Nintendo Switch....DOA
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,031
- 3,713
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
What I would love to see from Nintendo: A switch "mini" for those people who don't care for the portable features of the switch.
Take all the internals from the Switch, get rid of the battery, get rid of the dock, get rid of the screen, put it all in a tiny case, package it with the "pro" controller, charge $200.
That would be a DAMN good move on nintendo's part. It undercuts the current consoles, and brings in the people who don't care to faff about with its whole mobile gaming gimmick but who want those first party nintendo games.
Take all the internals from the Switch, get rid of the battery, get rid of the dock, get rid of the screen, put it all in a tiny case, package it with the "pro" controller, charge $200.
That would be a DAMN good move on nintendo's part. It undercuts the current consoles, and brings in the people who don't care to faff about with its whole mobile gaming gimmick but who want those first party nintendo games.
I was a bit confused at that but then I checked Wal-Mart's U.S. site and saw that a baseline PS4 can be had for $250 new. I can only get those prices for pre-owned units and I make a point never to buy refurbished hardware if I can avoid it.Foolery said:
Yeah the Switch is a bit expensive, the Aus version is like $470 - and that's still almost a hundred beans more than a baseline XBone or PS4. I'm still interested, but so help me the only thing that's gonna sell me is a nice new, massive open world Pokemon game but my understanding of that is I've got Buckley's of it happening so there we go
Here's the thing.Ezekiel said:
The reason why they are payed services is for the service to get better.
You want to know why Xbox Live is considered the best Online Service ever? Why the multiplayer there is better than Sony's and Nintendo?
Because of the money. You think Microsoft is takig all that Xbox Live subscription money just to buy new Private Jets?
They are using that money also make the service even better.
Sony PS3 Online Service sucked initially because it was free, which is why they went the payed model because hosting "quality" online service for free was harder than they thought.
The SNES and N64 did also the gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 and the NES was a step up as well from what was available at the time. The handhelds they have had very little competition. Basically they were interested in keeping up with their competitors (or even esclipsing them) in the power race until the Wii.altnameJag said:
As far as I can tell yeah pretty much.Samtemdo8 said:
OT: Switch hasnt really got me that excited as honestly I have lost a lot of interest in their IPs over the years so it may very well be the first Nintendo console I do not get if their is not more new Ips shown (either 3rd or 1st party).
Also paid online is a bad idea always was always will be MS got away with murder introducing that ridiculousness and now Sony and Nintendo can introduce it without people batting an eyelid as for the whole it makes the experience better well in my experience it does not at least not in a way that would justify the cost.
Region free is great news but as it stands the only game I am even remotely interested in is Ultra SF2 but I am not buying a console for that alone.
Tech wise I think it has potential but it seriously lacking on the game front atm. My WiiU was basically just a Bayonetta 2 machine so hopefully the Switch doesnt share the same fate with devs dropping support.
I dont think its DOA though I feel this time it does actually have potential I am just unsure Nintendo will be able to realise that potential. Honestly I think the whole company needs a shake up. They are a far cry from their NES/SNES heyday.
It's cheating to play the power game by releasing a console a couple years after your competitor, which is what happened with the SNES. Nintendo's console that came out around the same time was the TurboGrafx-16, which was distinctly worse than the Genesis. Same goes for the Game Cube vs the PS2. The GameCube came out a year later at the same time as the X-box, which was superior power-wise.Maximum Bert said:
And while the N64 was technically more powerful than the PS1, other design limitations tended to render the point moot.
Meanwhile, the Gameboy released without significant competition, and the GameGear that came out later was significantly more powerful. Hell, most most of the competitors to the Gmaeboy were more powerful, yet Nintendo didn't see a reason to upgrade for nearly a decade. The PSP was more powerful than the DS, and the Vita was more powerful than the 3ds. It didn't help them.
These day's we're hitting diminishing returns with graphics. Art design is more important than raw power, and Nintendo excels at that.
I've had some time to reflect on this and I still think that the pricing structure on this is just wrong. It has nothing to do with Nintendo not being able to do the things Sony and Microsoft do, but you have to look at Nintendo's value proposition at the price point they are coming to market. The average consumer knows that they aren't going to get everything they want in terms of games on a Nintendo console. Sony and MS have established themselves as the two platforms where you go to get your mainstream gaming fix. They each have their own limited list of exclusives and you add that into your decision making. But ultimately third party games, which make up a bulk of the available games are available on either platform. So the difference between the two systems then becomes which exclusives you want. We all know this. Nintendo doesn't have this. And hasn't for a long time. They have their 1st party lineup, fun family friendly/party games and some niche games (mostly in the RPG space) that aren't really a mainstream appeal. Nintendo is a supplemental console meant to round out a game library, unless of course you are a huge Nintendo fanboy or family that just wants something simple and family friendly and/or social. I just don't think the market for the latter is that big.
So what does this mean? At that price point, it means that like or not the Switch is competing with the PS4 and Xbox One whether or not it wants to believe it is. It is trying to convince people who own those systems that it will be a good compliment to what they already have. And that market will eventually pick up the Switch at some point. Me personally, I am sold on the Switch, but not until a price drop or bundle deal. I suspect many others feel the same way.
I don't get caught up in the debates about power and consoles, etc, but I think in this case it matters, especially when the cost to get a new PS4 or Xbox One is the same as Nintendo's new system which is less powerful, has fewer games, and doesn't have the mainstream 3rd party stuff PS4 and Xbox One are getting. And if I'm a casual gamer, unless I LOVE Nintendo 1st party stuff why am I going to pick up a Switch over a PS4 or Xbox One? Why get a Switch when you can get a PS4 with a bundled game for the same price as the Switch, and the Switch is inferior hardware? There's literally no reason to when looking at the price point between the two systems. And in 2017 most casual gamers want to get the big AAA stuff like CoD, Madden, Assassin's Creed, etc.
The handheld aspect of the Switch is still being undersold in my opinion, but that all comes back to price. It's too damn expensive for the handheld market. The 3ds didn't sell well until its price was cut. And while I believe the Switch could ultimately replace the 3ds, it won't at that price.
Then there's paid online. I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Sony and Microsoft do it. Nintendo has the right to do it. I don't like the practice but it is what it is. But it comes back to value proposition. While we don't know the price point yet, there is nothing I have seen that leads me to believe Nintendo will charge less than what Sony or MS do for PSN or Live. And what does that get me with Nintendo? A chance to play Mario Kart and Splatoon online. And a couple of ROMS I have access to for a month on 30 year old games. Yippie. If I am paying for PSN or Live I at least am getting multiple free games a month that I have access to as long as I remain subscribed, and in the case of Live I get to keep 360 games forever. And on Xbox and PS4 I am at least getting access to games like Destiny, CoD, Battlefield, Madden, you know, the mainstream stuff to play online. It may be a shitty business practice but in comparison the value proposition between Sony/MS and Nintendo is huge when it comes to pay to play online. Unless Nintendo is charging $20 a year or less (which they won't) to play online it's a total joke.
Everything with this system is just expensive relative to the competition in terms of what you are getting for it. It can still be successful and may do very well. I think it will in the long-term honestly. But right now it's massively overpriced and underpowered relative to its competition with a much smaller games library, more specifically a much smaller 3rd party games library that the market cares about. And that doesn't even touch on the expensive accessories and lunacy that is tying voice chat to a smartphone app rather than a headset and Mic. It's just really stupid business decisions all around that show Nintendo doesn't know what planet they are on.
So what does this mean? At that price point, it means that like or not the Switch is competing with the PS4 and Xbox One whether or not it wants to believe it is. It is trying to convince people who own those systems that it will be a good compliment to what they already have. And that market will eventually pick up the Switch at some point. Me personally, I am sold on the Switch, but not until a price drop or bundle deal. I suspect many others feel the same way.
I don't get caught up in the debates about power and consoles, etc, but I think in this case it matters, especially when the cost to get a new PS4 or Xbox One is the same as Nintendo's new system which is less powerful, has fewer games, and doesn't have the mainstream 3rd party stuff PS4 and Xbox One are getting. And if I'm a casual gamer, unless I LOVE Nintendo 1st party stuff why am I going to pick up a Switch over a PS4 or Xbox One? Why get a Switch when you can get a PS4 with a bundled game for the same price as the Switch, and the Switch is inferior hardware? There's literally no reason to when looking at the price point between the two systems. And in 2017 most casual gamers want to get the big AAA stuff like CoD, Madden, Assassin's Creed, etc.
The handheld aspect of the Switch is still being undersold in my opinion, but that all comes back to price. It's too damn expensive for the handheld market. The 3ds didn't sell well until its price was cut. And while I believe the Switch could ultimately replace the 3ds, it won't at that price.
Then there's paid online. I don't necessarily have a problem with it. Sony and Microsoft do it. Nintendo has the right to do it. I don't like the practice but it is what it is. But it comes back to value proposition. While we don't know the price point yet, there is nothing I have seen that leads me to believe Nintendo will charge less than what Sony or MS do for PSN or Live. And what does that get me with Nintendo? A chance to play Mario Kart and Splatoon online. And a couple of ROMS I have access to for a month on 30 year old games. Yippie. If I am paying for PSN or Live I at least am getting multiple free games a month that I have access to as long as I remain subscribed, and in the case of Live I get to keep 360 games forever. And on Xbox and PS4 I am at least getting access to games like Destiny, CoD, Battlefield, Madden, you know, the mainstream stuff to play online. It may be a shitty business practice but in comparison the value proposition between Sony/MS and Nintendo is huge when it comes to pay to play online. Unless Nintendo is charging $20 a year or less (which they won't) to play online it's a total joke.
Everything with this system is just expensive relative to the competition in terms of what you are getting for it. It can still be successful and may do very well. I think it will in the long-term honestly. But right now it's massively overpriced and underpowered relative to its competition with a much smaller games library, more specifically a much smaller 3rd party games library that the market cares about. And that doesn't even touch on the expensive accessories and lunacy that is tying voice chat to a smartphone app rather than a headset and Mic. It's just really stupid business decisions all around that show Nintendo doesn't know what planet they are on.
Yeah, you Australians really get screwed over on game prices.Gordon_4 said:I was a bit confused at that but then I checked Wal-Mart's U.S. site and saw that a baseline PS4 can be had for $250 new. I can only get those prices for pre-owned units and I make a point never to buy refurbished hardware if I can avoid it.Foolery said:
Yeah the Switch is a bit expensive, the Aus version is like $470 - and that's still almost a hundred beans more than a baseline XBone or PS4. I'm still interested, but so help me the only thing that's gonna sell me is a nice new, massive open world Pokemon game but my understanding of that is I've got Buckley's of it happening so there we go
I live in Canada, so the switch is 399. You can get a Xbox One for 249, with a game or a PS4 at 299, with a game.
A Switch at 399, with a 79.99 copy of Zelda, after tax is about 541.25. Over 500 bucks.
Because Steam is making money of a selling games on thier store, and thier using that money to make thier online service well and the fact that Steam is a leading Digiital Distribution center for games.Ezekiel said:
Valve makes so much money with Steam that they don't need an Online Subscription.
Just like PS Plus, Nintendo is gonna have to really sell me on their paid online subscription, and right now they are doing a shitty job of it. I know their online store presence is a joke and a massive pain in the ass, but they're really gonna have to address it sooner rather than later.
Having said that, I'm far more interested in the Switch than I was with both the Wii and the WiiU, and I will most likely get one at some point. Not at launch though.
That new Mario game looks pretty bitchin' though.
I haven't said that about a Mario game in fucking years.
Having said that, I'm far more interested in the Switch than I was with both the Wii and the WiiU, and I will most likely get one at some point. Not at launch though.
That new Mario game looks pretty bitchin' though.
I haven't said that about a Mario game in fucking years.
The reason they can sell PS4 so cheap(and before that PS3 after the price cut) is that Sony's profit model shifted from hardware sales to subscription fees. For years PS3s have been sold at a loss so if consumers aren't willing to pay a higher price for the console itself than profit need to come from somewhere else.Ezekiel said:
Anyways I'm pretty underwhelmed by the launch(and near future) line-up of the Switch. The new Zelda game looks cool(and probably an as strong a launch title you can have) but isn't even exclusive. Other than Zelda there wasn't really any game that would make me consider buying a Switch. Was hoping for a new Metroid perhaps and some genuinely good third party exclusives. None of these things other than a host of features I don't care for. So far the line-up is pretty weak.
No it isn't. It's ok not to release your console at the same time as your competition, there is an advantage to releasing first too. It's a fact that until the Wii, Nintendo didn't release the weakest console of the generation.altnameJag said:
I want to hit post but I find what I bolded so laughable that I now have to ask what your acceptable time frame is for a console to be released and not be cheating.
Edit: So, using your logic, the PS4 and Xbox One cheated by releasing a year after the Wii U.
Not a chance, at least the the WiiU launched with ONE original game ZombiU that was actually quite good. This system is sequel sequel rehash. Same games over and over and over and over again. Its a joke.VG_Addict said:
Never has there ever been such a piss-poor launch line of of games...ever. Even the PS3 launch had better games. I really dont get why people defend Nintendo when they underperform and screw people over so much with prices and specs. Cant someone explain it too me?
What is really so special about Zelda BOTW it actually looks like a HD PS2 game. I'm not hating, I just don't understand and I grew up with the Nes and Snes.
The art style is kinda ugly and I am not sure how I feel about an open world Zelda game. I guess we'll see.Fonejackerjon said:
I read somewhere (Reddit probably) that the Switch is getting Skyrim Last Gen Version instead of the remastered version on PS4 and Xbox One. Now if that's true, it gives you an idea of the capabilities of the Switch. I think $300 is too much compared to it's competition. Honestly, the Wii U could have handled the original version of Skyrim. Oh and 32 GB of storage? Not sure why people are defending the price and specs. Even the accessories are overpriced, $70 for a Pro controller? $80 for those Joy Cons and I think I heard that an extra dock is $90. Isn't the dock just an HDMI pass through and a charger?
I don't know about DoA (it'll definitely sell more than the Wii U at least), but nothing they've shown interests me. Doubt I'll ever be buying anything Nintendo again.
It's got an 82 on Metacritic, which is higher than your favorites The Wonderful 101 and Splatoon.Yoshi178 said: