• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Goodbye NX, hello Switch

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,721
251
126
They also failed to deliver the true 3D mario game on the WiiU. I'm sure many people who played 3D world were disappointed that it was isometric 3D, I know I was extremely disappointed. I wanted a game more in the style of Galaxy or Mario 64 than what was delivered.

Donkey Kong Country on the WiiU was yet another side scrolling platformer. I don't know about anyone else but I've grown tired of that after 30 years.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
I suspect that the reason nintendo stays in hardware is because of Japan's labor laws which make it hard to shed employees.

The Switch looks pretty bad. It's going to be underpowered, and those little nunchucks are more moving pieces that will be lost and broken.

Nintendo should have cut hardware long ago and made an accessory that piggiebacked on existing platforms. That, or it should have jumped early on to the ipad as a platform. Apple has largely taken the shine that Nintendo used to have.
 

fr

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,408
2
81
Nintendo will continue to resell the same games from the past 30 years for the next 30 years. They are content with doing just that. They are masters of the long con.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,049
468
126
First huge multi platform game confirmed not coming to Switch is..........



Mass Effect Andromeda

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/mass-effect-andromeda-not-planned-for-nintendo-swi/1100-6446569/


You would think Nintendo would be throwing money at these developers to get them to port games over to their new console. So either Nintendo still doesn't care about third party support which is likely seeing their history, or they aren't able to port it over because of technical issues with the big difference in power of the hardware. Either way, even before the console releases, already not a good sign for third party support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussianSensation

MarkizSchnitzel

Senior member
Nov 10, 2013
386
24
81
No sense in beating a dead horse, I think..

I think they, and us all, are now well aware that 3rd party support will probably be worse than ever.

So the context in which to view the Switch and its niche, is:
- those that want 1st party Nintendo games
- don't care for 3rd party
- don't care about GPU power
- potentially, mobility is a plus

So not a large niche. But, I think Nintendo knows this, and has taken this into account?
For whatever reason, they have given up on "high end" and chasing the hardware sales/power throne.
I do hope their strategy keeps them afloat, though perhaps it would be better if they just because a software company in the future.
 

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
If they keep servicing the 3DS as a separate entity, this thing is going to fall on its face. It's an interesting idea with some pretty poor execution, IMO. They would have done better by just recreating the Wii U in a way that the tablet emulated the lower display of the 3DS, meaning you got a single platform with a consistent hardware experience that gave the library flexibility of being friendly for home and portable consoles. Pair it with an Xbox Platy Anywhere system, and they'd have something really nice.

Instead, we've got a lot of unknowns. We don't know if there's touch. We don't know what software support the thing will get from Nintendo. All I know, really, is that Nintendo didn't product nearly enough content (skipping franchises like Pokémon, Mario Golf, Metroid, Zelda, Animal Crossing, and Fire Emblem on the Wii U, while also royally botching Mario Party and Mario Tennis) for the Wii U. They have to get games going, and not just for launch. They can't put out 3 good games, then take a year off. They need to have a steady release of one decent game every 3-6 months, which is a pretty pitiful goal, when compared to what third-party devs bring to the other consoles. Still, that would be enough to make the Switch a worthwhile secondary/mobile console. If they keep treating the 3DS as a first-rate platform, and giving it big-time exclusives that the Switch won't see, then the Switch is going to struggle for entertaining content and get no love.

I won't get a Switch at launch because I don't trust Nintendo will do it right. They haven't in years (considering my dislike for the original Wii, I'd say about a decade). I'll wait to see 3 things before committing to the Switch:

1. A legitimate network for online play (including voice chat)
2. A decent lineup of launch games
3. At least 5 total games on the console I'd want to play (which isn't even true with the Wii U now, for me)
 

KentState

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2001
7,957
237
106
The biggest issue I see is that Nintendo has thrown out so many gimmicks over the last 10 years that it's impossible to support backward compatibility going forward. All of the previous DS and 3DS games are practically unusable on the Switch unless they rework them. Wii and Wii U games have a mixture of inputs and split screen that will need to be resolved. I just don't see how you convince people to spend $250-300 on a new platform with no 3rd party support and two big titles at launch and nothing else to use it with. Well, I guess you can re-buy all of the classic games from the Gamecube and earlier.
 

JujuFish

Lifer
Feb 3, 2005
10,185
311
136
No sense in beating a dead horse, I think..

I think they, and us all, are now well aware that 3rd party support will probably be worse than ever.

So the context in which to view the Switch and its niche, is:
- those that want 1st party Nintendo games
- don't care for 3rd party
- don't care about GPU power
- potentially, mobility is a plus
This is console gaming in general, no? It's about the quality of the games, not how pretty they look.
 

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
Except part of the game's quality IS how it looks.
To an extent, but there are also diminishing returns on that front, and graphics cannot overcome other, key flaws. Yes, it would hurt the quality of Forza if the next one out looks like a 360-era game. No, you couldn't improve the visuals of Overwatch enough to get me to play it.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,721
251
126
To an extent, but there are also diminishing returns on that front, and graphics cannot overcome other, key flaws. Yes, it would hurt the quality of Forza if the next one out looks like a 360-era game. No, you couldn't improve the visuals of Overwatch enough to get me to play it.
I didn't mean to imply that a game you don't like would be likable with better graphics. I just mean that a good game is not ever made worse and in some cases is made better by the graphics being nice. This is not the same as art style. Some people think Journey looks like crap and I wouldn't disagree and others think the art style is awesome.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
50,226
3,169
126
I can't believe that people on a gaming forum are seriously trying to say that graphics don't matter...
 

podspi

Golden Member
Jan 11, 2011
1,938
39
91
Probably because ME3 tanked on the Wii U.


From everything leaked so far, 3rd party support will be (of course, just day 1) better than the Wii U. Visuals will fall behind the XB1, but probably not to the extent that you'll care unless you are comparing them directly.

For me, the #1 worry is the CPU and possibly memory. The latest rumors I've heard are 4xA57s @ 1ghz, and 4gb of RAM. Those specs, if true (and no special sauce) will the largest bottlenecks to 3rd party multiplats.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,049
468
126
Probably because ME3 tanked on the Wii U.


From everything leaked so far, 3rd party support will be (of course, just day 1) better than the Wii U. Visuals will fall behind the XB1, but probably not to the extent that you'll care unless you are comparing them directly.

For me, the #1 worry is the CPU and possibly memory. The latest rumors I've heard are 4xA57s @ 1ghz, and 4gb of RAM. Those specs, if true (and no special sauce) will the largest bottlenecks to 3rd party multiplats.
No, there is going to be a BIG difference in graphics, it's going to be very noticeable. And there is literally nothing so far saying 3rd party support is going to be better than the WiiU.
 

Lil Frier

Platinum Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,720
21
81
No, there is going to be a BIG difference in graphics, it's going to be very noticeable. And there is literally nothing so far saying 3rd party support is going to be better than the WiiU.
Looked like NBA and Skyrim would make it, that's already an upgrade for third-party (ignoring second-party agreements like Bayonetta 2).
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,269
168
106
Probably because ME3 tanked on the Wii U.


From everything leaked so far, 3rd party support will be (of course, just day 1) better than the Wii U. Visuals will fall behind the XB1, but probably not to the extent that you'll care unless you are comparing them directly.

For me, the #1 worry is the CPU and possibly memory. The latest rumors I've heard are 4xA57s @ 1ghz, and 4gb of RAM. Those specs, if true (and no special sauce) will the largest bottlenecks to 3rd party multiplats.
Actually there's no strong indication that 3rd party multiplatform support will be better. For one, NBA Live and Skyrim have not actually been announced for the Switch, despite being shown in the reveal trailer. Skyrim is a port of a last generation game, which is no better than the slew of last gen ports the Wii U got at the start (Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and a few others). Only Ubisoft really bothered trying to support the Wii U with current games like Assassin's Creed IV and Watch_Dogs. Given that the Switch is going to be significantly behind even the Xbox One, I'm skeptical that developers will be able to port 8th gen console games to the Switch. There is a rumor that From Software has Dark Souls 3 running on the Switch, but that's just a rumor. I'll give the Switch credit for third party support when current gen games actually start appearing on it.

The real advantage that the Switch has over how the Wii U did at launch is better marketing. The reveal trailer for the Switch immediately set a better course for marketing than the Wii U ever had. The Wii U was just a confusing product. A lot of people thought it was an accessory for the Wii, or hadn't even heard of it. Even promotional videos were unclear about just what the Wii U did. It has a screen? Is the screen its own thing? How do you use it? And the very name added to the confusion. Simply calling it the Wii 2 could have made things clear, but nope. And Nintendo's marketing was virtually all focused on kids, never making an attempt to appeal to adult gamers who actually see online promotion. With the Switch, everything about the role and function of the console is clear. It's a console that you can hook up to your TV or take with you on the go, simple. The ditched the Wii brand entirely, so no confusion on that end. And they've made an effort to appeal to adults, by focusing on adults using the system in the reveal trailer and showing it off on the Tonight Show, where I'm pretty sure viewer demographics skew a bit past grade school. So, solid groundwork for the Switch's marketing have been laid, I just hope Nintendo can follow up on it over the next few months.
 

Tweak155

Lifer
Sep 23, 2003
11,321
204
106
I can't believe that people on a gaming forum are seriously trying to say that graphics don't matter...
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it's not that graphics don't matter, they're just not a single determining factor if a game is good or not (in this case, all the games) - which I tend to agree with. Rocket League is not some realistic looking game but it is tons of fun, and I'm betting something like that could run on Switch.

Looked like NBA and Skyrim would make it, that's already an upgrade for third-party (ignoring second-party agreements like Bayonetta 2).
Skyrim would be interesting to have available as a portable and console plug in experience. But I think the majority of people that buy Nintendo do it for the first party stuff. Even if Nintendo had the best hardware, they'd still have to convince everyone to switch over to have a high population multiplayer experience, along with great network support which both XB1 & PS4 already provide.
 

podspi

Golden Member
Jan 11, 2011
1,938
39
91
No, there is going to be a BIG difference in graphics, it's going to be very noticeable. And there is literally nothing so far saying 3rd party support is going to be better than the WiiU.
Actually there's no strong indication that 3rd party multiplatform support will be better. For one, NBA Live and Skyrim have not actually been announced for the Switch, despite being shown in the reveal trailer. Skyrim is a port of a last generation game, which is no better than the slew of last gen ports the Wii U got at the start (Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, Deus Ex Human Revolution, and a few others). Only Ubisoft really bothered trying to support the Wii U with current games like Assassin's Creed IV and Watch_Dogs. Given that the Switch is going to be significantly behind even the Xbox One, I'm skeptical that developers will be able to port 8th gen console games to the Switch. There is a rumor that From Software has Dark Souls 3 running on the Switch, but that's just a rumor. I'll give the Switch credit for third party support when current gen games actually start appearing on it. (snip)
My point is that 3rd party support on day 1 will be better than what it is on the Wii U. People forget, but the Wii U was actually the most powerful console at release, the 'last-gen' ports were current-gen at that point. I think if the Switch's CPU is fast enough to support current-gen games, at least at launch there will be good 3rd party support.


I also think a lot of people are discounting that the Switch (from a practical, if not official point of view) is replacing the 3DS, which gets a ton of 3rd party support. The only real question is, are publishers going to treat it like a handheld, a home console, or both (depending on the game). I still stand by my previous statement, I think CPU and memory should be much larger concerns than GPU to people worried about 3rd party support. It is much easier to scale down GPU load than it is CPU load. A device with lots of IO and CPU power, even with a smaller less powerful GPU, will be fine. It might not look as nice, but a lot of people (me included) won't care if it means we can play it as a handheld for a few hours.
 

Yakk

Golden Member
May 28, 2016
1,574
272
81
.

For me, the #1 worry is the CPU and possibly memory. The latest rumors I've heard are 4xA57s @ 1ghz, and 4gb of RAM. Those specs, if true (and no special sauce) will the largest bottlenecks to 3rd party multiplats.
The Switch's lowered resolution will help the small processor no doubt compared to, let's say a bigger ARM processor in the Samsung S7 running a 2K resolution in stereoscopic VR.

I'd think developer financial support and tools from Nintendo will dictate how many ports get made. I'm also very curious if Nintendo will relax their politically charged game certification process which was a royal pain in the a$$.
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,761
60
91
I suspect that the reason nintendo stays in hardware is because of Japan's labor laws which make it hard to shed employees.

The Switch looks pretty bad. It's going to be underpowered, and those little nunchucks are more moving pieces that will be lost and broken.

Nintendo should have cut hardware long ago and made an accessory that piggiebacked on existing platforms. That, or it should have jumped early on to the ipad as a platform. Apple has largely taken the shine that Nintendo used to have.
Or, they could have gone away from gimmicks and just put out a PS4 clone. Then, they would have gotten all the multi-plats and exclusive nintendo games.

The only thing killing nintendo is their idiotic management. They literally could have just hired a few hardware people from sony or M$ and just put out a x86 machine for LESS R&D money than putting out a new gameplay paradigm.

If they had something similar to a One S or PS slim for $250 for holidays last year, they'd have sold gangbusters. I mean, they could have just ported Mariokart, 3d world, and smash bros, and had a couple big multi-plats, and they'd have sold tons.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,269
168
106
Or, they could have gone away from gimmicks and just put out a PS4 clone. Then, they would have gotten all the multi-plats and exclusive nintendo games.

The only thing killing nintendo is their idiotic management. They literally could have just hired a few hardware people from sony or M$ and just put out a x86 machine for LESS R&D money than putting out a new gameplay paradigm.

If they had something similar to a One S or PS slim for $250 for holidays last year, they'd have sold gangbusters. I mean, they could have just ported Mariokart, 3d world, and smash bros, and had a couple big multi-plats, and they'd have sold tons.
How boring and unimaginative.

