I like Nintendo's Switch, but...



  • ...It's still Nintendo.

    In the recent Easy Allies podcast, the panel talked about how "When Nintendo try to be like the others, you get Wii U" and so on. I've been a huge Nintendo fan, owner, consumer, however you like to slice it. I've bought every Nintendo console since NES. I skipped Wii despite how many units it's sold, or if it reached my family who are casual gamers. I skipped Wii U despite targeting people like me.

    Don't get me wrong, I like what Nintendo Switch "stands" for; a hybrid console - it's a typical game console, and a typical handheld device. Nintendo has been trying to sneak into the mobile space for a while now. Nintendo Switch is pretty much a tablet computer like Ian said.

    Nintendo has always succeeded in the Handheld market, hell, they practically dominated the market. Nintendo had success with NES, SNES, and to some point, Nintendo 64. N64 was the start of Nintendo's downward spiral when it comes to software droughts, and developer support. GameCube further pushed this downward spiral, despite being a good console, and selling pretty well. N64 sold well, but still did not have good developer support. Everyone left the building. I wrote an article a long time ago to help along this story: http://www.carlos360.com/game-industry/nintendos-3rd-party-troubles-are-the-fault-of-nintendo/ (Not advertising, just relevant reading for you, if you like.)

    My problem with Nintendo since GameCube is the software droughts, little to no developer support. My other problem with Nintendo is Nintendo tries their best to have a console that is profitable. They never, ever try to go head-to-head with Sony or Microsoft.

    The developer support reflects the console's horsepower, I find. If there's not enough horsepower in the console, then you'll have Wii U - that's why it failed. It was using previous generation tech; While Sony and Microsoft are out with Xbox One and PS4, Nintendo is using PS3/Xbox 360-level tech. Wii had breakaway success, but there was little to no third party developer support, you see 80% of the games being from indies (and Nintendo's own in-house studios) - Want to know why? Because the console had less horsepower than PS3/Xbox 360. So, if Nintendo's that dumb enough - Switch is going to be similar to PS4/Xbox One, rather staying competitive to... PS4 Pro/Xbox One S technologically.

    I'm not worried about GOTY editions, ports, or remasters in Nintendo Switch, like Ian said. And I'm going to disagree with Kyle Bosman about the "exclusive" thing. Sure, Nintendo makes awesome 1st party games, or brings out stellar 2nd party games (Nintendo-exclusive games by companies doing contracts with Nintendo). Third Party Developers are necessary, Nintendo!

    I just want Nintendo Switch to be a merge between NES/Wii and Wii U. NES/Wii had the market, and the games to go with it. My problem with Wii is that it relies too much on indies, and Nintendo's own in-house development studios. Wii U catered to the hardcore gamers, and gamers that like powerful consoles.

    The reason why I bought PlayStation 4 is not only because of the power under the hood, but also developer support. I don't care if the games are also on Xbox One, and whatnot. That's not my point, I want a steady stream of games coming for my console.



  • I'm willing to disagree with the third party support. People already have PS4/Xbone/PC for third party games and doesn't necessarily need yet another option to play the latest games from EA/Activision/Ubisoft.

    I agree the problem is the software drought, but I don't think third party games are going to solve it. You already have an established friendlist on the other platforms where you also have your third party games. I would argue that Nintendo needs to get more first party studios under their wings and then really help advertise those games that aren't made by Nintendo themselves.

    The reason most people got a PS4 over the Xbone is the first party support and the list of exclusives. If Nintendo could get more developers to go first party to avoid a content drought while simultaneously offering games that you can only get on the Switch, then I think that would get more people to jump on board.

    I'd rather have more exclusives with my Nintendo console than a Nintendo console that can also play Fifa and Cod.



  • I'm still iffy about the Switches future third party support as well.

    Combined Sony and MS with their similar hardware will have a much larger userbase for multiplatform games. Which of course means more sales.

    Unless Nintendo manages to re-create the success of its handhelds for a portable console we'll just end up with another Wii / Wii U.

    Not going head to head with MS and Sony seems like a mistake to me.



  • What I want to know right now is what is going to happen to the Wii U library, there are some games in there I really wanna play (Bayonetta 2, Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Wonderful 101, Xenoblade), that if they rerelease or make them playable somehow I'm in, if they are not, I'll try to get a Wii U on the cheap.

    I've never been an early adopter and while I do love Nintendo games, I'm not gonna jump the gun for any of them, so if they make the Wii U games playable I'll be in, pretty much from the start, if not I'll probably give it some time to see how things pan out.



  • This is where I'm coming from: Nintendo doesn't need to be competitive with Microsoft or Sony. In fact, Nintendo doesn't need to compete with anyone other than itself. That just isn't what Nintendo is all about. Sega was the last competition that Nintendo officially had and you can argue that was only because of Sega's aggressive ad campaigns. Nintendo has not put out a system since the Gamecube that could compete with the other consoles on the market. But Nintendo isn't looking to provide the clearest graphical fidelity or the highest frame rates. Nintendo develops software and hardware that innovate tech that already exists. Instead of trying to improve the way we game, Nintendo tries to give us new ways to game. Honestly, Nintendo may be the last person in the industry to worry about the PC stealing their fan base.

    I agree with what the Allies, along with a few others on here, have said. Third party support isn't necessary. Yes, it is still good to have for the people who can only afford one console and don't want to feel like they are missing out on the rest of the market. But the majority of players who will buy the Switch will also have something else that they game on (whether it be an XBox, Playstation, PC or handheld). These people won't buy the Switch so they can play Call of Duty or Mass Effect on it. They buy Nintendo consoles to play Zelda, Mario and Metroid. There is a reason why their IPs are some of the strongest in industry. They are constantly improving them and innovating them to make them different and better rather than saturating the market with similar concepts.

    In the end, the best thing that Nintendo can do for the Switch is to properly utilize the unique aspects that it brings to the table rather than treating them like second-rate gimmicks that no one fully knows how to use. They can have all the third-party support in the world, but if the Switch lacks first-party games it will fail because the majority of players will buy those third-party games on other platforms that can run them better and more efficiently. Nintendo needs to keep a finger on its audience and understand why they are there. And while other platforms will continue on their march to overtake the PC (which, let's be honest, will never actually happen) Nintendo will continue to operate in a league of its own. That's what I am hoping for them. Simply that Nintendo will continue to be Nintendo.



  • @Caleb_Aranda said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    These people won't buy the Switch so they can play Call of Duty or Mass Effect on it. They buy Nintendo consoles to play Zelda, Mario and Metroid. There is a reason why their IPs are some of the strongest in industry. They are constantly improving them and innovating them to make them different and better rather than saturating the market with similar concepts.

    If Nintendo's ips are that powerful why did the Wii U fail so miserably?

    It had Mario.
    It had Yoshi.
    It had Donkey Kong.
    It had Super Smash Bros.
    It'll have a Zelda soon.
    It had a Star Fox game and a Pikmin game that everyone begged for.

    They weren't enough to sell the console.



  • Interesting point of view, particularly since I am the opposite I have never been a childhood fan of Nintendo due to past pigheadedness of being a Sony fanboy (which is still a part of me though to a lesser degree) I personally only got into Nintendo during the Wii era although it was mostly to play Gamecube games I ignored in the past. You definitely bring up good points on the Wii and Wii U but what was Nintendo's solution? To create a console on par with PS4 and XB1? Nintendo already tried that with the GC and failed miserably, it is possible the Switch is the last nail in the coffin for Nintendo working in the hardware business or perhaps the opposite it could be the way for them to stay afloat in the hardware business whilst the powerhouse console developers of Sony and Microsoft still exist. Either way we can't really determine what will happen we just have to wait and see. It seems a bit unfair to me to dismiss it because of their past failures since this is an entirely new direction for them that honestly to me holds the best promise and as for third party support (http://wiiudaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/nintendo_switch_partners-1140x754-640x423.jpg?x74487). Again I realise this may mean nothing since the Switch is not out yet but the opposite can also be said that you can't seriously think Nintendo are going to make the same mistake with their past two consoles that they will with the Switch until we see how gamers react to it.



  • @Art There were many reasons that the Wii U failed. It was marketed horribly. At launch, many people (including myself) didn't even know it was another console separate from the Wii. Naming it the Wii U probably didn't help matters much. And the announcement didn't even showcase the actual console, just the gamepad. This meant a lot of people assumed that it was a peripheral device for the Wii. As a result, it launch with terrible sales and had to fight an uphill battle just to get to the point it should have been at over a year earlier.

    The Wii U was also supposed to be Nintendo's return to their core audience. However, the Wii, while extremely successful, was marketed to the family and was sold to be a household system that non-gamers could enjoy. Whether it be the name or simply as the console that followed the Wii, the Wii U suffered from a warped audience perspective. It was trying to dip its hands into two groups of people at once. It claimed to be for the old-school fans (who are in their 20s to 40s) but was then marketed to children. Now while Nintendo has always kept a younger audience in-mind, this marketing contradicted what the Wii U had claimed to be.

    The "second-screen experience" has since been mostly abandoned by the industry due to the negative reaction of fans (remember the Xbox Smartglass?). However, this was the basket that the Wii U had put all of its eggs into. In Nintendo's defense, the second-screen experience hadn't officially be deemed a bad idea until after the Wii U was already out. Regardless, it was a hand that Nintendo went all-in on and busted.

    While there are many others, the biggest reason that the Wii U failed (in my opinion) was the poor implementation of its hardware. As I had also said in my post:
    "... the best thing that Nintendo can do for the Switch is to properly utilize the unique aspects that it brings to the table rather than treating them like second-rate gimmicks that no one fully knows how to use."
    And that is what the Wii U didn't do. It didn't know how to use its hardware. Before Nintendo even knew what it had, they boxed it up, shipped it off, and let the developers figure out how to work with it. Unsurprisingly, the devs didn't know how to properly use it and instead used it as an inventory screen or a map screen or anything that wasn't necessary. And when they did try to do something innovative with it, we got Star Fox Zero (which I found to be almost unplayable).

    The Wii U failed for many reasons. So did the Dreamcast. So did the Vita. I don't believe that one single thing can kill a console. Just like I don't believe one single thing can save it (like better third-party support). And I don't want this post to seem mean or to make it look like I'm hating on Nintendo. I don't hate Nintendo. I love Nintendo. That's why I'm so critical of them. I know they can do so much better than what they are doing. Luckily, it seems that they have learned from their experience with the Wii U and have corrected their course. I'm so excited for the Switch. So far, they are hitting all the right tones. I just hope the song sounds as amazing as I think it will when I get my hands on it.



  • @Caleb_Aranda said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    At launch, many people (including myself) didn't even know it was another console separate from the Wii.

    I didn't even know it existed until I started following games media again in late 2013, haha. Seriously though, the only thing I poked me head out for at that time was Skyward Sword (I was playing lots of Skyrim and also dealing with real life).

    The dumb box launched with NSMB: Indistinguishable Edition and Nintendo Land — who was going to care? Not even I did, and I'm a game-fixated Nintendo baby for chrissakes!



  • @Art They did have all those games, and those were the ones that sold well on the system. Batman Arkham City and Mass effect 3 didn't. If VGchartz is to be believed (it isn't) then ME3 sold 280k copies and Batman Arkham City sold 380k copies on the Wii U. People want the exclusives. Case in point:

    @bard91 said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    there are some games in there I really wanna play (Bayonetta 2, Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Wonderful 101, Xenoblade), that if they rerelease or make them playable somehow I'm in, if they are not, I'll try to get a Wii U on the cheap.

    My own Wii U library consists only of exclusives, be it first or second party. I'm not saying there isn't any value in third party games because of course there is. For some people who can only buy one console it might be the deciding factor. But I do believe that there is greater value in Nintendo getting more first party studios and getting second party game contracts. I got a Wii U for the same reason I got a PS4, the exclusive games only available on that platform. That is also the reason I have yet to get an Xbox One.



  • from a handheld console standpoint, I think the Switch has some potential. Hopefully the hardware can handle Wii U games at a minimum. I understand they'll have Zelda Breath of the Wild, but who knows if it's going to be equal or better than the Wii U version.

    I'm glad, they've made their latest system more conventional. This is more enticing for third parties to include the Switch as one of their release platforms.There's a deep library of existing third party games that can re-released for the Switch with newfound portability. People would go nuts for being able to play full experience RE4, Fallout, Batman, Tomb Raider, Skyrim, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, and sports games on the go. Add in some first party exclusives and current gen third party ports and you have a solid platform.

    I do have a couple of concerns though. Firstly, the console has to sell in order for developers to be interested in the platform. I think the largest factors will be price and battery life. Though battery life won't be a deal breaker, it will take a lot of wind out of the sails. I can imagine playing high powered console games with multiple wireless accessories will have a very limited battery life. It'd be great to play Batman Arkham City on a long plane trip, but if it only lasts 3 hours and I don't have a place to plugin, that will be disappointing.

    It can't be more than $300. You can have a PS4 or Xbox One bundle for less than that. Each system already has a lot of great games and many more great games on the way. They have much better online communities than Nintendo and support unified account systems! Nintendo needs to let go of nickel and diming their loyal fans. If Nintendo introduced a unified account system and allowed people to import their existing eShop purchases onto this thing, that would make it a killer console right out the gate. A portable console with HDTV output that can play all of your digital purchases from NES, GB, SNES, N64, DS, 3DS, Wii, and Wii U.



  • @matt said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    If Nintendo introduced a unified account system and allowed people to import their existing eShop purchases onto this thing, that would make it a killer console right out the gate. A portable console with HDTV output that can play all of your digital purchases from NES, GB, SNES, N64, DS, 3DS, Wii, and Wii U.

    Even excluding the GC, Wii and Wii U, I would pay handsomely just for that.



  • @matt said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    It'd be great to play Batman Arkham City on a long plane trip, but if it only lasts 3 hours and I don't have a place to plugin, that will be disappointing.

    Word is that it's only 3h.

    I don't think you should really view it as a handheld, more that you can use your stationary console unplugged for a while.



  • @suplextrain said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    @matt said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    It'd be great to play Batman Arkham City on a long plane trip, but if it only lasts 3 hours and I don't have a place to plugin, that will be disappointing.

    Word is that it's only 3h.

    I don't think you should really view it as a handheld, more that you can use your stationary console unplugged for a while.

    External battery only $29.99



  • Yeah, same here. I feel the system is going to fail due to bad marketing and generally, being a 'gimmick' that will not compare with the console wars of the current decade and of the future.

    Plus, the Switch is not doing anything to reduce the 'kiddy' image of Nintendo in general, which is caused mostly by their marketing changes...



  • @suplextrain Me personally, I'm not viewing this as a handheld device. I think it's a neat feature but mostly not all that useful to me. I probably logged most of my time on my handhelds at home. And if I can play on the big screen, I'd probably opt for that most of the time.

    The way they advertise it, makes it seem like they want people to think of it as a handheld/portable device. They want you to believe you can get on a plane and start skyrim and pretty much play on the plane ride, in the cab ride home, and then dock it as soon as you get home. If it can't really do this without the need to constantly park yourself by a power outlet or purchase external battery chargers, then people will be disappointed or turned off. Just my opinion on it.

    @Art If it's so small, Nintendo should incorporate more battery capacity themselves. It'd cost them less than it would cost us.



  • @matt said in I like Nintendo's Switch, but...:

    @suplextrain Me personally, I'm not viewing this as a handheld device. I think it's a neat feature but mostly not all that useful to me. I probably logged most of my time on my handhelds at home. And if I can play on the big screen, I'd probably opt for that most of the time.

    The way they advertise it, makes it seem like they want people to think of it as a handheld/portable device. They want you to believe you can get on a plane and start skyrim and pretty much play on the plane ride, in the cab ride home, and then dock it as soon as you get home. If it can't really do this without the need to constantly park yourself by a power outlet or purchase external battery chargers, then people will be disappointed or turned off. Just my opinion on it.

    Well humanity hasn't gotten that far in the battery development. I really don't expect 5 hours of battery life out of the Switch with that big of a screen running the kind of games it advertises, etc.
    I mean the Vita is a quality handheld and even it struggles to run games for 5-7 hours straight.

    I personally just view the Switch as what the WiiU was supposed to be, but not as something I'd run around with as a handheld.
    Seems to be ok for families, like you give your kids in the backseat the Switch and they can each get one of those small pads to play games on or whatever. I honestly don't see the Switch appealing to the hardcore gamers.



  • Too many variables to have a meaningful discussion about the Nintendo Switch right now.

    Battery is going to make or break this device, but I fully expect it to have a "meh" reaction. Not a great battery life, but a number that half will argue is too low, and half will say is plenty-drawing comparisons to gaming laptops or smartphones that have 3-4 hours of screen on time.



  • I know this isn't an a straight forward answer, but I don't feel I can really offer say whether the Switch is a positive or negative thing because there are too many unknowns.

    Yes, the reveal was good and the concept was clear, but there are so many details we need to know still. And I think Ninty might be making a mistake leaving the extra info until January. These are just the main points that need details, at least for me.

    • Full hardware specs. We don't really know what this machine is capable of. It isn't the be all and end all necessarily, but it helps us know what the machine can do. This includes little things like screen resolution, card capacity, online functionality etc.

    • Battery life. This is a major one and is a potentially huge factor that could make the console thrive or kill it. If it has a low battery life it could seriously hurt the console and go against the message that Nintendo has already set-up.

    • First-party software. One thing I really wish Nintendo would do is create new IPs and gaming properties. A large part of this is letting go of the old guard and giving more power to their younger designers. They don't do it as much as they should and it's a huge problem that they don't seem to realise. Splatoon was the one recent example where people like Tsubasa Sakaguchi and Yusuke Amano could have a say. And you know what? It sold well, it reviewed well, and fans love it! In all honesty I'd be more excited by 3 new IPs that showcased fresh ideas over a new Mario, Donkey Kong and perhaps even Zelda.

    • Third-party software support. We need to know how this is playing out. What is the mixture between ports that already exist, new games releasing on Switch alongside other platforms, and games which would be exclusive to Switch? It's all well and good having a list of people who say they will support the platform, but right now that doesn't mean shit. It's the same case with every hardware launch ever. There are always those that say they'll support it, but that support disappears or becomes minimal. I remember Ken Levine bigging up the Wii U when it first came. Nothing happend. And then we have things like the Capcom Five where one game was cancelled and the main three went to other platforms. We need details, rather than a screen with corporate logos on it.

    • The software line-up. We need to know what's available at launch and also what will be available throughout the first year.

    • Price. This one is self-explanatory. It just needs to be priced at the same price or lower than other consoles. And that's the bottom line.

    The fact that we know next to nothing about all of these is a huge problem, and I can't honestly stake my claim one way or the other until it's cleared up. And with the fact that 2017 is going to start off with a bang, it makes it an even bigger worry for me.

    And as an extra point. Nintendo can play the game of "hey, we're not in competition with other companies." Well guess what? They are. If you are a games company, you are in direct competition with everything else. You are competing for time, attention and what people choose to spend their money on. They don't have to go after the other companies or be like them, but they need to realise it at the very least. Just a few things I've been meaning to get out.



  • I'm pretty psyched for the Switch, and as long as it's at least as capable as Wii U I'm fine with that. But the two things that I really want to know (aside from the games that will be on it, of course) are battery life and internal storage options.

    Battery is pretty obvious. If I'm going to take this with me on a business trip across the country, will it survive the trip without having to plug it in on the plane? Battery life is a big deal for a device with a portable option like this.

    The other thing is internal storage. When I can, I tend to prefer to download my games for the convenience of having them all the time. But if they're going to have huge games like Skyrim and Breath of the Wild on the system, even with a 128GB SD card, that's not going to go very far.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Easy Allies Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.