Nintendo Switch is powered by NVIDIA

[Sonikku]

Apr 28, 2017. I already have my pre-order in place on Amazon.com, which because I am a prime member means I will get it for $48 before tax.

Big whup. I have GCU at Best Buy which also takes 20% off, but in addition I can couple it with $25 off $100 orders with Visa. Good option if you want to preorder two games.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Big whup. I have GCU at Best Buy which also takes 20% off, but in addition I can couple it with $25 off $100 orders with Visa. Good option if you want to preorder two games.

Yeah, that is for sure the better deal. Especially for something like Zelda that you don't want to wait for. Also a lot of people got $10 off coupons from Best Buy recently via email that makes it even better.

I already used the Visa Checkout coupon though to buy my wife a new fitbit Charge 2 so that way she will chill out about me pre-ordering and paying for a game console two months before I can get it. Lol.

 

[ElFenix]

gba and 3ds were both pocketable. this isn't.

 

[Sonikku]

I'm pissed I never got the $10 best buy coupon. Would have been perfect for my Zelda special edition purchase. Still, $80 isn't bad.

 

[Rifter]

Russian is right, Nintendo has no idea what they are doing anymore. They couldn't release a competitive console to save their lives. Wake me up when they at least release something as powerful as a PS3.

I mean wii was fail wii u was fail now they are tripling down on failed consoles. Wake the hell up guys look at a godamn spec sheet and release something competitive and get some 3rd party studios back in your corner.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I mean wii was fail

Uh, the Wii won that console generation.

 

[Sonikku]

Uh, the Wii won that console generation.

The Wii was a phenomenon. People bought it who had never bought a game system before in their life, played wii sports for half an hour then never played the system again. For those that had liked the Gamecube, the chance to play Nintendo titles like F Zero GX pushing graphics that even the Xbox was hard pressed to match, the Wii was a disappointment. Though it is understandable Nintendo had to try something different on account of the Gamecube's low sales.

 

[moonbogg]

I just found out this thing has game cartridges? That's awesome. You can actually borrow and share games again? Get out! People are trying to smear this thing. They say it only has 32gb of storage, but they neglect to mention the console uses game cartridges. I like it for some reason. Also, you can LAN it up with these things? Was that possible on other hand held systems? It seems new to me for some reason. All I know is showing up at someone's house for a holiday get together can be boring at times and having a few of these around could be awesome. I like the idea of this thing quite a bit actually, but I'd like it more knowing that other people I know will have them also. This console seems to really promote social gaming, like, in real life and stuff with other people. That seems to really be one of its strong characteristics and I like that about it. You can't do that with your xbox right? (here's where someone sais, "well actually..")

 

[Rifter]

The Wii was a phenomenon. People bought it who had never bought a game system before in their life, played wii sports for half an hour then never played the system again. For those that had liked the Gamecube, the chance to play Nintendo titles like F Zero GX pushing graphics that even the Xbox was hard pressed to match, the Wii was a disappointment. Though it is understandable Nintendo had to try something different on account of the Gamecube's low sales.

exactly, it had weak hardware and the only reason it sold any units was with the gimmicky sports crap. as far as a top tier console with AAA titles it failed.

 

[Face2Face]

Yes, Nintendo creating a console with hardware in same realm as the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S would be really difficult for them... they're so dumb...such fail.

Folks we need a console that can play the same games at the same level as the PS4, Xbox, and PC. Those three are simply not enough. Hurry, grab your torches! Burn this hybrid Heretic!

 

[poofyhairguy]

The Wii was a phenomenon. People bought it who had never bought a game system before in their life, played wii sports for half an hour then never played the system again.

Yeah but over a hundred million people did that. The Wii was the most successful Nintendo console of all time, more than the NES even. Nintendo would MUCH prefer to have another Wii than another N64 or GameCube (the last two times Nintendo tried to compete on console power). I liked the GameCube a lot but if the Wii would have been another GameCube then today Nintendo would be known solely as the seller of the 3DS at best because their main console business would be dead. Hell the Gamecube was everything everyone wants from the Switch and it didn't get third party support worth a damn. Nintendo has to do more than put GFLOPs in a box to win back western game developers it was outright hostile to when it was king.




What I fundamentally don't understand is why so many people DEMAND Nintendo goes for the brass ring. What is wrong with being a great secondary console in a market that right now doesn't seem like it can support two top tier options? Microsoft isn't close to Sony with their best shot, and yet people want Nintendo to play a game of chicken with the now dominant PS4. Its suicide.

If Nintendo makes money on each console sold, and makes money on the games, then even if the thing sells like 70 million units with an attach rate of two that is a huge success for them. It is like some people WANT Nintendo to fail so that way they are forced to be a third party developer like Sega is on the console they already own. And when was the last time Sega had a game with anywhere near that the hype this Zelda game is getting?

I predict the Switch will outsell the Xbox One by the end of its life, even though the Xbox One is more or less exactly what people want from Nintendo. Nothing is beating the PS4 this generation for hardcore gamers and I for one am glad Nintendo didn't try to because I like them being in the market. The 3DS does plenty well despite not having any "AAA" (read: big budget mature) games.

 

[linkgoron]

Yes, Nintendo creating a console with hardware in same realm as the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S would be really difficult for them... they're so dumb...such fail.

Folks we need a console that can play the same games at the same level as the PS4, Xbox, and PC. Those three are simply not enough. Hurry, grab your torches! Burn this hybrid Heretic!

Yeah, obviously creating a console based on Pascal/newer ARM SOC would be such an awful idea. Who would want 50%-100% the battery life, or the same battery life with double the performance?

However, even ignoring the benefits to the hybrid model, who will develop for a much weaker console in 2019/2020? As the architecture is different than other mainstream consoles, and the console itself is already weaker - porting will be difficult/costly. You've got to ask who will develop for the console? Especially if cartridge size/cost limits will also add to the difficulty.

Sure, Nintendo will develop Zelda/Mario/Mario Kart/Smash Bros/Pokemon/whatever. Is that enough for the console to be successful? The Wii U wasn't, and from what I've seen so far the Switch mainly appeals to those who would buy the next Nintendo console anyway.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Yeah, obviously creating a console based on Pascal/newer ARM SOC would be such an awful idea. Who would want 50%-100% the battery life, or the same battery life with double the performance?

That whole battery life improvement thing with a newer ARM process sounds great. I am sure we will see that for the Switch when they revise the Switch hardware like they have done with every mobile platform they ever made. The original 3DS had the same battery life as the Switch in its first form, I expect the Switch will improve over time in the same way as that becomes a more affordable option.

You've got to ask who will develop for the console?

Well Nintendo for one, plus the ever growing Indie game market, plus current "AAA" non-freemium mobile developers who want to take part of Nintendo's higher asking price for games plus real controls.

What you are asking is "what hardcore game franchisees are coming over?" without realizing the answer could be "none" (probably won't be, even the Wii U got a Call of Duty) and it could still be a success if the Switch can be a part of this growing pie:

 

[moonbogg]

Yes, Nintendo creating a console with hardware in same realm as the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S would be really difficult for them... they're so dumb...such fail.

Folks we need a console that can play the same games at the same level as the PS4, Xbox, and PC. Those three are simply not enough. Hurry, grab your torches! Burn this hybrid Heretic!

That's kind of how I feel about it now. At first I hated this thing 'cause not enough uber power, but I already have a PC for high end gaming and no console can match that for many different reasons. The switch would be straight up fun in a very different way and for different reasons.

 

[darkswordsman17]

exactly, it had weak hardware and the only reason it sold any units was with the gimmicky sports crap. as far as a top tier console with AAA titles it failed.

I don't agree. It launched (or came shortly after) with a good Zelda game (plus the people that missed out on Wind Waker by not getting a Gamecube could play it), it had probably the two best Mario games since Mario 64 (and any of the ones since). It got a second Zelda. It got a Metroid Prime game. And while I personally thought the Mario Kart and other Mario ___ games (oh and Smash Bros Brawl) were let downs, they weren't completely awful. There were even some other interesting games (Xenoblade comes to mind).

Absolutely it only sold like it did because of the Wii Sports gimmick, I still think it would have outsold the Gamecube had it been a more traditional system. And it very well might have still won that generation. Actually if it had even been just what it was, I think it would have been successful quicker than the others (and if they'd been able to start at $199 without the motion controls, it would have done quite well).

Yeah but over a hundred million people did that. The Wii was the most successful Nintendo console of all time, more than the NES even. Nintendo would MUCH prefer to have another Wii than another N64 or GameCube (the last two times Nintendo tried to compete on console power). I liked the GameCube a lot but if the Wii would have been another GameCube then today Nintendo would be known solely as the seller of the 3DS at best because their main console business would be dead. Hell the Gamecube was everything everyone wants from the Switch and it didn't get third party support worth a damn. Nintendo has to do more than put GFLOPs in a box to win back western game developers it was outright hostile to when it was king.




What I fundamentally don't understand is why so many people DEMAND Nintendo goes for the brass ring. What is wrong with being a great secondary console in a market that right now doesn't seem like it can support two top tier options? Microsoft isn't close to Sony with their best shot, and yet people want Nintendo to play a game of chicken with the now dominant PS4. Its suicide.

If Nintendo makes money on each console sold, and makes money on the games, then even if the thing sells like 70 million units with an attach rate of two that is a huge success for them. It is like some people WANT Nintendo to fail so that way they are forced to be a third party developer like Sega is on the console they already own. And when was the last time Sega had a game with anywhere near that the hype this Zelda game is getting?

I predict the Switch will outsell the Xbox One by the end of its life, even though the Xbox One is more or less exactly what people want from Nintendo. Nothing is beating the PS4 this generation for hardcore gamers and I for one am glad Nintendo didn't try to because I like them being in the market. The 3DS does plenty well despite not having any "AAA" (read: big budget mature) games.

The thing is, the Wii didn't need to be another Gamecube. It could've been what it was, but also closer to the 360 in power.

That is true. But the thing is, they keep saying they're doing that and then don't. They made a big fuss that they took in all this input from developers on the Gamecube, and it didn't matter. Actually it might have been trying to appease developers a bit too much that we ended up with the weak Wii, as devs say they want to be able to build on what they've already got. In the end what Nintendo got was tons of shovelware. But then with the Wii U they gave devs another big middle finger. There's that Digital Foundry article that got input from devs about what a mess the Wii U was. Simply put, I think Nintendo just rushed out a half-baked idea as they felt like they needed to beat Sony and MS to market and that would help them. But it didn't, and instead pushed average consumers further away.

Its why I think the Switch will be much more successful as Nvidia has a good rep in developer outreach (and impetus to try and improve as they want their stuff to get more adoption). But simply put, Nintendo has been planning this better. I'd even say they straight up sabotaged the Wii U to make sure the Switch will be a success. I think Zelda was changed over to being primarily a Switch focused game (and why we see reports of it running so much worse on the Wii U), and they're only releasing it on the Wii U so as to not completely eff over the diehard Nintendo fans who made up practically all of the Wii U sales.

I think some people do. Actually I'll straight up say, I kinda would and that I think it could be better for them. I still personally think that they seem like a perfect fit to be bought out by Apple. They've been aping a lot of Apple design language, and their customers overlap a lot and there's similarity to the cult of following they both have. Apple has the resources to do what Nintendo is very clearly pretty bad at (the tech/device/hardware), while Nintendo has real character that Apple is lacking these days.

When did Sega ever actually compare to Nintendo? The console wars is almost a massive myth as Sega never really did other than maybe marketing in that brief time before they basically ruined the Genesis with all the stupid crappy add-ons. They briefly got some hype back with the Dreamcast but even that was ultimately proven to be a farce. I like Sega, but Nintendo handed their butts to them pretty much the whole time. Maybe it was different in Japan or maybe Europe (don't think it really was).

And I think you just hit the nail on the head. People want to be able to play the games Nintendo gets right, without having to drop $300 for a system just for that (plus they'd be able to get a better experience elsewhere, as Nintendo is not pushing the limits of tech in any capacity). On top of that, Nintendo is getting worse and worse about nickel and diming people on accessories. Extra controllers? $70 for the "Pro" Switch? Are you kidding? Then there's the online stuff (now they want people to pay), the cost for meh emulated versions of older games. People are getting frustrated with Nintendo as they seem to be slipping worse and worse with each new system. They're practically successful in spite of themselves. But they still make good games, and that's what people want. They don't want massively overpriced mediocre tech toys and all the other hassles Nintendo's setup comes with.

And that's why I think Apple and Nintendo would be a run away success. Apple gives Nintendo huge install bases (no need to wait and hope your system starts selling), has good hardware (but still generally stable enough that they can make good use of the performance), they could still make all the weird controller attachments and things that they've been making since the 80s. Apple would likely make the Apple TV a more gaming focused device. They'd get all the resources they could want and not have to spend so much time on developer support. They could just focus on games, that's what they're good at. Its strength and strength, and would give Apple a major premium in games (plus imagine all the Nintendo love, emojis, chat faces, etc), I can guarantee you that Apple would love if $50 games became feasible on their platform (and that would bring a lot of other companies making bigger games). And Nintendo gets to drop all the junk they don't like dealing with. If that happened, within 5 years Apple would have a $1trillion market cap, and Nintendo's value would likely be increased nearly tenfold.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't. I think it will on account of being a Nintendo portable (that also plays the premier version of Zelda and their other games at the time too). Nintendo portable seems to be good for nearly 50million units alone. And with how a lot of people view this as getting also the best Zelda and likely other version of Nintendo franchises (so not the more limited mobile versions), it will make up for the extra cost. Plus, using the mobile SoC might enable Nintendo to do more aggressive price drops, which will help them. And maybe they have another trick up their sleeves and will sell a controller box (kinda like the original Shield controller) that ditches the screen for people that don't want a portable or are more price sensitive. Sell that for $99-199 and it'd serve kinda like the 2DS a cheap way to get people into it (that likely has higher margins so its not a loss for Nintendo at all).

While I personally don't like the Switch much, to me it looks like they're targeting exactly the right market for themself. They're getting a lot more "on the fence" people interested, they're doing their core fans well (just on account of having what looks to be possibly the best Zelda ever; but also they made effort to appease them with the Wii U versions, I hope they continue on that track).

I am not comparing the Switch with 2-3 controllers to a PS4/XB1 with 1 controller. I am saying when purchasing multiple controllers for local co-op, the all-in price keeps increasing. Some gamers may be comfortable playing 3 hours on the Switch but what if you want to play longer? Not everyone wants to use a 9-10 foot charging cable instead of using the wireless Pro controller. As it stands, I would have to shell out $90 Canadian for a Pro Controller when using it in the docked mode. Therefore, for me the console would cost $490 Canadian.

Your other comment about me not being a target market is Nintendo's own fault. I think some of you guys forget why NES/SNES were so popular. Those consoles had a wide variety of 3rd party titles, including mature games too. I am the target audience for Nintendo and owned NES/SNES and N64, but they refuse to cater to consumers who grew up with them. They just care about targeting parents, new generation of 5-18 year olds, and the most hardcore Nintendo loyalists who even bought the Wii/U consoles. With the Switch, they will get decent sales from those gamers who want a handheld.

My point is Nintendo isn't making a console for many of us who enjoyed NES/SNES and N64. They simply don't care about the core market that used to buy their consoles. None of my friends who owned NES->N64 bought GameCube/Wii or Wii U. They aren't interested in the Switch or haven't followed Nintendo and moved to PC/XB/PS eco-system. It's Nintendo who lives in a bubble. They abandoned the home console market 1.5 decades ago and now their excuse is no one buys mature FPS, racing, 3rd person-action adventure, open world or racing games on their consoles. No **** Sherlock! As a gaming company you literally couldn't care less about gamers who grew up with you so what you do is double down on the portable gaming market after Sony leaves the market and hope for the best!

Please tell me why did Nintendo have portable consoles and home consoles in the past, but now it's suddenly not worth it to them to release a traditional home console? Do you honestly believe the target market for a $349-399 Nintendo home console with an RX480/x86 APU is too small? How can MS manage to sell almost 30 million XB1 consoles in barely over 3 years despite a rather weak line-up of 1st party exclusives? Even N64 sold > 30M consoles and it was hampered by expensive and data constrained cartridges.

Everything that's happening to Nintendo is 100% their own fault. How did Nintendo manage to oversee one of the worst selling console generations where 3rd parties abandoned their console, and then they release a 2017 $299 console that for many of us needs a $70 pro controller, but it cannot easily do straight 2013 XB1/PS4 ports since it's again too underpowered?!

Let me put it another way. If Sony/MS, or anyone else released a console 3.5 years after their main competition and it was this expensive and underpowered, it would have gotten obliterated by gamers and the gaming media. Somehow Nintendo gets defended. Nintendo is marketing this primarily as a home console, but how do they expect to compete with PS5/XB2 in what 2-2.5 years from now?

Some of the guys in this thread keep making statements like stop living in a bubble and how you have a need for a portable console. That's great and no one is telling you not to buy the console. It suits your needs fine. But what about 75-80M of XB1/PS4 owners who don't care about handhelds? Should Nintendo simply concede this market? Over the lifetime of XB1/PS4 sales we may see 150M+ in sales from those consoles. That's a huge market of gamers to just ignore. The longer Nintendo stays out of this market, the more they will be viewed as a console for kids and parents. It's going to be even harder to convert XB/PS gamers in 5 years from now since it would mean Nintendo not taking the home console market seriously since that Wii! New generation of teens who never grew up with NES/SNES/N64/GC will go straight towards XB2/PS5/PC.

Nintendo could have easily released the Switch as a 3DS successor and also released a $400 powerful Maxwell/Pascal-based home console and sell games on both systems. The more powerful home console would have a shot of getting 3rd party titles. Even if the home console just sold 20-30M units, it wouldn't directly compete with the Switch. The 1st party development costs of games would be spread across 2 consoles and the profits from game sales would be higher.

Some on you guys aren't seeing this point of view and refuse to even acknowledge it. Nintendo isn't getting the money from many home console gamers not because these gamers aren't the target market, but because Nintendo continues to alienate them with their business strategy. Nintendo is just abandoning this target market. What's going to be after the Switch? Switch 2?

The part about the Switch not needing to sell many units as long as it is profitable is not going to help Nintendo grow its userbase. The new generation of kids are more interested in PC gaming than ever. What happens when the 5-18 years olds gaming on Switch grow up and want more mature gaming experiences and 3rd party games? Nintendo doesn't have a console for them. It's amazing how many of you don't think this matters as long as Nintendo sells you a 3DS successor that hooks up to a TV.

The reasons N64 and GameCube didn't sell that well had a lot to do with Nintendo's decisions of using cartridges and mini-DVDs. The former were costly and both formats were space constrained. With game sizes ballooning to well over 100GB, it's going to be very difficult to do straight XB1/PS4 ports. It means 3rd parties must sell expensive 128GB game cartridges or cut down on game assets or even use older/less advanced generation game engines (say sports games).

As I said already, a lot of gamers on here own multiple consoles and often a PC. There will always be gamers on this forum who don't care one bit for 3rd party games on Nintendo consoles. There will also be gamers who want a portable and the Switch is exactly what they want. There will also be gamers who will buy every Nintendo console for its 1st party games. The problem is that Nintendo is hardly reaching out for more gamers. They are just content on getting these groups and that's it.

But clearly, these gamers must have forgotten or never owned NES/SNES or even N64. Without Rare, N64 would have been a shadow of itself. Even if we stick to the Switch's portability advantage, why shouldn't a gamer want to have a choice to buy 3rd party games to play on the go? Nintendo isn't making it easy to get AAA games like Red Dead Redemption 2, etc. Why should 3rd party developers have to again fight cartridge space limitations and underpowered hardware that makes easy ports unnecessarily difficult and more expensive than they should be? Trying to negatively paint the majority of PS4/XB1 owners as COD and FIFA drones is a weak counter-point. Lots of gamers buy PS4/XB1 and have no interest in COD. Would NES/SNES/N64 even sold as many consoles without 3rd party games? Also, I remember how many of my friends loved Goldeneye on N64 and spent weekends playing it in high school. But I guess now Nintendo is "too cool" for FPS, sports games and racing games? Let's just keep making Mario and Zelda. For someone who loved Goldeneye/Perfect Dark, Mortal Kombat, Streets of Rage/Double Dragon, Conker's Bad Fur Day, and even bought Resident Evil 2 on N64, etc. does it look like I want to play Splatoon 2? Here is Splatoon and Skylanders for 5-17 years olds and if you want Resident Evil 7, sorry, go buy the other consoles or a PC. We don't want you as a customer even though when you were under 18, we loved you hurting our consoles and games! Brilliant strategy!!!

Almost everyone on here defending the Switch was going to buy one anyway. 3DS owners were probably going to buy one as well. Those customers are easy for Nintendo, but given how the Wii U flopped and the sales of New 3DS are nowhere near 3DS's sales, the number of gamers who keep buying Nintendo consoles is getting smaller and smaller. That is very worrying for the console industry as we get even closer to having just 2 major players and an "also ran."

Nintendo is out of touch with the average gamer. Gamers continue to get older and will be gaming for a long time after their early 20s and mid-30s.

"Super Mario Run has been downloaded 90 million times but only 3 million have bought it"
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vg2...-times-but-only-3-million-have-bought-it/amp/

The fact that the Switch is sold out means nothing from the demand side. Nintendo underproduced. They cannot even get that right or it's another Nintendo moment of making it seem that the demand is high. After the first 12 months of the Switch on the market, we will see just how many gamers want this console.

And now that Nintendo has a partnership with NV, it's going to be very difficult to create a true home console in 2022 with Zen and AMD GPUs, and not piss off NV. So what are we getting after the Switch? Another ARM+NV underpowered Switch 2?

If specs don't matter, how come Scalebound was cancelled on XB1? How come the Wii U died a painful death? Specs 100% matter in the 2nd part of the console's life. Nintendo isn't large nough to release 20-30 AAA 1st party games.

Sorry, but at this point, the problem is you. Nintendo is very openly not targeting you or the demographic you think you represent. That is not their fault, it is yours for refusing to come to terms with that. They haven't been for nearly a decade. It really is as simple as that. And instead of just accepting that, or listening to Nintendo, we continuously get people convinced that Nintendo is going to make a triumphant return to the pinnacle of gaming technology.

Admittedly I keep falling for it somewhat (I was convinced that the Switch would be a Wii U style system but with a revised 3DS for the tablet part, with the main console featuring a PS4 level AMD SoC, all for about $399, with the 3DS portion being available for $199 on its own and the main unit being $299). I'm not surprised that it isn't, especially as I had been listening to Nintendo itself for the past couple of years where they were pretty much saying exactly what it turned out to be (just had to read things right).

But I had not listened as well to Nintendo as I should have. They've been saying several things that has made their path clear. For instance on the subject of a Sony/MS competing home console, I absolutely think Nintendo thinks they have no place in that market (because of how they operate). They've indicated that they feel that a certain price point is necessary to get consumers to buy in (it seems as though $299 is that price these days). The issue there is that Nintendo requires certain margins on the hardware, and so we likely would not be getting even a PS4 level system at that price (3 years after the PS4 came out). Nintendo has also recognized that developing 2 separate platforms is both costly and just limits both, and that they would be converging things. Considering that their portables have been keeping them in business, I'm sure it was the obvious choice which way to go. They had also outright said that the Switch would be the replacement for both (they've walked that back since, but I think that is more of a cover their butts to investors should the Switch suffer similar slow adoption that the 3DS and Wii U did; plus they're making it clear that there will still be 3DS games made), and so anyone expecting mobile to not be a major aspect was being willfully delusional (I fully accept that I was at times).

Absolutely Nintendo is "out of touch with the average gamer", the issue is you being willing to accept that is intentional, as those people had largely given up on Nintendo basically 2 decades ago with the N64 and have not come back in a meaningful way (they do try to keep from alienating the ones that stick around though, hence why they do some service, such as the Gamecube controller adapter for the Smash Bros).

The Gamecube didn't fail because of the discs, it failed because Nintendo had alienated 3rd party developers, let Rare languish, and then tried a lot of interesting ideas with their core franchises (Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Wind Waker, StarFox Adventures, and Double Dash all come to mind) that ultimately turned off average gamers, who in turn went PS2 or became Xbox fans (Live was a big reason behind the Xbox, especially when they finally paired it with Halo).

Look, I am as disappointed with Nintendo as you, as I feel the same, that they could compete much better and win back the more diehard gamers quite easily. And I think they could make even better games out of it. They have the money to throw around to solve pretty much all of their problems. They could eat margins for a generation, they could pay to get robust 3rd party tools, they could lock in a lot of development resources (so that they could then get more games out in a timely manner, there's lots of teams and people that would love to make Nintendo games). They could lock up (buy or work deals to pay for development in exchanged for exclusivity) to all of the popular old school game licenses that other companies pretty much don't want (Castlevania, Mega Man, hell they could probably get some good Sonic and Final Fantasy games made that are familiar and yet also fresh).

The fact is, Nintendo as a company operates a certain way and that's not going to change. They like to control the hardware. They play it safe even when they take risks (the Wii being a beefed up Gamecube for instance), namely making sure that they won't lose money on a system (even then they said the Wii U cut their margins too thin, so they didn't have the ability to adjust price like they did on the 3DS). The biggest issue is that modern games require a lot of resources to develop, and they demand so much control that it takes a long time to get games out (they have been very open about how much development modern HD games take). And they also know who buys their stuff, and are targeting them quite well. Just look at the NES Classic.

And while the Pokemon Go craze shows that there's a lot of untapped potential in Nintendo (and its brands), I think they also are quite well aware that they're not in a position to really harness it (or rather the insane overprojections of investors who would boom and then bust them, exactly like they did with Pokemon Go).

Even though I think the Switch is a fairly terrible value, and in just about every way looks like its years off pace, I fully expect it to be a big success (but will ultimately not stem Nintendo's ultimate trajectory, I'm guessing it will split Nintendo's home and mobile sales, ending up with 50-75 million units).

I think it will sell pretty well initially (I wouldn't be shocked if it tops Wii U sales in the first year), and will maintain momentum, then in a year I think we'll see it drop to $249, and then I could maybe see it go to $199 with a $299 version using a newer Tegra chip in a couple of years.

Blah, blah, blah. What is apparent is Nintendo gets to operate in their own little bubble. And while I agree with a lot of your assessment, I think it is actually intentional and that it is people trying to shoehorn Nintendo into the role as direct competitor to Sony and Microsoft (and Steam) that are actually out of touch. I think the Switch represents just the right mix (the Wii went too far casual, the Wii U not enough; likewise its got enough of a mix of what their home system offers, but is portable so instead of it being two negatives, it actually is two positives for a lot of people) and will be successful.

It will be very interesting to see what Nintendo's strategy moving forward is though. Its possible that they've setup the Switch to be like what I thought (be the portable serving as the Wii U tablet) for a more powerful home console after some time. Or maybe they'll get more aggressive moving forward (after all even Nvidia didn't move on with their newest Shield yet) and we'll see a new handheld (that maintains more consistency between them, so they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time) every 2-3 years.

 

[Sonikku]

I think I need help...

OH GOD POOFY I NEED HELP.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Niiiiice. Hyrule Warriors. I am not gonna lie that is one of the Wii U/3DS games I am most jealous of.

And I guess I need to learn: what do amiibo's do? I thought they were just figurines but apparently you can scan them like the dude at the supermarket and get extra game content or something?

 

[Sonikku]

I was in a Zelda mood so when I saw Hyrule Warriors discounted from $40 to $25 in a sale, minus an extra $5 from my GCU, and minus a few dollars more on top of it from the 25 off 100 VISA promotion I finally had to bite the bullet and buy it.

As for Amiibos, they do... stuff. Like, you put them on the Wii U Tablet and it unlocks things. I think the one that comes with Twlight Princess unlocks an extra dungeon for example. The gannondorf one unlocks a higher difficulty, a Star Fox one I have lets you fly the low polygon classic AR-Wings from SNES Star Fox in the new Star Fox Zero game. They also work with the "New" 3DS after scanned on the lower screen.

 

[beginner99]

So the Switch will official cost $350 where I live while PS4 slim and xbox one s are $299 and the PS4 pro is $450.

That's gonna be one tough uphill battle for the switch...

 

[Ancalagon44]

Yes, Nintendo creating a console with hardware in same realm as the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S would be really difficult for them... they're so dumb...such fail.

Folks we need a console that can play the same games at the same level as the PS4, Xbox, and PC. Those three are simply not enough. Hurry, grab your torches! Burn this hybrid Heretic!

The problem with it not being on the same league as the others is that it essentially kills all third party titles. You can forget about using your Switch to play anything other than Nintendo games, because nobody else will bother. It is the same thing that happened with the Wii and the Wii U. Wasn't a problem with the Wii, but it became more of a problem with the Wii U, and I think it will still be a big problem.

Although my biggest problem with this is the obvious price gouging. $10 per month for online play, and you don't even get to keep a NES game? A NES game? They'e ancient!

 

[Sonikku]

They better justify that price by having their own stable servers. Smash Bros lost its appeal for me because half the matches move in super supreme slow motion on account of other people's connections.

 

[Face2Face]

Tomb Raider is coming out for the NVIDIA Shield. It will be interesting to see how well the X1 is able to handle it. There's also a new game called The Witness. It looks pretty great in the graphics department and art design, and again runs natively on the Shield. Maybe that's a decent sign for the Switch?

https://shield.nvidia.com/games/android/thewitness

 

[Face2Face]

I will also bring up this game again. Seasons of Heaven. If the game play shown is from the Switch, then I would certainly say this is impressive considering the hardware.

 

[Bacon1]

Tomb Raider is coming out for the NVIDIA Shield

Isn't the new shield more powerful than the Switch though?

 

[crisium]

Rise of the Tomb Raider is also on the 2005 Xbox 360, heh. The devs have done an excellent job with scaling this game to all sorts of hardware, so I wouldn't draw anything from that.