?  That was ages ago and they haven't been in the hole for a long time.  The Gameboy Advance, the DS, and the 3DS were all big successes.  For the Wii, you can say it was clunky but it beat the pants off Microsoft and Sony.

Even after the Wii U and Gamecube "failed", they haven't been 'in the hole' for a very long time.  Nintendo is much bigger than that.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Alshain

[Xannari Ferrows]

27 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

This might be the first Nintendo console I'd actually purchase since the Gamecube since I'm hoping it'll be cheaper and capable of similar games as it's rivals and many of it's own

You shouldn't be really expecting this thing to be cheap. I can't see it costing less than 250, and that's really going on the lower end of the estimates. The design of the games is also going to have to be compatible with both home mode and portable mode

[ZooNamedGames]

48 minutes ago, Alshain said:

The vitual boy?  That was ages ago and they haven't been in the hole for a long time.  The Gameboy Advance, the DS, and the 3DS were all big successes.  For the Wii, you can say it was clunky but it beat the pants off Microsoft and Sony.

Even after the Wii U and Gamecube "failed", they haven't been 'in the hole' for a very long time.  Nintendo is much bigger than that.

The Gameboy also was a big problem, seeing as it lacked a backlight some customers were pushed away until the SP version.

As to the DSs, well they're much more successful.

I think that Gamecube did great, and it was their last great console.

As "big" as Nintendo is, they're financially below their competitors.

22 minutes ago, Xannari Ferrows said:

You shouldn't be really expecting this thing to be cheap. I can't see it costing less than 250, and that's really going on the lower end of the estimates. The design of the games is also going to have to be compatible with both home mode and portable mode

I'd be willing to go for $250.

 

---

I am a loyal Nintendo fanboy (after all I do own a NES, SNES, Gamecube, NES PowerGlove, U-Force and Super Scope). But lately they've made decisions that I vastly do not approve of, from varying groups. This includes the Wii U and such ideas as Pokémon Go (the Pokémon Company is still a subsidiary of Nintendo as it's still Nintendo's property).

I'm willingly to continue to believe Nintendo will raise from the ashes like they did in the 80s from the Great Video Game Crash, but only if they play their cards right. Choosing to pursue ideas that are only "novel" like the Wii, will spell disaster.

[Alshain]

@ZooNamedGames I guess it depends on what you mean.  If you mean in your opinion then I can't say anything to that.  But sales records show they were massively successful.  The Game Boy and GBA were both very successful despite not having a backlight.  In fact only the DS outperformed the Gameboy sales, even the Wii (their best selling console) was less than the Gameboy sales (including Color, not including Advance/SP).  The DS did overcome it, but that was after the rise of gaming also, so the numbers aren't quite 1:1.  In any case, Nintendo's handheld line really hasn't had a failure.

In the console line the Gamecube and the Wii U, and even the N64 are in pretty sad shape in terms of sales.  By those numbers they are considered to be the worst of their history, but I wouldn't call either of them bad, just financially a flop.

As for being financially below their competitors, that isn't apples and apples.  Nintendo makes consoles and games.  Microsoft and Sony make consoles and games and operating systems and computer hardware and blu ray and PC games and tons of other stuff.  Of course this is also why Nintendo's first party game titles outperform Sony and Microsoft's.  Jack of all trades, master of none.

1 hour ago, Xannari Ferrows said:

You shouldn't be really expecting this thing to be cheap. I can't see it costing less than 250, and that's really going on the lower end of the estimates. The design of the games is also going to have to be compatible with both home mode and portable mode

$250 is very low end.  Most estimations place it at 350-400.  However, portable and home mode don't appear to be different.  It just changes the screen, it's the same controller, same game, same functions.  Even the Wii U had more difference between off-screen and big screen play.  The Breath of the Wild E3 demo didn't even have an inventory on the Wii U gamepad like Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD did, it's likely they opted not to put one in since it was going to be released on both consoles and the Switch doesn't support that.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Alshain

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, Alshain said:

Lol, true except Nintendo and other developers will certainly stop making games for Wii U.  Watching the video again it doesn't appear to have Motion controls or touch screen features highlighted either, which may mean they don't exist.

It just feels like a backward step really.

Would be surprised if its not touch on it as its looks a lot like an tablet and would be interesting to use as an tablet, do you want to bring your tablet or your switch? 
Touch would be nice in games too, mostly menus writing and inventories. 
But its likely that they tuned this down: it's an game console !! MS messed up the One launch because of they toned down gaming on it. 

Overall I liked the design, I wonder if the removable gamepads is needed however. you need the dummy base for them to work as an good controller and the pro controller is not that much larger.
More stuff to loose, i assume you can use the pro controller without the base station too, 
 

[Xannari Ferrows]

1 minute ago, magnemoe said:

More stuff to loose, i assume you can use the pro controller without the base station too, 

It's likely not going to be a requirement for anything, but just an additional controller for either multiplayer or if it's wanted [to not risk one of the halves randomly coming off of the controller base]

[Alshain]

@magnemoe The video shows them using the pro controller without the base station @ 2:48, so I would think so.  The detachable controllers just make it one less piece you have to carry around and allow for quick multiplayer.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Alshain

[pxi]

13 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The Gameboy also was a big problem, seeing as it lacked a backlight some customers were pushed away until the SP version.

That does not jive with my recollection of that period of gaming history at all.  The Gameboy was THE on-the-go gaming device of it's day, not least of all because unlike the Game Gear it didn't devour batteries, and unlike the Atari Lynx it was not comically oversized for a portable gaming device.  The lack of a backlight did not push customers away, it inspired a massive third-party market of screen-lighting attachments.

EDIT:

Just to appreciate the scale of the success of the Gameboy, have a look at the sales figures as listed here.  The Gameboy/GBC range pretty much outsold every non-Nintendo handheld ever released.

Platform	Firm	Released[‡]	Units sold	Ref.
Nintendo DS	Nintendo	2004	154.02 million	[18]
Game Boy/Game Boy Color	Nin tendo	1989/1998	118.69 million	[note 2]
PlayStation Portable	Sony	2004	82 million	[note 1]
Game Boy Advance	Nintendo	2001	81.51 million	[18]
Nintendo 3DS	Nintendo	2011	59.79 million	[18]
PlayStation Vita	Sony	2011	13 million	[note 1]
Sega Game Gear	Sega	1990	10.62 million	[50]
WonderSwan	Bandai	1999	3.5 million	[note 8]
N-Gage	Nokia	2003	3 million	[68]
Atari Lynx	Atari	1989	>1 million	[note 10]

Edited October 21, 2016 by pxi

[ZooNamedGames]

6 hours ago, pxi said:

That does not jive with my recollection of that period of gaming history at all.  The Gameboy was THE on-the-go gaming device of it's day, not least of all because unlike the Game Gear it didn't devour batteries, and unlike the Atari Lynx it was not comically oversized for a portable gaming device.  The lack of a backlight did not push customers away, it inspired a massive third-party market of screen-lighting attachments.

EDIT:

Just to appreciate the scale of the success of the Gameboy, have a look at the sales figures as listed here.  The Gameboy/GBC range pretty much outsold every non-Nintendo handheld ever released.

Platform	Firm	Released[‡]	Units sold	Ref.
Nintendo DS	Nintendo	2004	154.02 million	[18]
Game Boy/Game Boy Color	Nin tendo	1989/1998	118.69 million	[note 2]
PlayStation Portable	Sony	2004	82 million	[note 1]
Game Boy Advance	Nintendo	2001	81.51 million	[18]
Nintendo 3DS	Nintendo	2011	59.79 million	[18]
PlayStation Vita	Sony	2011	13 million	[note 1]
Sega Game Gear	Sega	1990	10.62 million	[50]
WonderSwan	Bandai	1999	3.5 million	[note 8]
N-Gage	Nokia	2003	3 million	[68]
Atari Lynx	Atari	1989	>1 million	[note 10]

I'm just going to explain my perspective on this whole topic so that you can at least understand why I say what I say.

When I think of "Nintendo", I don't think of any game, console, person, genre, or anything else. I imagine a company that has had it's trails and Jebediah knows it's fair share of failures.

Nintendo is the oldest, and also currently (out of the main 3 competitors) the only independent gaming console company. Nintendo is the only company that you can mention to my parents, to my parent's parents and they know what your referring to. It's the "family" choice for generations.

Nintendo rose from the ashes of the Great Video Game Market Crash of the mid 80s and rose up a decade later to take on 4 separate companies and take home the glory (....and accidentally have a love child with another company which is now their rival). Nintendo managed to beat out all of it's competitors during the "Bit Wars".

But in the end, Nintendo won over with it's gaming consoles, not it's handheld market. Nintendo has made amazing innovations and technological leaps since it's (official) entering of the gaming market. One of the things that allowed Nintendo to beat out it's main competitor in the 90s was it's choice to upgrade it's games rather than it's hardware, i.e., using hardware like the Super FX chip to allow it's console to push the SNES to the next generations of games while Sega had to rely on additional add-ons to extend it's lifetime.

Nintendo made some impressive handheld devices, namely the original Gameboy, Gameboy Advance (yes I skipped a few generations such as the Color, but the Color was technically similar to the original Gameboy minus the fact it had increased range of color (hence the name) and greater processing power), the DS, and now the Wii U and Switch.

My problem with their choice is that in this world where console (to me) are losing their identity and are following very much into the same fashion as consoles did in the 90s and are going for what's "technologically hip" by adding additional aspects to the console to allow it to act as an entertainment system, disc player, and more. The more Nintendo merges into the portable gaming market the more they have to contend with what phones and tablets can do, which seeing as they borderline on computers, it's a losing battle seeing as the range of functionality is going to be far more limited.

Now I have a concept idea for how Nintendo could take advantage of the new rapidly growing indie game design community and implement it into their own console along with allowing the console to have modular add-ons as needed by the game itself. But this is a tangent.

Point being; Nintendo was at their best when they had consoles, with handhelds to compliment. Best part of the Super Nintendo was the Super Gameboy add-on, or the GBA Link for the GameCube and so on. Today is a difficult market as phones are acting more like computers and portable gaming devices, and TV by themselves are now capable of acting out similar functions as a streaming device. Nintendo needs to be the one to show their competitors what's right. They did it once, why couldn't do it again.

 

This all said, it really doesn't explain my position to Gameboys being more successful than it's competitors, but to my opinion of the Switch; I'm for it, I just hope that the Switch isn't the beginning of a constant portable game systems from Nintendo and that we've seen them leave the at home gaming console market.

Hope this... very off topic rant at least explained myself somewhat despite it not answering anything.  Ah well...

[Rainbowtrout]

As a lifelong Nintendo fan, this has my attention. Hopefully it isn't as bad as the catastrophe that was the Wii U, because if it isn't then I fear for Nintendo's future. Another bad console with a weak release selection could damage the company beyond repair.

[Xannari Ferrows]

3 hours ago, Rainbowtrout said:

As a lifelong Nintendo fan, this has my attention. Hopefully it isn't as bad as the catastrophe that was the Wii U, because if it isn't then I fear for Nintendo's future. Another bad console with a weak release selection could damage the company beyond repair.

This is exactly the reason why I can easily understand and excuse their delay until March of next year. They have to make sure they do it right the first time, because there's likely not gonna be a second time. It does look like a great console though. It's simple, versatile, and looks convenient to use

[Alshain]

Just now, Xannari Ferrows said:

This is exactly the reason why I can easily understand and excuse their delay until March of next year. They have to make sure they do it right the first time, because there's likely not gonna be a second time. It does look like a great console though. It's simple, versatile, and looks convenient to use

That's the problem though, it doesn't look like a great console, it looks like a great portable, and an overly expensive console.

Consider the fact that this has a screen that can't be used in 'console' mode.  It also has all the junk that is required to make the controllers detachable.  This is all stuff that caters to the mobile market, but for people that want a console that screen will be locked in its docking station 24/7/365.  So they would be required to buy a whole bunch of hardware they don't need and can't use.  With the Wii U, I got to use both screens, but with this, I have to buy the second screen to never actually use it.  I won't be carrying it with me even if I do buy it.  It will never come out of the dock... so why do I need to pay for it?

If you take away the screen and detachable controllers, well you have a cheaper more traditional console.  If I wanted that, I can buy a PS4 or XBox One and know that it is well established and won't be a waste of money.  This product has no clear niche to fill in the console market.  It might serve as an extremely powerful device in the handheld market, but that is diminishing to phones and tablets too.

[Xannari Ferrows]

1 minute ago, Alshain said:

That's the problem though, it doesn't look like a great console, it looks like a great portable

For single player, perhaps, but the console part serves more purpose than just connecting the display to a TV. If it uses rechargeable batteries, you don't have to turn it off every time the battery gets low. This would be a bit more of an issue if the batteries didn't last that long, and that's be a good point to make, but it remains to be seen. Also for multiplayer, you wouldn't have to huddle around the small screen, and would be able to see more clearly on a TV. Esports also need this

You're also not paying for either a console, or handheld. You're paying for the option of both whenever you want, which may not be what you want, but the majority of people do. I do agree that under a lot of circumstances, the option to buy them separately depending on your own needs or wants is the better option, but I can understand them combining the two. It would take too many resources that they don't have to make them separate and individually developed again, and it's not like the act of combining them is strictly a bad thing, just that parts of the idea would appeal to parts of people's wants, rather than all of them at the same time. I actually don't even know if that's possible. I can see the argument though

[EliasDanger]

Why does Nintendo insist on being so weird with their hardware? I haven't bought anything Nintendo in decades because I am old school and they make me feel alienated. Always weird controllers, multiple screens, and inferior performance capability compared to the competition. Wish they would get back to basics.