I challenge the idea that an Xbox One S/PS4 Slim clone would have sold "gangbusters". Or at least, that it would have sold more than the Switch will. I think Nintendo's management is doing what has (almost) always brought Nintendo success: 1. Focus on handhelds, and 2. Think outside the box to give players a unique experience.

Just look at what Nintendo's biggest successes in the past have been. Handhelds are a core business for them and, with one exception, sold better than their home consoles for decades. Then there's the Wii, which found success by giving players a new experience rather than matching the PS3 and Xbox 360 FLOP for FLOP. The DS also left the more powerful PSP in the dust, which I'd at least partially credit to the dual-screen functionality. You can point to the Wii U as "gimmicky", but I'd argue that the Wii U failed both because of marketing and because the "gimmick" was poorly conceived. Nintendo's successes were always easy to understand. The Wii U wasn't, while the Switch is pretty clear-cut. It was obvious from the first reveal just what the Switch is and does. Not so with the Wii U.

As far as matching Xbox/Playstation hardware wise meaning good returns for Nintendo, we actually have a precedent for what happens when they try to do that. Gamecube. And the Gamecube's sales were measly in comparison to Wii. For one, just having the hardware didn't mean third party devs would jump aboard. And second, simply having Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Zelda, etc., wasn't enough to bring in huge sales. If it didn't work then, why would it work now?

And you have to consider the current market. A lot of people already have PS4s, Xbox Ones, or gaming PCs and see no reason to get another system. The handheld aspect of the Switch presents an additional reason to buy it even if you already own a PC or other console. I think that appeal was a key reason the 3DS sold so well over the Wii U (still more 3DSes out there than PS4s)

When it comes down to it, merging their handheld and home console business just makes sense, for both Nintendo and for your average consumer out there who just wants to play some games.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,721
251
126
The market is different than it ever was. People expect a certain level of detail in their games and Nintendo can't deliver. It will hurt and yes a system with the Nintendo logo on it that was basically a PS4 with a different OS would sell plenty well provided Nintendo got their head out of their ass and built a competent online community for it.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,269
168
106
The market is different than it ever was. People expect a certain level of detail in their games and Nintendo can't deliver. It will hurt and yes a system with the Nintendo logo on it that was basically a PS4 with a different OS would sell plenty well provided Nintendo got their head out of their ass and built a competent online community for it.
And your reason behind this is...? Who's to say that the Switch doesn't provide the level of detail that most people (read: not tech forum goers) expect?

And the online multiplayer issue is another thing that's not a given. Since Nintendo is so far behind MS/Sony, I think it's fair to question if they even can close the gap. Bringing their online service up to part may be such an large investment that they're not even sure they can do properly, giving them another reason to not want to compete directly with MS/Sony.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,049
468
126
And your reason behind this is...? Who's to say that the Switch doesn't provide the level of detail that most people (read: not tech forum goers) expect?

And the online multiplayer issue is another thing that's not a given. Since Nintendo is so far behind MS/Sony, I think it's fair to question if they even can close the gap. Bringing their online service up to part may be such an large investment that they're not even sure they can do properly, giving them another reason to not want to compete directly with MS/Sony.
The graphical problem is that because it's so under powered, don't expect AAA games from third party devs to appear on it. We already know one of the biggest games of this whole generation, the new Mass Effect, isn't going to be on the Switch.

Just look at the system, the size of it alone shows that you aren't going to get full third party support. Hard drive space is obviously going to be extremely limited. Games are MUCH larger today, even patches are too and there is obviously only going to be flash memory in it. Even if it's expandable with SD cards, that's still not a lot of memory for the normal games everyone plays that aren't Nintendo exclusives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RussianSensation

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,269
168
106
The graphical problem is that because it's so under powered, don't expect AAA games from third party devs to appear on it. We already know one of the biggest games of this whole generation, the new Mass Effect, isn't going to be on the Switch.
That's a somewhat separate issue from games not providing the level of detail that players expect, though.

Yes, the Switch's specs mean that cutting-edge games that already push the PS4/Xbox One to their limits, like Mass Effect Andromeda, likely won't be on it. But that does beg the question of just how much the Switch needs AAA third party games like that. I mean, the 3DS didn't have them, and it sold pretty well. The Switch is probably close enough that if it does sell well from the get go, we could see developers adjusting to make sure their games can be on the Switch.

I'm not so sure I would call Mass Effect Andromeda "one of the biggest games of this whole generation". Sure, it has a bit of hype to it, and it's had a cult fanbase all along (which I consider myself part of), but Mass Effect has never been some sort of mainstream gaming juggernaut. Its audience is more niche than Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Grand Theft Auto, etc. And it remains to be seen just how much the ME3 ending fiasco lingers and is going to affect MEA's sales in comparison...in any case, I'd definitely say that Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is a bigger release this year than MEA.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY