Nintendo Switch(nintendo.co.jp)
nintendo.co.jp
Nintendo Switch
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/index.html
430 comments
'Nintendo absolutely killed it'
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Here's why:
- price: much more expensive than most people were expecting (£280 vs for example, £200 for a PS4 with a game)
- battery life: potentially only 2.5 hours? Really not good enough for a handheld.
- storage: only 32gb, will run out very quickly
- online offering weak vs ps4/xbox as only NES/SNES games and you only get them for a month
- very few titles on launch and key titles (e.g. Skyrim) delayed until much later in the year
Battery life and price are the real killers for me. I can see Nintendo slashing the price soon, just like they had to with the 3DS.
Edit: It seems like many others weren't impressed either. e.g. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-01-13-nintendos-preca...
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Here's why:
- price: much more expensive than most people were expecting (£280 vs for example, £200 for a PS4 with a game)
- battery life: potentially only 2.5 hours? Really not good enough for a handheld.
- storage: only 32gb, will run out very quickly
- online offering weak vs ps4/xbox as only NES/SNES games and you only get them for a month
- very few titles on launch and key titles (e.g. Skyrim) delayed until much later in the year
Battery life and price are the real killers for me. I can see Nintendo slashing the price soon, just like they had to with the 3DS.
Edit: It seems like many others weren't impressed either. e.g. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-01-13-nintendos-preca...
-Price: Exactly the same as the basic Wii U at launch. Comparing it to the PS4 is disingenuous as it is a 4 year old console [1], it is £100 cheaper than the PS4 Pro deals currently on Amazon. Who are 'most people'? This article implies that it is the expected price point [2]: http://time.com/4632820/nintendo-switch-nx/.
-Battery life is 2.5-6 hours depending on the game. This is comparable to the 3DS line: http://kotaku.com/how-does-the-new-3ds-compare-to-the-older-.... We will have to see how well it does in practice though.
-Storage: The Wii U only had a basic 8GB which is enough for most use cases except downloading games. The switch can extend with SD cards too. As games will be shipped on cards like the DS I doubt this will be an issue for the average user.
-Online: I would consider the playing with others side of this more important than the free game. Though it is a shame that the games are only for the month. This is a fairly new thing for Nintendo so I hope it improves.
-Launch: it might have a few but I expect the fact that one of them is Zelda will help it a lot.
Personally I'm excited for it and it is perfect for my kind of gaming: mostly on the go. I'm rarely at home long enough to make the investment into systems that I can't take with me. Of course, YMMV.
[1] I'm not making a judgement call on specs here, just pointing out that, of course, an older console is cheaper.
[2] The accessories though, are not cheap.
-Battery life is 2.5-6 hours depending on the game. This is comparable to the 3DS line: http://kotaku.com/how-does-the-new-3ds-compare-to-the-older-.... We will have to see how well it does in practice though.
-Storage: The Wii U only had a basic 8GB which is enough for most use cases except downloading games. The switch can extend with SD cards too. As games will be shipped on cards like the DS I doubt this will be an issue for the average user.
-Online: I would consider the playing with others side of this more important than the free game. Though it is a shame that the games are only for the month. This is a fairly new thing for Nintendo so I hope it improves.
-Launch: it might have a few but I expect the fact that one of them is Zelda will help it a lot.
Personally I'm excited for it and it is perfect for my kind of gaming: mostly on the go. I'm rarely at home long enough to make the investment into systems that I can't take with me. Of course, YMMV.
[1] I'm not making a judgement call on specs here, just pointing out that, of course, an older console is cheaper.
[2] The accessories though, are not cheap.
Storage is really a non-issue. You can get enough space for 10 AAA-quality games (presumably 25GB each) for $80: http://amzn.to/2iPJOja (Ironically, it's a Sony product...)
And an even more conservative tripling of storage (64GB card) only sets you back about $20: http://amzn.to/2jfrROp
But I still buy the vast majority of my games on physical media, mainly because that's the only way to get a good discount. Until there's the option to be price-competitive via 3rd-party sellers, I'm not buying into any on-device game store at all.
And an even more conservative tripling of storage (64GB card) only sets you back about $20: http://amzn.to/2jfrROp
But I still buy the vast majority of my games on physical media, mainly because that's the only way to get a good discount. Until there's the option to be price-competitive via 3rd-party sellers, I'm not buying into any on-device game store at all.
I'll be happy when "disingenuous" week is over on HN.
The battery life is bad, but I'm not that surprised by it. Current phone/tablets achieve a lot of their battery longevity by throttling performance, this is something that is not really acceptable when your device is a games console first.
I can only imagine that if an iPad mini had to run a program as intensive as the upcoming Zelda appears to be that its battery life would also suffer.
The Switch GPU does clock down to 307MHz when undocked. In docked mode, it can run at 768MHz, about 2.5x faster. CPU and memory speeds are unaffected.
The built in screen is fairly low resolution so there are potentially fewer pixels to push when the Switch is undocked. It remains to be seen exactly how quality/performance will be affected by undocking.
The built in screen is fairly low resolution so there are potentially fewer pixels to push when the Switch is undocked. It remains to be seen exactly how quality/performance will be affected by undocking.
Source?
Eurogamer / Digital Foundry: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-ninten...
Absolutely agree. This whole presentation just shown that Nintendo excels at killing good hype. I know several people(including me) who were going to preorder today as soon as they could, but after the news dropped about the price and how late the games are going to arrive, no one did. I work at a large games publisher, sitting in the office full of people who are full-on gaming enthusiasts, and I haven't yet met a single person who is not disappointed by that presentation.
I feel the exact same way.. Its basicly a Nintendo 2DS XXXL, with awful battery, a stand HDMI, and next to no games.
And its pretty much priced as a PS4 PRO, with 1 tb storage.
The games are on cartridges.. what year is this?
And its pretty much priced as a PS4 PRO, with 1 tb storage.
The games are on cartridges.. what year is this?
"The games are on cartridges.. what year is this?"
Assuming you are referencing optical media: A year in which optical media is actually having a hard time keeping up with cartridges in capacity and size and gets blown away on random read speed. (Possibly raw read speed too, depending on the specs.)
In the PS1/PS2 era, the optical media advantage in size and price per MB was clear. In the PS3 era it was possibly less clear, but still advantage optical media. But that advantage is largely gone now. The only advantage optical media has now is that it is still cheaper to make per MB (or GB if you prefer now), but carts have gotten cheap enough that that isn't necessarily a killer anymore.
Plus as I understand it, very few games even now fill a DVD, let alone fill a Bluray. And the optical media have some very significant disadvantages that are getting worse and worse relative to the rest of the hardware over time, particularly random read latency. Even the PS3 era required a lot of hacking under a lot of game's hoods to arrange the exact order things appeared on the disk to be able to stream in at anything like a reasonable speed, which is why this generation just straight-up requires you to install it to a hard drive (at least sometimes, I don't know if it's every game)... and even the hard drives they can afford to put in consoles at scale are starting to become performance bottlenecks themselves!
Optical media also means you aren't portable, which is a bit of a downer for the Switch.
Assuming you mean "why include anything at all and just let people download to local flash", I imagine it's because Nintendo still wants to sell to people who may not have internet connections that casually download 5GBs. Also, cartridge ROMs are a lot cheaper than flashable media, which is still expensive relative to the size of modern games to put in a console. I've got 512GB of very nice flash in my laptop, but that part alone cost more than the entire Switch. I imagine hitting their price points with enough flash to make it so that you're not constantly deciding which 5 AAA games you can fit on there would be quite difficult. Plus if they do ship out a game console in which the games are constantly "thrashing", Nintendo will actually pay for all the additional downloading that will result. And the end-user result is poor; "hey thanks for inviting us over but three of us need to agonize over which games to delete and then three of use will use your network connection to re-download Splatoon 2, oh dear, look at that, it's gonna take 5 hours" is not what they are looking for.
SD cards are not a perfect answer either; quality varies greatly. I can see why the 3DS has gotten away with it even as a putatively AAA console might not want to trust it entirely. It would help if people didn't buy the cheapest thing they could find with the capacity they want, but they do.
Assuming you are referencing optical media: A year in which optical media is actually having a hard time keeping up with cartridges in capacity and size and gets blown away on random read speed. (Possibly raw read speed too, depending on the specs.)
In the PS1/PS2 era, the optical media advantage in size and price per MB was clear. In the PS3 era it was possibly less clear, but still advantage optical media. But that advantage is largely gone now. The only advantage optical media has now is that it is still cheaper to make per MB (or GB if you prefer now), but carts have gotten cheap enough that that isn't necessarily a killer anymore.
Plus as I understand it, very few games even now fill a DVD, let alone fill a Bluray. And the optical media have some very significant disadvantages that are getting worse and worse relative to the rest of the hardware over time, particularly random read latency. Even the PS3 era required a lot of hacking under a lot of game's hoods to arrange the exact order things appeared on the disk to be able to stream in at anything like a reasonable speed, which is why this generation just straight-up requires you to install it to a hard drive (at least sometimes, I don't know if it's every game)... and even the hard drives they can afford to put in consoles at scale are starting to become performance bottlenecks themselves!
Optical media also means you aren't portable, which is a bit of a downer for the Switch.
Assuming you mean "why include anything at all and just let people download to local flash", I imagine it's because Nintendo still wants to sell to people who may not have internet connections that casually download 5GBs. Also, cartridge ROMs are a lot cheaper than flashable media, which is still expensive relative to the size of modern games to put in a console. I've got 512GB of very nice flash in my laptop, but that part alone cost more than the entire Switch. I imagine hitting their price points with enough flash to make it so that you're not constantly deciding which 5 AAA games you can fit on there would be quite difficult. Plus if they do ship out a game console in which the games are constantly "thrashing", Nintendo will actually pay for all the additional downloading that will result. And the end-user result is poor; "hey thanks for inviting us over but three of us need to agonize over which games to delete and then three of use will use your network connection to re-download Splatoon 2, oh dear, look at that, it's gonna take 5 hours" is not what they are looking for.
SD cards are not a perfect answer either; quality varies greatly. I can see why the 3DS has gotten away with it even as a putatively AAA console might not want to trust it entirely. It would help if people didn't buy the cheapest thing they could find with the capacity they want, but they do.
> Optical media also means you aren't portable
Err, the PSP would disagree with you. So would a whole generation of portable CD players.
I agree that SD is a better choice, or even the current gen of DS carts, but optical is not necessarily a killer.
Err, the PSP would disagree with you. So would a whole generation of portable CD players.
I agree that SD is a better choice, or even the current gen of DS carts, but optical is not necessarily a killer.
In the context of a discussion about Nintendo, the PSP can't be called successful, though.
And the battery power issues have relatively gotten more acute since then, as have the performance issues. It's less viable now than it was then, and it's debatable whether it was a good idea then.
And the battery power issues have relatively gotten more acute since then, as have the performance issues. It's less viable now than it was then, and it's debatable whether it was a good idea then.
> Plus as I understand it, very few games even now fill a DVD, let alone fill a Bluray.
On average, yes, but that's because "indie" and mobile games are quite small. An average big budget Activision/EA/Ubisoft game has been Bluray sized for years.
http://www.game-debate.com/news/14795/average-game-download-...
On average, yes, but that's because "indie" and mobile games are quite small. An average big budget Activision/EA/Ubisoft game has been Bluray sized for years.
http://www.game-debate.com/news/14795/average-game-download-...
The WiiU already supported Downloading Games from their store, i'd expect this to be able to do the same, the question is just how big of an SD Card you want to cram in there.
That's what I don't get. With only 32GB of storage Nintendo is not making it easy to go all digital which is something that they should want to do as they get a bigger cut when people buy directly from them.
A SanDisk 512gb SD Card only costs you more than the whole Switch, so i guess they hope for this price to come down.
> battery life: potentially only 2.5 hours? Really not good enough for a handheld.
Whoah, can you source that? If that number is even remotely true the thing is completely useless as a handheld due to requiring 2-3 extra batteries for any longish trip.
Whoah, can you source that? If that number is even remotely true the thing is completely useless as a handheld due to requiring 2-3 extra batteries for any longish trip.
From the presentation. They mentioned it was 2.5 to 6, but expect worst case with battery life. You can plug a USB-C to charge it with a power bank from what I gather.
> USB-C
Nintendo having an history of using proprietary cable, this is great news. Having the possibility to charge all of your device with one cable and sharing a unique powerbank is something really cool.
Nintendo having an history of using proprietary cable, this is great news. Having the possibility to charge all of your device with one cable and sharing a unique powerbank is something really cool.
Yep, the Nintendo 3DS came with a 1750 mAh battery and that lasted for 3-5 hours. Get a small power bank or a 10,000 mAh one and you're set for the whole day. I don't think battery is too much of a problem.
Y'know, the correct solution would be that it came with one
I personally really like not being forced to pay extra for a big battery when I buy a new device. I already have enough batteries I carry around.
On the other hand, I think it could be a nice touch to give the customer an option to buy a case/battery combo, designed by the same manufacturer.
On the other hand, I think it could be a nice touch to give the customer an option to buy a case/battery combo, designed by the same manufacturer.
Yup, agreed. I have a big powerbank i use for everything at home and i see no reason to increase the bulk of the Switch itself to include a bigger battery.
Likewise if it wasn't built in but came with the product, i'd be wanting a lower priced product not including the external battery.
Likewise if it wasn't built in but came with the product, i'd be wanting a lower priced product not including the external battery.
http://www.nintendo.com/switch/features/
> Battery life can last for more than six hours, but will vary depending on the software and usage conditions.
> For example, The Legend of Zelda™: Breath of the Wild can be played for roughly 3 hours on a single charge.
> Battery life can last for more than six hours, but will vary depending on the software and usage conditions.
> For example, The Legend of Zelda™: Breath of the Wild can be played for roughly 3 hours on a single charge.
The battery is not user-replaceable [1]. Having USB-C charging means that do you have a variety of external batteries to choose from though.
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/you-wont-be-able-to-upgr...
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/you-wont-be-able-to-upgr...
Well yeah, that's the implicit default assumption in the current hardware climate. :)
Three hours is plenty.
Funny, I thought the price was really cheap, I was more worried about the relatively high prices on accessories.
Battery life is on par with portable gaming devices currently so I am not sure if your expectations are a bit unrealistic. That said, it's 2.5 - 6 hours depending on the game. Something like Pokemon on the go might be a lot longer than 2.5 hours for something like Legend of Zelda.
Storage is probably ok. First, it's a cartridge based system so I don't expect game installs to take as much space as something like the PS4. Moreover, as others have pointed out, you can expand it by adding an SD card fairly cheaply...which is more than can be said for most consoles currently.
Online offering is pretty weak and I am disappointed that the industry has now made it "normal" for users to pay for online play in the console world...but oh well. On the other hand, local multiplayer and up to 8 device LANs is awesome!
Titles at launch are limited...but to be honest Zelda at launch will probably be enough to carry them through.
Regarding your killers, consider that the Switch has a USB-C connector so it may be possible to charge it on the go with a portable battery (perhaps even during use). That is huge when compared against the limitations of most gaming laptops (I am not familiar with other gaming portables though). Price is price, but I would focus more on the accessory costs than the console cost itself.
Battery life is on par with portable gaming devices currently so I am not sure if your expectations are a bit unrealistic. That said, it's 2.5 - 6 hours depending on the game. Something like Pokemon on the go might be a lot longer than 2.5 hours for something like Legend of Zelda.
Storage is probably ok. First, it's a cartridge based system so I don't expect game installs to take as much space as something like the PS4. Moreover, as others have pointed out, you can expand it by adding an SD card fairly cheaply...which is more than can be said for most consoles currently.
Online offering is pretty weak and I am disappointed that the industry has now made it "normal" for users to pay for online play in the console world...but oh well. On the other hand, local multiplayer and up to 8 device LANs is awesome!
Titles at launch are limited...but to be honest Zelda at launch will probably be enough to carry them through.
Regarding your killers, consider that the Switch has a USB-C connector so it may be possible to charge it on the go with a portable battery (perhaps even during use). That is huge when compared against the limitations of most gaming laptops (I am not familiar with other gaming portables though). Price is price, but I would focus more on the accessory costs than the console cost itself.
Battery life is inline with the K1 Shield tablet and its 5200mah battery.
You can see the internals of the K1 here: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Nvidia+Shield+Tablet+Battery+Re...
The X1 Shield tablet's FCC filing show it also has a 5200mah battery so I'm guessing the layout is similar to the K1 and the Switch (the Switch filing just says the battery is non-removable).
Whatever the design, I hope it's better than Nintendo's previous handhelds which had a lot of blank circuit board where there could have been more battery volume: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Nintendo+3DS+XL+Motherboard+Rep...
You can see the internals of the K1 here: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Nvidia+Shield+Tablet+Battery+Re...
The X1 Shield tablet's FCC filing show it also has a 5200mah battery so I'm guessing the layout is similar to the K1 and the Switch (the Switch filing just says the battery is non-removable).
Whatever the design, I hope it's better than Nintendo's previous handhelds which had a lot of blank circuit board where there could have been more battery volume: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Nintendo+3DS+XL+Motherboard+Rep...
Where can I get a PS4 with a game for £200?
that's not the msrp but very frequently thats the deal being offered. Similarly Xbox has the same heavy discount.
It should be noted that both Microsoft and Sony recoup some loss leading with their subscription services.
It should be noted that both Microsoft and Sony recoup some loss leading with their subscription services.
Do you really need more than 2.5 hours of battery power? I can imagine myself playing on the dock in the morning, taking the train and using the battery for 1 hour, working/school, taking the train with the battery for 1 more hour and then dock it back on.
Um, yes? 2.5 hours is terrible. Besides a daily commute, many flights are more than 1 hour. Also, it'd be nice to not have my device die immediately if I forgot to charge it three times a day.
To be fair, USB-C connector may allow you to charge it in use from an external battery pack.
Besides, this seems fairly on par with other portable gaming devices currently.
Besides, this seems fairly on par with other portable gaming devices currently.
How could you forget to charge it when it's main state is to be docked and charging?
Keep in mind that 2.5 is the lower estimate. It will likely do more on average.
You kinda have access to USB power on a flight. It should suffice I think.
That's only with select airlines and only on long haul flights between major hubs. It's not a feature you can rely on in the least.
Is this a first/business class thing? I've never been on a plane with USB power outlets (though it has been about 6 months since I few last).
Fly on long haul flights, especially internationally with screens on the back of the seats. There is usually USB slots right below it.
I am based in europe and my experience is basically on international flights. Maybe it doesn't apply in the USA.
The flights that didn't have USB outlets were shorter anyway, so the battery would hold.
The flights that didn't have USB outlets were shorter anyway, so the battery would hold.
I've flown hundreds of times in my life and never been on a plane which had power or usb sockets. Airbus 320/Boeing 737 don't tend to be equipped with them.
Sorry, but that's just impossible, really. Any sufficiently long flight, especially international, ALWAYS has power connectors and/or USB slots. Admittedly the power plug is often hard to find, hidden under the seat or armrest, but the USB slots are usually right below the heads up screen for movies. Unless you're flying extremely short distances only, power is basically included in all flights at this point. This applies to coach as well.
Ok,let's have a game. Take any European flight with Ryanair, Easyjet or Jet2.com. If you find yourself on a plane with USB or power outlets,I will happily refund your flight in entirety. Like I said,I have flown hundreds of times(20-30 times a year for about 5 years), only with those airlines, all flights were about 2-3 hours long, and not a single one of them had USB/power sockets.
I've flown from LA to Boston, New York several times over the last year and I don't recall a single USB or power cord outlet.
On every international flight I've taken, there has been USB power but zero power outlets in coach.
On every international flight I've taken, there has been USB power but zero power outlets in coach.
You're definitely not looking hard enough then. Like I said, they are typically hiding somewhere under the seats. There is NO WAY a super common flight like LA to NY does not have power.
Mind sourcing that? I have also have not had this experience.
I'm on a plane at least once a month with Delta and American Airlines and even small regional jets tend to have USB plugs or power outlets. It may be hidden under the seat or in the arm rest, but what they're saying is true. Most if not all airplanes have power available.
I do want to point out that it matches current consoles in the US, but is actually going to be significantly more expensive than anything on the market in many countries. Where I am, for example, if they release at exactly the US price -- which they won't, prices always get inflated -- a Switch will cost more than a PS4 that comes packed with Fallout 4, Skyrim, and Dishonored 2, three hit games.
On top of this, I think they've made a fatal flaw when it comes to handheld pricing. If you remember, the 3DS launched at $250, tanked hard, and received a whopping 33% price cut only 4 months after it launched, followed by the announcement of the new 2DS which would be even cheaper. One of the things Nintendo produced the 2DS is because they found, to their great surprise, that almost 80% of 3DS customers outside Japan never took their 3DS outside the home. They weren't buying it for portability, like Japanese customers usually did; they were buying it because it was the cheapest way to play videogames, only a third the price of a console and with games that were half the price of console games (in many countries even less). Right now I can buy a 2DS for 105 and brand-new games for 40 where an Xbox One is 400 and games are 80 - 100. That's a big reason many of my friends have one.
Then note that they've also priced the Switch above the iPad Mini. Most handhelds are bought by parents for kids. If parents see that they can get an iPad for less than the price of this new console, they're very likely to: iPads are seen as luxury products with a wider variety of uses and many cheap games, and the iPad Mini is even more portable. This is the first handheld Nintendo have announced since iPads hit the market and I worry they haven't taken this into account.
For those customers, who make up a majority of 3DS customers worldwide, the Switch is a non-starter; it's likely to be considerably more expensive than its rivals, and those rivals happen to have either larger libraries, greater popularity, free online, and better graphics (Xbox One/PS4) or a luxury image, greater portability, lower software costs, and a wider variety of uses including educational uses (iPad Mini). I'm really hoping Nintendo succeeds, because I'm a big fan of theirs, but I worry they have totally killed the big draws to handhelds.
On top of this, I think they've made a fatal flaw when it comes to handheld pricing. If you remember, the 3DS launched at $250, tanked hard, and received a whopping 33% price cut only 4 months after it launched, followed by the announcement of the new 2DS which would be even cheaper. One of the things Nintendo produced the 2DS is because they found, to their great surprise, that almost 80% of 3DS customers outside Japan never took their 3DS outside the home. They weren't buying it for portability, like Japanese customers usually did; they were buying it because it was the cheapest way to play videogames, only a third the price of a console and with games that were half the price of console games (in many countries even less). Right now I can buy a 2DS for 105 and brand-new games for 40 where an Xbox One is 400 and games are 80 - 100. That's a big reason many of my friends have one.
Then note that they've also priced the Switch above the iPad Mini. Most handhelds are bought by parents for kids. If parents see that they can get an iPad for less than the price of this new console, they're very likely to: iPads are seen as luxury products with a wider variety of uses and many cheap games, and the iPad Mini is even more portable. This is the first handheld Nintendo have announced since iPads hit the market and I worry they haven't taken this into account.
For those customers, who make up a majority of 3DS customers worldwide, the Switch is a non-starter; it's likely to be considerably more expensive than its rivals, and those rivals happen to have either larger libraries, greater popularity, free online, and better graphics (Xbox One/PS4) or a luxury image, greater portability, lower software costs, and a wider variety of uses including educational uses (iPad Mini). I'm really hoping Nintendo succeeds, because I'm a big fan of theirs, but I worry they have totally killed the big draws to handhelds.
> They weren't buying it for portability, like Japanese customers usually did; they were buying it because it was the cheapest way to play videogames
That's not true, they are buying a 3ds so they can play Pokemon. Without Pokemon every kid I know would rather have an iphone/ipad than a 3ds. (I'm talking about Pokemon Omega Ruby style games, not Pokemon Go).
That's not true, they are buying a 3ds so they can play Pokemon. Without Pokemon every kid I know would rather have an iphone/ipad than a 3ds. (I'm talking about Pokemon Omega Ruby style games, not Pokemon Go).
They've sold 63.3 million 3DS units (counting the 2DS) and 14.7 million copies of Pokemon X & Y, the bestselling Pokemon game on the platform. So while it's undoubtedly a very popular game I don't think you can rank it above cost as the reason so many people were buying handhelds to use at home.
That might be a strategy of theirs. Hit the early adopters hard with a high price, then reduce the cost fast for the masses.
IIRC, they always try to sell their consoles at a profit, unlike the other companies in this space. It's part of why the Wii was such an amazing success for them (combined with their successful Blue Ocean strategy[0]).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
Could you elaborate on what you consider to be Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy? I mean, I get that they've often tried to be first movers with e.g. motion control, is that what you're referring to?
Specifically, it's that they do stuff qualitatively that their competitors don't, to the point where they're not so much competing as they are the sole player in a brand new market.
I remember when the seventh generation came out, Microsoft did Nintendo's PR work for them by telling people that they can buy both a 360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3. That's right, they got Microsoft of all people to tell consumers to buy a Wii! Why did MS do it? Because the Wii is so qualitatively different from the 360 that they weren't directly competing.
Nintendo set things up such that nobody would ever ask "should I get a 360 or a Wii?" the way people would ask "should I get a 360 or a PS3?". Instead, they made it so a large amount of gamers wanted to get both a "normal" console and a Wii in the same way that people own both a console and a PC. On top of that, they also attracted people who would never buy a normal console because normal consoles don't appeal to them at all.
I remember when the seventh generation came out, Microsoft did Nintendo's PR work for them by telling people that they can buy both a 360 and a Wii for the price of a PS3. That's right, they got Microsoft of all people to tell consumers to buy a Wii! Why did MS do it? Because the Wii is so qualitatively different from the 360 that they weren't directly competing.
Nintendo set things up such that nobody would ever ask "should I get a 360 or a Wii?" the way people would ask "should I get a 360 or a PS3?". Instead, they made it so a large amount of gamers wanted to get both a "normal" console and a Wii in the same way that people own both a console and a PC. On top of that, they also attracted people who would never buy a normal console because normal consoles don't appeal to them at all.
> On top of that, they also attracted people who would never buy a normal console because normal consoles don't appeal to them at all.
Sounds like me. I don't buy a gaming system to play games generally, I buy one to play the kind of games Nintendo makes and attracts to its hardware. That's why I still pull my Gamecube out to play SSBM from time to time, but have never owned a Playstation or X-Box, and have barely touched either of them. I haven't had a new system since GBA and Gamecube, but I think I'd enjoy the newer Nintendo systems more than the systems they were released next to.
Sounds like me. I don't buy a gaming system to play games generally, I buy one to play the kind of games Nintendo makes and attracts to its hardware. That's why I still pull my Gamecube out to play SSBM from time to time, but have never owned a Playstation or X-Box, and have barely touched either of them. I haven't had a new system since GBA and Gamecube, but I think I'd enjoy the newer Nintendo systems more than the systems they were released next to.
> They weren't buying it for portability, like Japanese customers usually did; they were buying it because it was the cheapest way to play videogames, only a third the price of a console and with games that were half the price of console games (in many countries even less).
I don't think that's right, price is not the only concern here. It's just a different feeling, from having to start a session on the TV or being able to play around the house, in bed, etc. -- tablets did that well also, and most people are more likely to open their 3DS than start up the TV and console. That's what they attempted to match here, and, to me, it seems successful. (Note that Wii U was directed towards that goal as well, but failed).
I don't think that's right, price is not the only concern here. It's just a different feeling, from having to start a session on the TV or being able to play around the house, in bed, etc. -- tablets did that well also, and most people are more likely to open their 3DS than start up the TV and console. That's what they attempted to match here, and, to me, it seems successful. (Note that Wii U was directed towards that goal as well, but failed).
Are people really behaving like that? Was WiiU feature of being able to play the game on controller only successful?
Or will it take the backseat when the customers notice that PS4 offers a lot more content for lower price? Especially since use of cartriges will mean that the games will be and stay more expensive than their PS4 counterparts?
Or will it take the backseat when the customers notice that PS4 offers a lot more content for lower price? Especially since use of cartriges will mean that the games will be and stay more expensive than their PS4 counterparts?
Regarding the iPad, do kids/parents see that as a gaming device? You can't get real games on one of those.
>do kids/parents see that as a gaming device?
It's a "make my kids shut up in the car or in a restaurant" device.
It's a "make my kids shut up in the car or in a restaurant" device.
This is the truth. Many kids are still using Nintendo 3DS as a gaming console in conjunction to having a tablet.
unfortunate truth ..
It's especially bothersome to me when parents use "learning" apps to try and pretend that they're being a more productive parent by giving their child an iPad. Perhaps they can do some good, but their effects are also vastly overstated and are no substitute for hands-on physical teaching by parents.
Here is an example study that tries to test the effects of apps vs. parents teaching foreign language words: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20855901
Here is an example study that tries to test the effects of apps vs. parents teaching foreign language words: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20855901
If by apps you mean a watching DVD, which (based on the abstract) was what this studied.
My iPhone now has a bunch of 2D Sonics, Roller Coaster Tycoon Classic, The Binding Of Isaac, a full port of Lego Star Wars, Surgeon Simulator, Minecraft, Hearthstone and a few others. Seems like iOS supports real games to me.
GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas too.
And you can use a Bluetooth controller.
And you can use a Bluetooth controller.
I have an Android phone with a 6 inch screen, switch's screen is only .2" bigger. My phone even has a better resolution.
There's a bunch of "real games". Additionally it also has great board game ports if that's your thing.
Oh, yeah. iOS is pretty much the only platform with half-decent children's edutainment games that aren't 20+ years old.
My youngest stepson (10) just got one for Christmas (secondhand iPad mini 2). He's mostly gaming on it, and he loves it. Bear in mind he has access to an xbox one, too. He doesn't see the iPad as inferior; he certainly did the hudl that he sold in order to part fund the iPad purchase.
Sample size of one and do you really see the xbox one and the ipad mini as equally good game machines?
Games are the number 1 app category in the iOS app store. [1] and smartphone + tablet game market is bigger than either console or PC game market.[2] So people clearly see them as gaming devices.
[1]https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-rea... [2]https://www.statista.com/statistics/270291/popular-categorie...
[1]https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-market-rea... [2]https://www.statista.com/statistics/270291/popular-categorie...
I don't think mobile games and Xbox games are the same market save for both competing for disposable income. Neither is a fit stand in for the other.
They also compete for a limited amount of time. There are very few console gamers who also don't have a smartphone or tablet with some games on it. They may not explicitly choose to game on their phone over Xbox, and they may acknowledge that they enjoy console games more. But on a given night, maybe they choose to watch tv, and second screen some games on their phone. And if that phone didn't exist, they would have chosen to play on their console. So they aren't equivalent, but they can still substitute for each other, and compete for time/money/attention.
Yes. It's not all about specs.
Gaming in the living room? Xbox wins. Gaming in the bedroom? iPad wins. Gaming on a trip to visit Grandma? iPad wins. Gaming on holiday? iPad wins. Want to play low budget or free casual games? iPad wins.
Gaming in the living room? Xbox wins. Gaming in the bedroom? iPad wins. Gaming on a trip to visit Grandma? iPad wins. Gaming on holiday? iPad wins. Want to play low budget or free casual games? iPad wins.
Obviously a sample size of one - you can disqualify just about every comment anyone makes in such a way, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of it in the context of a discussion explicitly mentioning personal experience? It is of course completely possible that he's the only kid in the world who sees it the way he does.
I don't see them as equal in terms of specs, but I'm not interested in the same things as a 10 year old. I asked my stepson about it this morning, and he gave what I think was a pretty well-reasoned argument off the cuff about it, mostly that the games on the iPad are completely different to those on the xbox, and he prefers the games that are on whichever platform they are on, and he likes the portable nature of the iPad, but the xbox because multiple players can play together. Sounded like a more coherent review of the differences than I've read on some websites.
It's not all about specs, it's about gameplay. I'd actually say I've -enjoyed- playing games on the ZX Spectrum more than some PC games (with infinitely better graphics, sound etc), because I enjoy the game more, and because they could never rely on looking flash to engage you, so they -had- to be excellent games. Technically, there's no way that Manic Miner is a better game than all the FPS that my eldest stepson plays, but I'd take Manic Miner any day of the week.
I don't see them as equal in terms of specs, but I'm not interested in the same things as a 10 year old. I asked my stepson about it this morning, and he gave what I think was a pretty well-reasoned argument off the cuff about it, mostly that the games on the iPad are completely different to those on the xbox, and he prefers the games that are on whichever platform they are on, and he likes the portable nature of the iPad, but the xbox because multiple players can play together. Sounded like a more coherent review of the differences than I've read on some websites.
It's not all about specs, it's about gameplay. I'd actually say I've -enjoyed- playing games on the ZX Spectrum more than some PC games (with infinitely better graphics, sound etc), because I enjoy the game more, and because they could never rely on looking flash to engage you, so they -had- to be excellent games. Technically, there's no way that Manic Miner is a better game than all the FPS that my eldest stepson plays, but I'd take Manic Miner any day of the week.
The games you can get on an iPad are very real games to kids.
Which has lead to the current market of free-to-play (pay-to-win) games and ruined potential most legitimate indie titles to thrive on the platform.
Jeff Minter himself has abandoned iOS altogether, leaving an amazing collection of some of the tightest controlling and most gorgeous retro styled iOS arcade shooters completely defunct like they never existed. (Minotaur Project) [0]
(Let this also be a lesson to back up your iOS stuff, iCloud will not save apps that are removed from the App Store).
[0]: http://minotaurproject.co.uk/blog/?p=376
Jeff Minter himself has abandoned iOS altogether, leaving an amazing collection of some of the tightest controlling and most gorgeous retro styled iOS arcade shooters completely defunct like they never existed. (Minotaur Project) [0]
(Let this also be a lesson to back up your iOS stuff, iCloud will not save apps that are removed from the App Store).
[0]: http://minotaurproject.co.uk/blog/?p=376
But as a parent it is hard to find the good games on the ipad, most are crappy pay to win stuff.
Even grown ups.
For me playing has mostly moved into the phone and tablet as I am often on the go.
RTS games are great for touch interfaces.
For me playing has mostly moved into the phone and tablet as I am often on the go.
RTS games are great for touch interfaces.
Can you recommend any good RTS games for iOS?
Personally, I use my iPad for games when I travel (and sometimes during my twice-a-week commute) and at home I play games almost exclusively on PS4. I rarely, if ever, play games on my laptop now, despite having over 300 games on Steam.
Personally, I use my iPad for games when I travel (and sometimes during my twice-a-week commute) and at home I play games almost exclusively on PS4. I rarely, if ever, play games on my laptop now, despite having over 300 games on Steam.
You are in for a surprise: https://www.google.com.co/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/04/22/mo...
There are many beautiful and immersive games for mobile, for example Disney's Castle of Illusion and Star Wars Commander.
There are many beautiful and immersive games for mobile, for example Disney's Castle of Illusion and Star Wars Commander.
Yes.
My house has a PS4, Ps3, Wii-U, a gaming PC, a Vita, and two 3DS machines. My kids spend 90% of their gaming hours on an iPad or phone. The PS4 is my favorite device.
My house has a PS4, Ps3, Wii-U, a gaming PC, a Vita, and two 3DS machines. My kids spend 90% of their gaming hours on an iPad or phone. The PS4 is my favorite device.
Depends on the parents and the kids. Some kids love to play on their tablets and others prefer 3DS or similar.
You can't say that no kids (or teenagers or adults) play on tablets.
[deleted]
Cost is definitely an issue here.
I personally am excited for the Switch and will get one at launch. And for me personally, the Wii U is the best console of this generation. But I'm not nearly as enthusiastic about the Switch in general as you are from this presentation.
So far it feels like "the Wii part 3". Yes the Wii sold well, but it didn't sell very many games. Most Wii owners were perfectly content with Wii Sports. The Wii U has pretty much been a flop. Nothing about this presentation suggests to me the Switch will finally do what Nintendo has tried three times now: make a gimmicky, low powered console that appeals in non traditional ways and is successful. So far (and sure, a 1 hour video 3 months before launch isn't much), this very much feels like the Wii and Wii U, and not in the good ways.
I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
So far it feels like "the Wii part 3". Yes the Wii sold well, but it didn't sell very many games. Most Wii owners were perfectly content with Wii Sports. The Wii U has pretty much been a flop. Nothing about this presentation suggests to me the Switch will finally do what Nintendo has tried three times now: make a gimmicky, low powered console that appeals in non traditional ways and is successful. So far (and sure, a 1 hour video 3 months before launch isn't much), this very much feels like the Wii and Wii U, and not in the good ways.
I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
I don't know why there is the perception that the Wii didn't sell many games. That's definitely not true, it had incredible first party game sales beyond Wii Sports, and it actually had good third party sales as well. Here is a list of 5 million+ sellers, including mega hits like Mario Kart which sold 36.8 million and New Super Mario Brothers which sold 29.9 million copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Some third party sales data which shows it was ahead of the 360 and PS3, launch aligned:
http://kotaku.com/5034951/heres-that-wii-third-party-sales-p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Some third party sales data which shows it was ahead of the 360 and PS3, launch aligned:
http://kotaku.com/5034951/heres-that-wii-third-party-sales-p...
Nintendo and arguably Microsoft simply can't compete with Sony right now.
Sony is dominating the high end, exclusive game market. The Last of Us, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid and coming up in 2017: Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding etc. All of these push the console to the limits and show just how superior the PS4 hardware is over its competitors.
Nintendo isn't really suited anyway. Their games are arguably better cel-shaded and cartoon-like. And so why not appeal to the less hardcore, graphics obsessed gamers. There's far more of them after all.
Sony is dominating the high end, exclusive game market. The Last of Us, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid and coming up in 2017: Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding etc. All of these push the console to the limits and show just how superior the PS4 hardware is over its competitors.
Nintendo isn't really suited anyway. Their games are arguably better cel-shaded and cartoon-like. And so why not appeal to the less hardcore, graphics obsessed gamers. There's far more of them after all.
As years go by the less I'm convinced that the platform with the fastest hardware is the best. With consoles, on the technical front, I want constant fluid framerates and predictability. For instance, I fail to see how PS4 Witcher 3 could be better than Witcher 3 on XBox one by any standard I care about when gaming (and I'm a professional graphics programmer).
That said, yes, it seems Sony is winning this generation in consoles. But I would claim it's due to other factors than PS4 as a piece of hardware and OS.
That said, yes, it seems Sony is winning this generation in consoles. But I would claim it's due to other factors than PS4 as a piece of hardware and OS.
No PS4 is winning because of their exclusives. When you have Uncharted 4 for example as GOTY it makes it very hard for people not to choose your console.
The reason the hardware is important is because games like Uncharted, Last of Us etc (which are system sellers) stand apart from the likes of Witcher 3 because of the ability to use the superior hardware to product superior graphics. I would argue this is just as important as the game play. But again not for all games just these specific type of games.
The reason the hardware is important is because games like Uncharted, Last of Us etc (which are system sellers) stand apart from the likes of Witcher 3 because of the ability to use the superior hardware to product superior graphics. I would argue this is just as important as the game play. But again not for all games just these specific type of games.
Yes, we agree that PS4 as a platform is more succesfull than the xbox. I disagree it has much to do with hardware specs.
Yes, PS4 has a slightly better GPU but even if PS4 and Xbox one shipped with hardware where xbox one was slightly better it would not affect the current market share that much.
Up to a point superior graphics are created by superior artists and animators. Using engine and art assets by superior programmers.
Uncharted is so good because of Naughty Dog, not because their platform happens to be PS4.
Sony has played their part well, whereas Micrsoft fumbled the Xbox one launch and positioning.
Yes, PS4 has a slightly better GPU but even if PS4 and Xbox one shipped with hardware where xbox one was slightly better it would not affect the current market share that much.
Up to a point superior graphics are created by superior artists and animators. Using engine and art assets by superior programmers.
Uncharted is so good because of Naughty Dog, not because their platform happens to be PS4.
Sony has played their part well, whereas Micrsoft fumbled the Xbox one launch and positioning.
The Witcher 3 is much more open world than Uncharted 4. I don't think this is a matter of optimising for the specific hardware, it is mainly the trade-offs inherent in a large open world game vs a linear game with small well defined levels. They each optimise for different values.
The PS4 has more powerful hardware than the XBox One. If they are running the same game (The Witcher 3), logic tells us that it will be easier to get fluid framerates with the more powerful console. And that is what you care about, no?
Now I don't know about The Witcher per-se but there have been a good number of multi-platform releases where performance and fluidity were compromised on XBox One.
And it doesn't just seem to be Sony, the numbers say it's Sony (especially in Europe). General consensus is that Microsoft severely botched the launch of the One and has been left to play catch-up since.
Now I don't know about The Witcher per-se but there have been a good number of multi-platform releases where performance and fluidity were compromised on XBox One.
And it doesn't just seem to be Sony, the numbers say it's Sony (especially in Europe). General consensus is that Microsoft severely botched the launch of the One and has been left to play catch-up since.
Witcher 3 on PS4 has slightly better graphics and insane texture pop in and some frame drops. I'd take "inferior" xOne version any time of the day.
The Xbox One version actually has a worse framerate and resolution and is otherwise identical in terms of textures and whatnot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHtnktoPLAo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHtnktoPLAo
As I said; I don't know specifically about The Witcher. I used the name as an example. There will always be additional factors beside hardware power, but in general; more powerful hardware is easier to get good results with.
If hardware was the only factor then consoles wouldn't exist because everyone would play on their PC.
> As years go by the less I'm convinced that the platform with the fastest hardware is the best.
It's never been the case.
The GC was the most powerful console of its generation, the PS2 was by far the least powerful one (with the possible exception of the Dreamcast, not quite sure where that one was).
It's never been the case.
The GC was the most powerful console of its generation, the PS2 was by far the least powerful one (with the possible exception of the Dreamcast, not quite sure where that one was).
Gamecube was quite memory-limited both in main and video RAM compared to XBox and PS2. My team was not the only one that had to play tricks to fit on that thing, swapping in and out parts of main memory (to/from the overly spacious audio memory area IIRC).
> Gamecube was quite memory-limited both in main and video RAM
I'm not saying it was a supreme machine without limitation, I'm saying it was the most powerful one. It had by a fairly large margin the most powerful CPU and GPU subsystems.
That doesn't mean there were no tradeoffs, it was all strength and it was necessarily trivial to make use of that power. Think PS3.
I'm not saying it was a supreme machine without limitation, I'm saying it was the most powerful one. It had by a fairly large margin the most powerful CPU and GPU subsystems.
That doesn't mean there were no tradeoffs, it was all strength and it was necessarily trivial to make use of that power. Think PS3.
IIRC the Xbox was the most powerful console of that generation.
XBox was comfortably more powerful than the GC, GC was ahead but more similar to PS2 in practice, both were well ahead of the Dreamcast (Dreamcast launched first, PS2 next, XBox and GC last, so kinda to be expected). GC was hamstrung by memory issues (PS2 had better bandwidth, fill rate, media capacity, iirc), so was a bugger to use its power, but that's by the by.
So, I disagree with the first claim in your second paragraph, but my pedantry only supports your main point: PS2 won, selling 3 times the others put together. But PS2 was a long way from being the most powerful.
But, both as a developer and player, and purely subjectively, I do think XBox was the 'best' of that generation.
So, I disagree with the first claim in your second paragraph, but my pedantry only supports your main point: PS2 won, selling 3 times the others put together. But PS2 was a long way from being the most powerful.
But, both as a developer and player, and purely subjectively, I do think XBox was the 'best' of that generation.
> The GC was the most powerful console of its generation,
That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.
That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.
I don't really get the obsession with high end graphics.
Hyper Light Drifter is one of the most beautiful games I played to.
For me the Switch looks powerful enough to run beautiful games. A good art direction trumps raw power in almost all cases.
Hyper Light Drifter is one of the most beautiful games I played to.
For me the Switch looks powerful enough to run beautiful games. A good art direction trumps raw power in almost all cases.
I mostly agree, but I'm worried about what it means for third-party support.
If the Switch is significantly underpowered compared to the competition, it means that developers won't be able to easily port XBone/PS4 games to the Switch which will hurt the Switch's lineup. In that case, Nintendo's best hope for success is that their Blue Ocean Strategy will take off and people will treat the Switch as not just another console but as a supremely versatile handheld.
The reason the Wii got away with it was a) Blue Ocean Strategy gave it genuinely unique games and b) the PS2 was still kicking around so the Wii version can easily be ported to PS2 and sell on twice the number of consoles (i.e. they'd make a 360/PS3 version and a Wii/PS2 version).
The Wii U had beautiful games with beautiful art direction (Yoshi's Woolly World, anyone?), but it still flopped largely because third parties ignored it and Nintendo didn't have a good enough Blue Ocean Strategy.
If the Switch is significantly underpowered compared to the competition, it means that developers won't be able to easily port XBone/PS4 games to the Switch which will hurt the Switch's lineup. In that case, Nintendo's best hope for success is that their Blue Ocean Strategy will take off and people will treat the Switch as not just another console but as a supremely versatile handheld.
The reason the Wii got away with it was a) Blue Ocean Strategy gave it genuinely unique games and b) the PS2 was still kicking around so the Wii version can easily be ported to PS2 and sell on twice the number of consoles (i.e. they'd make a 360/PS3 version and a Wii/PS2 version).
The Wii U had beautiful games with beautiful art direction (Yoshi's Woolly World, anyone?), but it still flopped largely because third parties ignored it and Nintendo didn't have a good enough Blue Ocean Strategy.
Right, but imagine good art direction AND raw power.
With that combination, you need something like the art direction of a Studio Ghibli in order to successfully manage the complexity (excited for the new Ni no Kuni, BTW). Most, maybe all, game studios in the west are not up to the challenge. Many indie games are much more artistically successful precisely because they have to think around the constraints and can work with a more concentrated vision.
The MGS games (MGS V and Ground Zeroes) were not exclusive to Sony in any way -- both released on the PC and Xbox.
>But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft. //
Surely though if you want that experience you can buy a PS4/Xbone/PC. Personally I'm really happy that Nintendo continues to give a different twist to their consoles and provide some texture to the market.
Surely though if you want that experience you can buy a PS4/Xbone/PC. Personally I'm really happy that Nintendo continues to give a different twist to their consoles and provide some texture to the market.
But will you still be happy if Nintendo bows out of the market altogether? It's no coincidence they are exploring mobile games. They aren't exactly killing it these days. If the Switch doesn't do well, I wouldn't be surprised to see Nintendo go completely 3rd party.
That would be a big shame IMO. I think, the Wii and WiiU have both brought interesting developments and that the Switch looks like it will develop things to - bring tighter integration between mobile and home gaming.
Surely the next step would be VR, though it's probably right to enter that arena partnered with an established player.
If smart-watches/wearables push on then people may move away from using a smart-phone form factor and instead have a paired device trailer more towards gaming and media.
I wonder if Switch can (in theory) run Android, whether it'll have Skype or other video calling (I didn't notice a camera?).
Surely the next step would be VR, though it's probably right to enter that arena partnered with an established player.
If smart-watches/wearables push on then people may move away from using a smart-phone form factor and instead have a paired device trailer more towards gaming and media.
I wonder if Switch can (in theory) run Android, whether it'll have Skype or other video calling (I didn't notice a camera?).
> I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
Well I don't love Nintendo, I think their consoles are pretty gimmicky and sales are fueled mostly by nostalgia and rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
I honestly don't believe Nintendo is capable of competing with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe they could create hardware on-par with a PS4, but they can't get the publisher relations down, nor have they been able to get their online service to feature-parity with Xbox Live circa 2007 after a decade of trying. They also have this awful customer-hostile attitude that simply will not go away.
(Why should anybody have to buy a game title more than once, just because they bought a new game console? That's pure scam, Nintendo. On Xbox, you buy it once and you own it forever. On Nintendo, people re-buy Super Mario Bros 3 like clockwork every 3 years.)
Which is fine. There's already lots of competition in the "high powered console gaming" arena, and Nintendo would run the risk of becoming another SteamBox. And if their strength is nostalgia, maybe embracing that is a good business decision, even if the constant rehashing of the same titles over and over personally makes me gag.
Well I don't love Nintendo, I think their consoles are pretty gimmicky and sales are fueled mostly by nostalgia and rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
I honestly don't believe Nintendo is capable of competing with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe they could create hardware on-par with a PS4, but they can't get the publisher relations down, nor have they been able to get their online service to feature-parity with Xbox Live circa 2007 after a decade of trying. They also have this awful customer-hostile attitude that simply will not go away.
(Why should anybody have to buy a game title more than once, just because they bought a new game console? That's pure scam, Nintendo. On Xbox, you buy it once and you own it forever. On Nintendo, people re-buy Super Mario Bros 3 like clockwork every 3 years.)
Which is fine. There's already lots of competition in the "high powered console gaming" arena, and Nintendo would run the risk of becoming another SteamBox. And if their strength is nostalgia, maybe embracing that is a good business decision, even if the constant rehashing of the same titles over and over personally makes me gag.
> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-thought-out core mechanic. And this new Super Mario Odyssey game they announced looks like it has a ton of stuff that hasn't been done in a Mario game before.
And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Typically the best games on the whole platform. So it's no surprise that they keep coming back to the same franchises, since they've demonstrated that they can execute extremely well with this IP and that fans absolutely love it. It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-thought-out core mechanic. And this new Super Mario Odyssey game they announced looks like it has a ton of stuff that hasn't been done in a Mario game before.
And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Typically the best games on the whole platform. So it's no surprise that they keep coming back to the same franchises, since they've demonstrated that they can execute extremely well with this IP and that fans absolutely love it. It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
The innovations they've been doing lately have mostly had diminishing returns. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was an alright game, but it was nowhere near as innovative as Super Mario 64 was. I don't even remember if I finished it or not, but I remember that SM64 Bowser boss fight to this day.
I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for many, myself included, the 5 or 6 excellent games that come out don't really justify the price of the console and the HDMI slot it occupies. I know I've never been able to justify a WII U (though Bayonetta 2 came close).
I hope they do better with the Switch—I'd love to justify the purchase :-). But I'm certainly not getting one at launch.
I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for many, myself included, the 5 or 6 excellent games that come out don't really justify the price of the console and the HDMI slot it occupies. I know I've never been able to justify a WII U (though Bayonetta 2 came close).
I hope they do better with the Switch—I'd love to justify the purchase :-). But I'm certainly not getting one at launch.
this one certainly doesnt need to occupy your HDMI slot.
To play it on my nice TV it does.
> Typically the best games on the whole platform.
Also perhaps the only worthwhiles games on Nintendo's consoles.
Also perhaps the only worthwhiles games on Nintendo's consoles.
The Fire Emblem and Bravely Default series on 3ds are both as good as any series on other platforms. Wii and Wii U are difficult cases but the DS line has in general been an incredibly good console platform. I actually think it was the best of the last generation. Maybe the switch can carry that on but I'm not sure.
Fair enough. My comment was mostly valid for the Wii and Wii U lineup, I agree that it's better for the DS.
The 3DS has some excellent third party exclusive games, mainly RPGs. I really can't think of anything comparable on the Wii or Wii U that I feel I'm missing out on, except for the first party titles.
A lot of people consider Bayonetta 2 to be a console-seller (though personally, I've only tried it for a few minutes and the intro to that game is super confusing). There's also some other great games that, while aren't exclusive, do have unique features on Wii U (e.g. leveraging the gamepad), such as Rayman Legends. As for RPGs, there's Xenoblade Chronicles X.
> You say that like this is a bad thing.
Probably because I believe it is a bad thing.
> Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again.
Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario?
If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X.
> And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games.
Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake.
> Typically the best games on the whole platform.
Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre.
Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good.
> It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.
Probably because I believe it is a bad thing.
> Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again.
Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario?
If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X.
> And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games.
Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake.
> Typically the best games on the whole platform.
Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre.
Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good.
> It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.
They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.
You're kind of missing my point. That's great for the person who is already a Nintendo fan and already plays every Mario game like clockwork.
As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario? How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before? If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
(Of course the answer to that last one is: Nintendo's sales are fueled entirely by nostalgia, so of course they want the Mario or Zelda game on it because it's basically "free sales". People will buy it just because it says Mario on the cover. Which, going back to my first post, I find disgusting.)
So Nintendo is doing a great job (presumably) marketing to people who already love their products, but what reason are they giving a person who doesn't to try out the product?
As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario? How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before? If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
(Of course the answer to that last one is: Nintendo's sales are fueled entirely by nostalgia, so of course they want the Mario or Zelda game on it because it's basically "free sales". People will buy it just because it says Mario on the cover. Which, going back to my first post, I find disgusting.)
So Nintendo is doing a great job (presumably) marketing to people who already love their products, but what reason are they giving a person who doesn't to try out the product?
You keep missing the most important point, which is that these games are very fun. That's the reason for someone who hasn't played a Mario before to pick it up.
> As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario?
Because it's a lot of fun.
> How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before?
If you haven't played the ones before, then you don't really have a point for comparison. But in that case, the question doesn't seem meaningful at all. Why does it matter that it's different than the previous games, as long as it's fun? You certainly don't have to buy the latest console just to play Mario, you could buy an older console in order to play the older games. Or you could buy the latest console and then pick up older games on the Virtual Console. That said, if you're going to start with Mario (or Zelda or any other Nintendo IP), it's never a bad idea to go with the latest, then if you like it you can pick up the older games. Of course, if you're playing games from older platforms, the visuals won't be as good as the more recent ones. And you may also find that they're not quite as polished as the later ones, because they learn from their older games so that way each new one is better. Most notably, the current level design philosophy they have with Mario started with Super Mario Galaxy 1 (and refined in 2 and then Super Mario 3D Land), so the older games will feel a little different (info about this level design philosophy can be found in this interview - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/168460/the_structure_o...). And of course there's an obvious important difference between the 2D Mario games and the 3D Mario games.
> If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
Why? It's not radically different, every Mario game has a lot of commonalities (though each new game tends to introduce something new to the formula). And just in general, why throw away an IP that millions of people love? There's literally no upside to doing that.
Also, if we consider Zelda instead of Mario, even though each Zelda game is a brand new story, they're all connected to each other (a timeline of all games through Skyward Sword can be found from the book Hyrule Historia, or at https://zeldawiki.org/images/7/7c/Timeline_Hyrule_Historia.j...). But there are also really big differences between the games. As one example, The Wind Waker takes place on a series of islands scattered across a large sea, and you have a boat (that talks) that you literally sail from island to island, and with a lot of related mechanics around that. Compare that with the other Zelda games, where every other game takes place mostly on land without any sailing (except for Phantom Hourglass, which was a direct sequel to Wind Waker). Similarly, almost every game follows an entirely different character, but each character is basically a reincarnation of the Hero Of Time (Link).
> As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario?
Because it's a lot of fun.
> How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before?
If you haven't played the ones before, then you don't really have a point for comparison. But in that case, the question doesn't seem meaningful at all. Why does it matter that it's different than the previous games, as long as it's fun? You certainly don't have to buy the latest console just to play Mario, you could buy an older console in order to play the older games. Or you could buy the latest console and then pick up older games on the Virtual Console. That said, if you're going to start with Mario (or Zelda or any other Nintendo IP), it's never a bad idea to go with the latest, then if you like it you can pick up the older games. Of course, if you're playing games from older platforms, the visuals won't be as good as the more recent ones. And you may also find that they're not quite as polished as the later ones, because they learn from their older games so that way each new one is better. Most notably, the current level design philosophy they have with Mario started with Super Mario Galaxy 1 (and refined in 2 and then Super Mario 3D Land), so the older games will feel a little different (info about this level design philosophy can be found in this interview - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/168460/the_structure_o...). And of course there's an obvious important difference between the 2D Mario games and the 3D Mario games.
> If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
Why? It's not radically different, every Mario game has a lot of commonalities (though each new game tends to introduce something new to the formula). And just in general, why throw away an IP that millions of people love? There's literally no upside to doing that.
Also, if we consider Zelda instead of Mario, even though each Zelda game is a brand new story, they're all connected to each other (a timeline of all games through Skyward Sword can be found from the book Hyrule Historia, or at https://zeldawiki.org/images/7/7c/Timeline_Hyrule_Historia.j...). But there are also really big differences between the games. As one example, The Wind Waker takes place on a series of islands scattered across a large sea, and you have a boat (that talks) that you literally sail from island to island, and with a lot of related mechanics around that. Compare that with the other Zelda games, where every other game takes place mostly on land without any sailing (except for Phantom Hourglass, which was a direct sequel to Wind Waker). Similarly, almost every game follows an entirely different character, but each character is basically a reincarnation of the Hero Of Time (Link).
[deleted]
Nintendo has had the 'not many games' story for decades. Third party titles have rarely been a big part of the story for Nintendo. They still have in excess of $1mm in revenue per employee last time I checked.
And, if you subtract minecraft on Xbox, my kids spend 95% of their non-mobile gaming time on Wii U. No third party title time.
At any rate, I'm guessing it's when not if Switch will hit our house. Maybe I can hide it in my bag for a while before they find it. :)
And, if you subtract minecraft on Xbox, my kids spend 95% of their non-mobile gaming time on Wii U. No third party title time.
At any rate, I'm guessing it's when not if Switch will hit our house. Maybe I can hide it in my bag for a while before they find it. :)
>if you subtract minecraft on Xbox
That's a toughie and ventures deep into anecdote-only-data territory.
For about 3 years running, my PS2 was a Guitar Hero facilitating machine, and my PC was a Kerbal Space Program facilitating machine.
That's a toughie and ventures deep into anecdote-only-data territory.
For about 3 years running, my PS2 was a Guitar Hero facilitating machine, and my PC was a Kerbal Space Program facilitating machine.
Try looking at it the other way, this isn't the next wiiU trying to compete with sony and MS. This is the next 3DS which also supports big screen gaming. Nintendo is bringing their strengths (mobile and third party mobile support) into the arena they've been struggling with on and off since the SNES era.
> From the beginning it emphasises mobility with a (hopefully good!) smartphone app to manage online/local wifi matches…
Actually, this has me very worried. Putting down the controller and pulling out a smartphone to manage my online matches seems about the worst possible user interaction they could think of. No matter how good this smartphone app is (and really, is it going to be good?), it's going to pale in comparison to just selecting a menu on the console.
The fact that they said this at all makes me think they still haven't figured out online interactions. Microsoft and Sony have them down pat, all Nintendo really has to do is just copy them. But instead they're trapped in their own bizzaro world for some reason.
Actually, this has me very worried. Putting down the controller and pulling out a smartphone to manage my online matches seems about the worst possible user interaction they could think of. No matter how good this smartphone app is (and really, is it going to be good?), it's going to pale in comparison to just selecting a menu on the console.
The fact that they said this at all makes me think they still haven't figured out online interactions. Microsoft and Sony have them down pat, all Nintendo really has to do is just copy them. But instead they're trapped in their own bizzaro world for some reason.
The underlying content was good, and they did well with the Zelda launch date announcement, but to praise the whole presentation as masterful, I'm not so sure. It was extremely awkward throughout.
FIFA looked so promising. I can't remember what bullshit political reason kept Madden off of the PS Vita, but that's why I sold mine.
Very much looking forward to the switch.
Very much looking forward to the switch.
>> But the marketing and presentation was honestly textbook.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but I thought this presentation would have played better if it had been done with a western live audience because of cultural differences. The Japanese audience was very polite and seemed fairly quiet throughout the presentation. If it was done in front of western fans, there would have been continuous eruptions of raucous applause during each of the game presentations (much like an Apple event).
I don't know if anyone else noticed but I thought this presentation would have played better if it had been done with a western live audience because of cultural differences. The Japanese audience was very polite and seemed fairly quiet throughout the presentation. If it was done in front of western fans, there would have been continuous eruptions of raucous applause during each of the game presentations (much like an Apple event).
Indeed. I was thinking they should have held it in Los Angeles, and had drinks beforehand. ;)
>They also talked up Dragon Quest X, which is an MMORPG, launching on Switch
Dragon Quest X launched in 2012 on the Wii, and from the way he announced it, it's not coming to the west.
Dragon Quest X launched in 2012 on the Wii, and from the way he announced it, it's not coming to the west.
On the plus side, Switch games won't be region locked.
Yes! This is the most exciting feature for me.
I believe Dragon Quest XI is also for 3DS. They've announced DQXI localization for both 3DS and PS4, but during the switch presentation said that DQXI and DQX would be Japanese only so far. Dragon Quest Warriors I and II will be localized for the Switch, however. At least there's no region locking!
Small note, it's Dragon "Quest" X. I got really excited for a Dragon Age MMO for nothing.
You're right! So sorry for getting your hopes up.
I'm not a games fun by any means, but one of my fav titles is Zelda. I was a bit concerned when I didn't see Zelda appear right after "Super Mario", I thought they didn't bother to create a title and was kinda disappointed until 1h 35m in :D
It's basically everything i wanted my PSP to do. It could be great.
> It's reasonably priced (matches current generation in total at the register)
Not if you want to get lots of controllers, though.
Not if you want to get lots of controllers, though.
But it does come with two. Sure they not two dual-analogues, but you can play two-player Mario Kart with the pair of Joy-Cons (urgh, naming) that come with the system.
"Swii-motes"?
This is the first Nintendo platform from the "next generation" of developers at Nintendo that studied under Satoru Iwata and Shigeru Miyamoto. During the presentation, the heads of software development (Yoshiaki Koizumi and Shinya Takahashi) introduced the hardware, and the head of hardware development for Switch (Kouichi Kawamoto) introduced the launch title 1 2 Switch. Staples of such presentations like Miyamoto, Reggie Fils-Aimé and Eiji Aonuma were notably absent (though they did appear in a short video at the end of the presentation).
They didn't mention this at all, but I think it was a brilliant way to demonstrate that the next generation of Nintendo is as integrated and collaborative as ever, and let the games and the hardware speak for themselves. It also demonstrates the efficiency of the teams now that both the portable and home console teams are working together in one building at the new head office in Kyoto. A great subtle touch to an otherwise quite clear, explicit conference, and reminds me of how similar Nintendo and Apple are.
They didn't mention this at all, but I think it was a brilliant way to demonstrate that the next generation of Nintendo is as integrated and collaborative as ever, and let the games and the hardware speak for themselves. It also demonstrates the efficiency of the teams now that both the portable and home console teams are working together in one building at the new head office in Kyoto. A great subtle touch to an otherwise quite clear, explicit conference, and reminds me of how similar Nintendo and Apple are.
IGN brought this up too in their aftermath video - this presentation showed a lot of people we've just never met before. And the games (like the mario one) had something NEW to them which was exciting, and it's exciting that nintendo's letting the new generation try it out.
I had to laugh when during the livestream they were going through each of the innovations of their past systems, and the only thing they could mention about the Gamecube was that it had a handle :)
But overall I think they continue to show real innovation in gaming. They're the only company who puts so much effort into maximizing their software with the uniqueness of their hardware.
But overall I think they continue to show real innovation in gaming. They're the only company who puts so much effort into maximizing their software with the uniqueness of their hardware.
In HCI terms, the Gamecube didn't do much. But it was Nintendo's single largest leap in architecture and hardware power—it sticks out above their console "power curve" trend-line quite strikingly.
The Wii was basically just a higher-clocked (~2x CPU and GPU) Gamecube—much more like the XBO S or the PS4 Pro are for this generation, than like the architectural reinventions Nintendo usually gets up to. The fact that it seemed like a whole new console with new capabilities for games, is more than anything a statement of how much untapped potential there still was in the Gamecube's architecture at the end of its life, that Wii developers went on to find.
The Wii was basically just a higher-clocked (~2x CPU and GPU) Gamecube—much more like the XBO S or the PS4 Pro are for this generation, than like the architectural reinventions Nintendo usually gets up to. The fact that it seemed like a whole new console with new capabilities for games, is more than anything a statement of how much untapped potential there still was in the Gamecube's architecture at the end of its life, that Wii developers went on to find.
Dolphin EMU really highlights how strong and under-appreciated so many of the GameCube gen games are: Viewtiful Joe, F-Zero X, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, Wind Waker, and especially the Metroid Prime series are outgrageously good games.
Hard to think of any real bombs in that entire library TBH.
Hard to think of any real bombs in that entire library TBH.
Oh man, games like F-Zero GX, you just don't get this stuff on Sony or Microsoft consoles. Also Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros Melee! Stuff of legends. 4 player support on the same couch? Damn. Gamecube might have been the best console from Nintendo in my view.
Yes F-Zero GX after coffee was fun. So so fast.
I have sold my Gamecube but hold the Wind Waker in my heart as a game I could play and play. I simply loved sailing around in that little boat in a happy cartoon land. It's the one game my wife would happily watch me play for hours on end.
Wario World was also very good but I never completed it - kept getting stuck on the magical mirror level
I have sold my Gamecube but hold the Wind Waker in my heart as a game I could play and play. I simply loved sailing around in that little boat in a happy cartoon land. It's the one game my wife would happily watch me play for hours on end.
Wario World was also very good but I never completed it - kept getting stuck on the magical mirror level
I used to live about ~20 minutes out of town by bike (Netherlands). My friends used to say that the biggest problem with coming by to play F-Zero is that the bike ride home always felt so ridiculously slow afterwards.
Dolphin is a very good emulator that can absolutely handle F-Zero. No need to hold the game in your heart, just play it on your PC!
>you just don't get this stuff on Sony or Microsoft consoles.
Well, now you don't really get it on Nintendo consoles either. Out of the series you named only one has had a remotely recent installment, and the metroid IP had only been used for taking down fan projects since Other M. That's why, as of now at least, there's no way I'm buying one of these. I can play all the best games from Nintendo's library in Dolphin, on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.
Well, now you don't really get it on Nintendo consoles either. Out of the series you named only one has had a remotely recent installment, and the metroid IP had only been used for taking down fan projects since Other M. That's why, as of now at least, there's no way I'm buying one of these. I can play all the best games from Nintendo's library in Dolphin, on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.
> on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.
It seems embarrassing for Nintendo:
"We finally have the game you've been playing on every other console for literally 6 years!"
But it's a huge boost for Bethesda:
"Skyrim's so goddamned popular that Nintendo approached us about putting it on their new console 6 years after it came out!"
It seems embarrassing for Nintendo:
"We finally have the game you've been playing on every other console for literally 6 years!"
But it's a huge boost for Bethesda:
"Skyrim's so goddamned popular that Nintendo approached us about putting it on their new console 6 years after it came out!"
I never owned any console until the GameCube. Nintendo converted me over from PC gaming with the quality of the games and the system itself. Since then I've owned every Nintendo system.
I also bought a PS3, but more as a DVD/BluRay player. Other than Little Big Planet and Skyrim I never liked any of the other games for it.
I also bought a PS3, but more as a DVD/BluRay player. Other than Little Big Planet and Skyrim I never liked any of the other games for it.
The GameCube was the only Nintendo console I've never owned.
Sure, Melee was fun, but I played all the time at my friends' apartments. I didn't need to play it at home: multiplayer was where the fun was at. Usually after a class (I was in college during the GameCube's heyday), a classmate and I would go over to his apartment and play Melee for a few hours.
I might have bought a GameCube if it had a decent Mario platformer (and I felt burned by the N64 too... Super Mario 64 was a huge disappointment to me... the Galaxy games were the first 3D platformers I could stand, and I didn't really get the 3D platformer I wanted until 3D World).
Sure, Melee was fun, but I played all the time at my friends' apartments. I didn't need to play it at home: multiplayer was where the fun was at. Usually after a class (I was in college during the GameCube's heyday), a classmate and I would go over to his apartment and play Melee for a few hours.
I might have bought a GameCube if it had a decent Mario platformer (and I felt burned by the N64 too... Super Mario 64 was a huge disappointment to me... the Galaxy games were the first 3D platformers I could stand, and I didn't really get the 3D platformer I wanted until 3D World).
F-Zero GX I still play quite often (agonisingly badly, but at the moment I'm still a bit better at it than my kids are). I'd love to see another F-Zero.
Also of course the two excellent Zelda games. What a fab console.
Also of course the two excellent Zelda games. What a fab console.
For some real speed the Extreme-G series always made me happy, the audio ducks when you break the sound barrier, I love that.
Difficult control and the "battle mode" multiplayer is garbage, also lacks the character of F-Zero series but a very pretty and enjoyable game with lots of variety in the tracks.
Difficult control and the "battle mode" multiplayer is garbage, also lacks the character of F-Zero series but a very pretty and enjoyable game with lots of variety in the tracks.
>Super Smash Bros Melee
I'd love to be able to get a few people over and just bust out the SSB for a few hours - so many great memories from uni. A seconnd hand GC + the game is ridic expensive though so my options are pretty much limited to homebrew
I'd love to be able to get a few people over and just bust out the SSB for a few hours - so many great memories from uni. A seconnd hand GC + the game is ridic expensive though so my options are pretty much limited to homebrew
Donkey Kong Jungle Beat played on the plastic bongo controller (with handclap sensor!) is definitely in my top 5 games ever.
(It's playable on the older Wii models with gamecube ports if anyone is intrigued by the description)
(It's playable on the older Wii models with gamecube ports if anyone is intrigued by the description)
I agree with your point but the Xbox One S and PS4 Pro are nothing alike. The equivalent of the Xbox One S is the PS4 Slim. It's mainly just a shrunken Xbox One. The slight GPU frequency increase is nothing to write home about and certainly not in the same league as the PS4 Pro.
Wouldn't the biggest leap in power be the N64?
The SNES lasted a while in the market, and—almost uniquely among consoles—it ramped up in power over its lifetime by putting coprocessors like the SuperFX into game carts. By the end of its lifetime, the "system" of the SNES + a cart like Starfox, was much closer to the N64 than the base SNES, making the N64 much less of a shift than it seemed.
Interestingly, if you think of the PSX as descending from the SNES architecturally, it's nearly identical to the end-state of "SNES + SuperFX GSU-1", but with the one added feature of DMA-streamed block IO from the CD device. (Thus why the FF7 demo on the N64 used polygonal backgrounds, while on the PSX you get pre-rendered backgrounds. Each version plays to its console's strength. Makes you wonder what would have been possible in an alternate world where the N64 had a CD drive as well as its better polygon-pushing abilities.)
This also means that the PSX->PS2 likely represents the largest single-generation leap in power of any console: it was a catch-up from "basically a SNES" to modern-for-the-time hardware, representing a literal 10x jump in CPU and GPU power.
Interestingly, if you think of the PSX as descending from the SNES architecturally, it's nearly identical to the end-state of "SNES + SuperFX GSU-1", but with the one added feature of DMA-streamed block IO from the CD device. (Thus why the FF7 demo on the N64 used polygonal backgrounds, while on the PSX you get pre-rendered backgrounds. Each version plays to its console's strength. Makes you wonder what would have been possible in an alternate world where the N64 had a CD drive as well as its better polygon-pushing abilities.)
This also means that the PSX->PS2 likely represents the largest single-generation leap in power of any console: it was a catch-up from "basically a SNES" to modern-for-the-time hardware, representing a literal 10x jump in CPU and GPU power.
You're stretching it. The N64 was a beast even quite some time after introduction. I understand the point about SNES 3D ability blurring the line for the average consumer. But 1 minute into play and you'd understand the massive leap. I remember when Zelda 64 was released, a friend got all the latest PSX games (moto racer N, Tomb Raider 3, whatever).
We played Zelda a few minutes, but then switched to the PSX. We tried all games in a row less than 5 minutes each, they were disgusting in comparison. And these were mature sequels not launch lineup. When Zelda 64 was on screen we realized how much better everything was on the N64.
We played Zelda a few minutes, but then switched to the PSX. We tried all games in a row less than 5 minutes each, they were disgusting in comparison. And these were mature sequels not launch lineup. When Zelda 64 was on screen we realized how much better everything was on the N64.
Comparing the N64 and PSX is painful on many levels, I've always found the polygon tearing effect on the PSX extremely distracting and off-putting visually. (This artifact is an apparent result a lack of floating point support[0])
However the massive size of disc based PSX games vs N64 carts yielded visual variety that we just didn't get on the N64.
Not to mention the music, although N64 Tetrisphere's amazing music by Neil Voss was actually implemented as an interpreted mod track composed in FastTracker complete with samples. Such a good game.
[0]: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4111/dirty_coding_tric...
However the massive size of disc based PSX games vs N64 carts yielded visual variety that we just didn't get on the N64.
Not to mention the music, although N64 Tetrisphere's amazing music by Neil Voss was actually implemented as an interpreted mod track composed in FastTracker complete with samples. Such a good game.
[0]: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4111/dirty_coding_tric...
It's not tearing, it's called affine swim, and on PC is a tell tale sign of a software renderer. Overall the N64 was ok (I had one). The PS2 was so much better though, there was just a way better variety of good games. N64 kind of sucked if you didn't want to play Goldeneye, Zelda or Super Mario 64 clones.
Also, Tetrisphere! There is a game I had forgotten about. It was so good!
Also, Tetrisphere! There is a game I had forgotten about. It was so good!
> It's not tearing, it's called affine swim, and on PC is a tell tale sign of a software renderer.
I've never hear the term "affine swim" before. Is it an artifact in rasterization (leaving gaps between triangles) or texturing (the term "affine" suggests that)?
For the rasterization, I've heard the term "watertight rasterization" (or airtight?) being used for a gapless rasterizer. It's not necessarily a software vs. hardware render issue, you can implement a watertight software rasterizer (of course) but I guess in the 1990s this was a performance vs. fidelity issue. And even with early 3d accelerators, the vertex processing was still done in the CPU.
I've never hear the term "affine swim" before. Is it an artifact in rasterization (leaving gaps between triangles) or texturing (the term "affine" suggests that)?
For the rasterization, I've heard the term "watertight rasterization" (or airtight?) being used for a gapless rasterizer. It's not necessarily a software vs. hardware render issue, you can implement a watertight software rasterizer (of course) but I guess in the 1990s this was a performance vs. fidelity issue. And even with early 3d accelerators, the vertex processing was still done in the CPU.
Unfortunately I am not an expert but the Wikipedia article has an explanation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_mapping#Affine_textu...
Affine swim refers to the unique results this kind of texturing results in (it looks like textures are swimming)
Affine swim refers to the unique results this kind of texturing results in (it looks like textures are swimming)
Yeah there was no floating point for a while on consoles. I remember spending a week or two making a renderer that subdivided geometry so the textures would tear less. It was more expensive so had to be done based on view distance.
You're absolutely wrong. The PS1 was nothing like an SNES + SuperFX chip spec wise.
PS1 has nothing in common hardware wise with the "Nintendo Playstation" add-on other than in name alone.
PS1 has nothing in common hardware wise with the "Nintendo Playstation" add-on other than in name alone.
Yeah I'm curious to hear a defense of the 'PSX, architectural successor of the SNES' argument myself.
He is completely wrong and must be confusing PS1 with the unreleased add-on, which would make more sense. The Nintendo Playstation is not much more than an SNES with a CD-ROM drive and some extra memory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-CyGXMabg
He is probably too young to have grown up with a PS1. I believe reading at the time that Sony poured close to $1bn into developing the PS1 hardware. This made sense-- the Sony brand then was what Apple is now, and this was their first full foray into the games industry.
If you compare Star Fox running at 15fps on a SuperFX chip w/ untextured polys to Gran Turismo 2 running at 30fps, you will see why OP is spewing clueless garbage. The PS1 was a monster for its time. It blew away the hardware of Saturn and 3DO, when it came to 3D at least. 3D acceleration was new, and even PC gamers were jealous of what the PS1 had to offer at launch. And arguably it was not even dethroned by the N64 a year later.
Get off my lawn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-CyGXMabg
He is probably too young to have grown up with a PS1. I believe reading at the time that Sony poured close to $1bn into developing the PS1 hardware. This made sense-- the Sony brand then was what Apple is now, and this was their first full foray into the games industry.
If you compare Star Fox running at 15fps on a SuperFX chip w/ untextured polys to Gran Turismo 2 running at 30fps, you will see why OP is spewing clueless garbage. The PS1 was a monster for its time. It blew away the hardware of Saturn and 3DO, when it came to 3D at least. 3D acceleration was new, and even PC gamers were jealous of what the PS1 had to offer at launch. And arguably it was not even dethroned by the N64 a year later.
Get off my lawn.
I think the argument is still worth hearing, even if it's off your lawn. I mean, I also think it can't possibly be right but it can probably be sorted out without getting into a 'you were too young' pee-fest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specific...
vs
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dherring/cgt141/project1/comparis...
http://www.giantbomb.com/super-fx-chip/3015-7544/
Take a look for yourself. They are nothing at all alike.
vs
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dherring/cgt141/project1/comparis...
http://www.giantbomb.com/super-fx-chip/3015-7544/
Take a look for yourself. They are nothing at all alike.
According to Square programmers about the power of PSX vs N64, (source from the recent excellent article about Final Fantasy 7: http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7)
"I kind of had a suspicion that things weren’t going too well for the 64 at that point, because … one of my responsibilities … was to write performance applications that compared how well the 64 fared against the prototype [PlayStation]. And we’d be running parallel comparisons between the [PlayStation] where you’d have a bunch of 2D sprites bouncing off the screen and see how many polygons you could get within a 60th of a second. And even without any kind of texturing or any kind of lighting, it was less than 50% of what you would be able to get out of the [PlayStation]. Of course, the drawback of the [PlayStation] is it didn’t really have a z-buffer, so you’d have these overlapping polygons that you’d have to work around so that you wouldn’t get the shimmering [look]. But on the other hand, there was no way you’d be able to get anything close to what FF7 was doing [on PlayStation] on the 64 at that time."
So, at least according to the square programmers the PSX was more powerful when it came to raw polygon processing power. Of course N64 was doing much more with it's hardware, and also having a Z-buffer for real depth information, so these numbers are not really directly comparable.
"I kind of had a suspicion that things weren’t going too well for the 64 at that point, because … one of my responsibilities … was to write performance applications that compared how well the 64 fared against the prototype [PlayStation]. And we’d be running parallel comparisons between the [PlayStation] where you’d have a bunch of 2D sprites bouncing off the screen and see how many polygons you could get within a 60th of a second. And even without any kind of texturing or any kind of lighting, it was less than 50% of what you would be able to get out of the [PlayStation]. Of course, the drawback of the [PlayStation] is it didn’t really have a z-buffer, so you’d have these overlapping polygons that you’d have to work around so that you wouldn’t get the shimmering [look]. But on the other hand, there was no way you’d be able to get anything close to what FF7 was doing [on PlayStation] on the 64 at that time."
So, at least according to the square programmers the PSX was more powerful when it came to raw polygon processing power. Of course N64 was doing much more with it's hardware, and also having a Z-buffer for real depth information, so these numbers are not really directly comparable.
Maybe 'closer' but still 'ridiculously far'. You weren't going to coprocessor your way to a Mario 64.
[deleted]
I wouldn't call that 'ridiculously far'—it's "only" a 3x difference ;) The SuperFX GSU-1 clocked at 21MHz; the N64's RCP is 62.5MHz. (There's also an order-of-magnitude CPU power differential, but Mario 64 didn't use the CPU for much anyway.)
Now, given that the SuperFX's lifetime was short and its capabilities were likely never fully explored/exploited in that lifetime; and given that the SNES's on-cart coprocessors could completely override the console processor and just bang bits onto the video-output lines themselves (like the Super Gameboy does!); and given that the only thing stopping devs from sticking even more powerful chips into carts was cost (and even then, some producers just didn't care, and stuck ridiculous ARM7 cores into games like Megaman X3 for no useful reason at all...), I really do believe you would have seen something very much like Mario 64 for the SNES if it had lived just one more year.
(Heck, I bet that we know enough about the hardware today that someone from the demoscene could pull off a Mario-64-alike on a cycle-accurate SNES (with SuperFX) emulator. That'd be a fun competition.)
Now, given that the SuperFX's lifetime was short and its capabilities were likely never fully explored/exploited in that lifetime; and given that the SNES's on-cart coprocessors could completely override the console processor and just bang bits onto the video-output lines themselves (like the Super Gameboy does!); and given that the only thing stopping devs from sticking even more powerful chips into carts was cost (and even then, some producers just didn't care, and stuck ridiculous ARM7 cores into games like Megaman X3 for no useful reason at all...), I really do believe you would have seen something very much like Mario 64 for the SNES if it had lived just one more year.
(Heck, I bet that we know enough about the hardware today that someone from the demoscene could pull off a Mario-64-alike on a cycle-accurate SNES (with SuperFX) emulator. That'd be a fun competition.)
>" The SuperFX GSU-1 clocked at 21MHz; the N64's RCP is 62.5MHz."
You can't compare clock speeds in that way and get an accurate picture on performance. If you could, then a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster than a 2.8 GHz Kaby Lake Core i7.
To give a better (but still not completely accurate) idea of how far apart the SNES and N64 were in power, look at the difference in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) in just their CPUs:
SNES CPU (Ricoh 5A22): 1.5 MIPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricoh_5A22
N64 CPU (NEC VR4300): 125 MIPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_technical_specific...
You can't compare clock speeds in that way and get an accurate picture on performance. If you could, then a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 would be faster than a 2.8 GHz Kaby Lake Core i7.
To give a better (but still not completely accurate) idea of how far apart the SNES and N64 were in power, look at the difference in MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second) in just their CPUs:
SNES CPU (Ricoh 5A22): 1.5 MIPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricoh_5A22
N64 CPU (NEC VR4300): 125 MIPS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_technical_specific...
Exactly. OP's misinformation is making my head hurt. If you were alive at the time instead of playing emulators on your PC now, you'd have no doubt the N64 was a huge leap.
And how could it not be? The two systems were released 6 years apart (if you count SNES in Japan 1990), back when Moore's law was in full effect.
And how could it not be? The two systems were released 6 years apart (if you count SNES in Japan 1990), back when Moore's law was in full effect.
Right, you added a bunch of interesting details (thanks!) to your post after I glibly replied but I'm still not entirely convinced the SuperFX carts really count. It's a bit like saying your Apple ][ was just like a Mac because you could shove a 68020 card into it.
The SNES was a 3.5 MHz 16 bitter. The n64 was a 3d-capable machine with a 100ish MHz R4k, the RCP, an analog controller, etc, in the box. The advance just seems enormous (matching similar advances in personal computers in the same timeframe). If I'm understanding you right, you're making a case the advance was maybe not as discontinuous. But the scale of it still seems qualitatively greater than any of the subsequent ones, to me.
The SNES was a 3.5 MHz 16 bitter. The n64 was a 3d-capable machine with a 100ish MHz R4k, the RCP, an analog controller, etc, in the box. The advance just seems enormous (matching similar advances in personal computers in the same timeframe). If I'm understanding you right, you're making a case the advance was maybe not as discontinuous. But the scale of it still seems qualitatively greater than any of the subsequent ones, to me.
[deleted]
Some of the later SNES games were even rumored to be N64 ones for a while, like Killer Instinct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Instinct
I would say it was the original Famicom or NES, which came hot on the heels of Nintendo's first hit electronic games, Game & Watch: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_%26_Watch
The NES was a phenomenal breakthrough, a paradigm shift.
Which is not to discredit Game & Watch, which brought Nintendo forward from an era of making playing cards. I had several clones as a kid.
The NES was a phenomenal breakthrough, a paradigm shift.
Which is not to discredit Game & Watch, which brought Nintendo forward from an era of making playing cards. I had several clones as a kid.
Well, yeah but that's handheld vs console, etc. Then we'd get into even sillier comparisons of nintendo card games vs mechanical games vs electronic games. In the console space, SNES->N64 seems like the bigger jump qualitative jump to me. You can do 3d, vs you can't.
Gamecube was all about the controller. Besides the PS4 controller, the Gamecube is still the most comfortable controller ever. Buttons all felt great as well.
I kind of prefer the Steam Controller honestly. After getting used to it even the DS4 feels akward.
For any kind of pointing/aiming/selection task, the SC is hands down the best I've seen (arguably even more comfortable than mouse/kb for some things).
Where it fails in comparison to other controllers is button-feel, IMO. The shoulder buttons for example, compared to those on the DS4, feel very clicky/hollow (actually I think this is true of everything other than the face buttons) and can be distractingly loud. The DS4 buttons manage to feel soft/gentle while still being precise (and quiet).
My uses tend to be almost entirely centered around pointing/aiming, so I absolutely love the SC and use it heavily, but I'm really looking forward to a second revision.
Where it fails in comparison to other controllers is button-feel, IMO. The shoulder buttons for example, compared to those on the DS4, feel very clicky/hollow (actually I think this is true of everything other than the face buttons) and can be distractingly loud. The DS4 buttons manage to feel soft/gentle while still being precise (and quiet).
My uses tend to be almost entirely centered around pointing/aiming, so I absolutely love the SC and use it heavily, but I'm really looking forward to a second revision.
Maybe I'd get used to it, but based on only a half-dozen hours or so, the "D-Pad" on it is possibly the worst directional input I've ever used, and the analog stick sticks out too far. The controller body is great, and everything else is fine, but directional inputs are probably the most important feature.
For the gamecube I'd say the controller, plus some unique sound features (a dynamic midi thing). This is still my favorite controller, each button was easy to hit from the home position and no one (looking at you konami) reversed the confirm/cancel button standards.
Haven't watched the presentation yet, but I believe the GCN might have been the first console to come standard with "analog" shoulder buttons (dutifully demonstrated by its use in Mario Sunshine to control the spraying power of the backpack).
EDIT: Oh also, the Wavebird controller was the first wireless first-party controller.
EDIT: Oh also, the Wavebird controller was the first wireless first-party controller.
The PS2 beat the GCN to market by a year and had not only analogue shoulder buttons, but analogue face buttons too. Even the d-pad was analogue -- everything except Start/Select/L3/R3. It wasn't very widely used, and causes some problems in porting games that relied on analogue face buttons (like Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3).
Sega Dreamcast had analog triggers and came before gamecube.
The Saturn 3D pad also had analog triggers. Not sure if anything actually used then though.
[deleted]
> "analog" shoulder buttons
I think they also introduced the "click" if you pushed all the way down. Such a satisfying, IBM Model M-esque feeling.
I think they also introduced the "click" if you pushed all the way down. Such a satisfying, IBM Model M-esque feeling.
[deleted]
They were only cherry-picking specific innovations that influenced the design of the Switch.
The GameCube was the first device to use a second-screen experience, with the GBA Link! (yeah, yeah)
The Dreamcast had second screen gaming and that was released three years before the GameCube. There may well have been other devices doing it before then as well. But Nintendo weren't the first.
The Dreamcast was so very far ahead of its time. I have not seen a console as innovative since, both hardware and software wise.
And here we are, in a console wasteland far in the future. The Switch is the only home system I am mildly excited about. For innovative games, I will stick with PC.
BTW, Sony actually had their own clone of the VMU dubbed the "Pocketstation" that they were planning, but ultimately scrapped the peripheral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PocketStation
And here we are, in a console wasteland far in the future. The Switch is the only home system I am mildly excited about. For innovative games, I will stick with PC.
BTW, Sony actually had their own clone of the VMU dubbed the "Pocketstation" that they were planning, but ultimately scrapped the peripheral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PocketStation
You mean the little LCD in the controller?
Yeah, in the memory card more precisely, not so pretty, but the idea was there.
Yes, I had those little bricks as well. They were quirky but cool.
At least until the battery (surprisingly quickly) ran out and caused the thing to BEEEEEEEEP every time you turned the system on.
Why did you bring that up? I had already blocked that memory... D:
Playstation 1 had the PocketStation. This predated the Gamecube by 2 years, but the Dreamcast beat it by two months.
> They're the only company who puts so much effort into maximizing their software with the uniqueness of their hardware.
You can hardly say that for the WiiU...
You can hardly say that for the WiiU...
The different game modes introduced through the hardware, namely the gamepad, seem quite revolutionary to me. Who else has been doing that (other than Nintendo with DS to some extent)?
Kudos to Nintendo for supporting Vulkan and OpenGL. Nitendo do a lot of wrong stuff in regards to how they handle fan made games for instance, but adopting open, cross platform graphics APIs while their major rivals are stuck in the backwards thinking lock-in mentality, is a good decision.
All due to Nvidia's influence. Hopefully this will make the hardware more compelling to 3rd party studios.
I work at a major games publisher and literally all we care about is DirectX for PC/X1 ports, and the weird graphics library we use for PS4. I don't know of any game released by us in last 10 years which even had an OpenGL backend. From what I gathered from our graphics devs, their reaction to vulkan was "meh, it's nice but we already have PC covered with DirectX which we have to write for X1 anyway, and it's not like PS4 is going to support it, so what's the point?"
That's a pretty bad reaction, and also highlights the absence of good cross platform development in your studio, because of lack of common tools. You should release your games for Linux for a change.
But this also highlights, that pragmatic value of cross platform tools is apparent when they are really cross platform. I.e. the wider is their availability, the higher is their value. OpenGL didn't quite reach that, because of opposition from lock-in minded companies. So this is a welcome change in Nintendo's approach, because it advances Vulkan as a cross platform API.
But this also highlights, that pragmatic value of cross platform tools is apparent when they are really cross platform. I.e. the wider is their availability, the higher is their value. OpenGL didn't quite reach that, because of opposition from lock-in minded companies. So this is a welcome change in Nintendo's approach, because it advances Vulkan as a cross platform API.
Yes, I also think Nvidia played a key role in it. They saved time on reinventing the wheel with their Tegra chip and used existing Vulkan driver for it. At the same time, why can't AMD do the same with others? They should convince Sony to use Vulkan in the new PS#.
Do they really have to? The console APIs on both PS3 and PS4 (and Xbox 360 / Xbox One) were very similar to Vulcan already.
It doesn't make it any easier. They (AMD) need to do double work (implementing another driver). And someone has to pay for it. It's an expense and time wasting which can be avoided if they'd have used Vulkan.
I'm skeptical that AMD would implement the API and driver for a console. That's sounds like platform work, and I think that would make it the console manufacturer's job. AMD might say "here's the chip's specs and we support API X and Y for it", and if Sony or MS don't like it, they can change it themselves.
> I'm skeptical that AMD would implement the API and driver for a console. That's sounds like platform work, and I think that would make it the console manufacturer's job.
AMD make GPUs for both Xbox and PlayStation. It's very probable, that they are writing drivers for them, as well as supporting APIs implementatinos. They follow requirements from Sony and MS naturally, but they do the heavy lifting.
And if you are right, and someone like AMD don't do anything besides providing the documentation, Nintendo are actually being smart there. Instead of wasting time and money on reinventing the wheel, they use existing high quality driver and API implementation from Nvidia. It's a win win for everyone.
AMD make GPUs for both Xbox and PlayStation. It's very probable, that they are writing drivers for them, as well as supporting APIs implementatinos. They follow requirements from Sony and MS naturally, but they do the heavy lifting.
And if you are right, and someone like AMD don't do anything besides providing the documentation, Nintendo are actually being smart there. Instead of wasting time and money on reinventing the wheel, they use existing high quality driver and API implementation from Nvidia. It's a win win for everyone.
In line at the NYC store. I'm #2. There are a few people hanging out looking into store which is holding an event with a bunch of kids. Fewer people overall than I expected but there are 9 hours to go.
I'm confused, what's happening in 9 (or 8, now) hours? I haven't watched the entire video yet but the release date isn't until March 3, yes?
People will be able to try out the console at the NY Nintendo Store at 9:30AM ET: http://www.nintendo.com/switch/nintendo-treehouse/
[deleted]
In line for the preorder would be my guess
Is the guy first in line wearing a powerglove?
Triforce? Of Street Fighter and Marvel fame?
http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/world-record-holder-...
http://kotaku.com/5955557/hurricane-sandy-forces-triforce-jo...
http://nintendoenthusiast.com/interview/world-record-holder-...
http://kotaku.com/5955557/hurricane-sandy-forces-triforce-jo...
I remember that guy - met him 10 years ago while playing Versus mode in Tetris Attack at a convention. We both sent each other so much garbage blocks that we froze the game and he took some pictures & video talking about the feat since it is apparently pretty rare.
That guy is hardcore good at games all around.
That guy is hardcore good at games all around.
Exactly. I've watched him on stream be first in nintendo store for multiple releases :)
How early did you get in line?
I'm hoping someone can chime in to this, but putting the American market aside, is it just me or is this extremely marketable to the Asian market? Most of my Asian or Asian American friends exclusively play games on their phones. They play a wide selection of MMORPG to RTS games on their phones daily. Asians value games that are more repetitive (like EXP farming or turn based games, such as FF) and have great character development. I expect they will be receptive to a hybrid portable gaming system (not sure what to call this). [1]
Secondly, I'm surprised with how many people here find that the Nintendo Switch overpriced. We're all comparing the pricing to consoles that are sold at a loss (such as the PS4, they're essentially subsidized by the gaming industry). I bought a 3DS at about $200. For $100 more you get a tablet and console in one. I'm willing to bet like the 3DS, you'll be able to use this as a ad-hoc tablet for browsing the web as well and use it to play movies. I would jump on this if I had more time to game.
[1] Completely based on my opinion and might be subjected to cognitive bias and dissonance
Secondly, I'm surprised with how many people here find that the Nintendo Switch overpriced. We're all comparing the pricing to consoles that are sold at a loss (such as the PS4, they're essentially subsidized by the gaming industry). I bought a 3DS at about $200. For $100 more you get a tablet and console in one. I'm willing to bet like the 3DS, you'll be able to use this as a ad-hoc tablet for browsing the web as well and use it to play movies. I would jump on this if I had more time to game.
[1] Completely based on my opinion and might be subjected to cognitive bias and dissonance
> I would jump on this if I had more time to game.
I'm getting it as I hope having a portable console will give me more time to game. It'll fit in my suitcase and plug into nearly all hotel TVs. That is pretty awesome.
I'm getting it as I hope having a portable console will give me more time to game. It'll fit in my suitcase and plug into nearly all hotel TVs. That is pretty awesome.
Agreed! Especially if it can play movies. I hope they make some sort portable display dongle.
I'm going to guess they expect their handheld to last longer than 2.5 hours like a phone though.
But are there phones out there that are capable of playing graphics intensive games on normal-high brightness with sound and everything for longer than three hours? I don't play many games on my phone but when I used Pokemon GO, my battery was drained from about a hour of continuous playing.I remember reading online that an iPhone can't even playing clash of clans continuously more than three hours. Clash of Clans doesn't even seem like a graphic intensive game.
I haven't worked in game console hacking since the Wii days, but I'm getting a Switch day one to do just that. I can't wait to be able to use this as a hackable game tablet and be able to throw it on the dock to play emulated games on the TV.
I really haven't seen anything like this before. I'm super excited to break it.
Edit: For those interested in working on this or following along, I created a Discord server for collaboration. Invite link: https://discord.gg/hSMpnuG
I really haven't seen anything like this before. I'm super excited to break it.
Edit: For those interested in working on this or following along, I created a Discord server for collaboration. Invite link: https://discord.gg/hSMpnuG
I'm excited about this too, esoecially after the recent boom in /r/3dshacks and /r/vitahacks
Hopefully it won't take long for a jailbreak to emerge.
Hopefully it won't take long for a jailbreak to emerge.
Why not just do that with the Wii U then ?
How come Nintendo keeps having to completely reinvent itself every couple of years? They go from being on the verge of bankruptcy to a hit then back again. It seems like one tiny misstep and they're done. Microsoft is still spending accrued value from the 90's after tons of mistakes, why doesn't Nintendo have an easier life?
Nintendo's never been on the verge of bankruptcy. That's a ridiculous myth that's always tossed around by news sites to get more clicks. Nintendo is a surprisingly tiny company with billions in cash in the bank.
As others have mentioned, they don't have backup cash cows like the other conglomerates so their short-term profits do vary wildly depending on the success of each platform, but the premise of one generation being a matter of life or death is a false.
As others have mentioned, they don't have backup cash cows like the other conglomerates so their short-term profits do vary wildly depending on the success of each platform, but the premise of one generation being a matter of life or death is a false.
> Nintendo is a surprisingly tiny company with billions in cash in the bank.
I never realised this, so I went and checked. Nintendo has (per wikipedia) only 5k employees, compared to MS and SONY which both have more than 100k (across all divisions clearly).
I never realised this, so I went and checked. Nintendo has (per wikipedia) only 5k employees, compared to MS and SONY which both have more than 100k (across all divisions clearly).
They've never been close to bankruptcy, but at times it's only been because of the gameboy/DS line.
"If it wasn't for the popular things they sell, they'd be out of business!"
The giant pile of savings probably helps more than the DS. http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/
Microsoft has Office/Windows/Windows Server as a dependable money making, which leaves billions in capital ready for spending outragous amounts of money on pushing into new markets, like Windows Phone and Xbox. The first gen never actually made a profit.
Nintendo doesn't have that. They live and die by their console.
Nintendo doesn't have that. They live and die by their console.
At the same time I feel like they could sell their brand more often. They could have 5 smartphone games by now at least. Heck, they could do crazy things like branding an iPhone with Apple or an android manufacturer or you name it. They could make a mario cloud where you get to play VC in a browser. I feel like they're missing out on a ton of money. Sure all of those things would take capital, but they've got the IP people want to buy.
They've historically been very averse to putting their IP on other platforms, and for a very good reason. Nintendo makes their money selling consoles, the games they develop are just ways to drive console sales. If they made their games for other platforms, that would cannibalize their console sales.
This is why Nintendo's recent forays into iOS gaming are done by producing brand new unique games designed very differently from their console games. For example, Super Mario Run, that's not a game you'd find on a console because its design is tailored to the smartphone and the ways people use their smartphones. I hope they keep doing stuff like this, but don't ever expect them to release one of their console games on another platform.
This is why Nintendo's recent forays into iOS gaming are done by producing brand new unique games designed very differently from their console games. For example, Super Mario Run, that's not a game you'd find on a console because its design is tailored to the smartphone and the ways people use their smartphones. I hope they keep doing stuff like this, but don't ever expect them to release one of their console games on another platform.
That's a really good point. Maybe their core market is too narrow for even multiple hardware products.
It's kind of hilarious to juxtapose your comment with the other one that says Nintendo only ever repeats themselves.
Well obviously Sony and Microsoft have other resource streams so they can weather any storm.
And for both companies gaming is important but so is providing media and services into the living room. Nintendo seriously has missed the opportunity every generation to expand beyond gaming and so they are more susceptible to the strength of the games themselves.
And for both companies gaming is important but so is providing media and services into the living room. Nintendo seriously has missed the opportunity every generation to expand beyond gaming and so they are more susceptible to the strength of the games themselves.
I think that's because they make hardware. Apple would also die soon if they stopped putting new hardware out. Since Moore's law is screeching to a halt now, hardware companies might catch a break (or get into real trouble) soon.
Wow, I wonder where all this skepticism and negativity come from.
The Nintendo Switch has me so excited, I can't wait for the launch day!
Finally, I'll be able to have one piece of hardware for playing at home and on the go. If you don't see the awesomeness of playing Skyrim on your commute then probably are not in the right target group.
I like the Switch because it looks so versatile. You can play at home, on the go, alone, with friends, sitting down, standing up... There is going to be so many new experiences once the console is out.
The Nintendo Switch has me so excited, I can't wait for the launch day!
Finally, I'll be able to have one piece of hardware for playing at home and on the go. If you don't see the awesomeness of playing Skyrim on your commute then probably are not in the right target group.
I like the Switch because it looks so versatile. You can play at home, on the go, alone, with friends, sitting down, standing up... There is going to be so many new experiences once the console is out.
I agree with you. I haven't been this excited about a console since the N64, just knocking the 360 into third place for me. I haven't been excited about game consoles in a long long time. Why buy a console when you get a better experience on a PC and basically the same games? Nintendo is the only one making something worth buying, along with amazing IP that they keep fresh. This will be the first time I've owned a console since the original 360.
> Finally, I'll be able to have one piece of hardware for playing at home and on the go.
Until you're done playing both games, and then what ?
Until you're done playing both games, and then what ?
If it is like the Wii U older titles will also work. Games like splatoon, mario u (we love playing this as a family)and all older titles (via emulation) should be available.
Why would you assume that wii u titles would work? The switch only takes cartridges, virtual console titles are already tied to the console and don't even carry between wiiu systems, and the switch uses an nvidia tegra (arm) architecture where as the wiiu uses powerpc and an AMD graphics chip.
Not even the wiiu controllers will work with the switch.
Not even the wiiu controllers will work with the switch.
The Wii U is a faster Wii (from a hardware point of view), basically same CPU architecture, just more cores and higher clock speed.
The Switch runs on an ARM CPU. I doubt it will be compatible in any way.
The Switch runs on an ARM CPU. I doubt it will be compatible in any way.
Only if they are available digitally (no DVD slot for Wii U discs) and only if Nintendo offers some digital game transfer program like they did between the Wii and the Wii U (digital games are tied to your console, not an account)
Older titles via emulation maybe, but it has no backwards compatibility with DS games nor Wii/WiiU games.
Switch takes new cartridges.
Switch takes new cartridges.
Which both games? There will be plenty of games coming out. And if not, Skyrim is pretty much a game you can play forever (and people, including me, still do).
Zelda and "1 2 Switch" are the only real launch titles, there's some filler crap to be sure but no one cares.
Skyrim is not a launch title.
Skyrim is not a launch title.
Well, in April Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is coming out. Enough to keep me busy for months.
You just can't make some people happy, they seem to be in an ever-negative spiral...
You just can't make some people happy, they seem to be in an ever-negative spiral...
You wait for other games to come out, like any other console?
As pointed out by many gamers on Twitter: Switch officially ends the era of consoles with free online services[1].
[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14261018/nintendo-switch-p...
[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14261018/nintendo-switch-p...
Define "online services". Xbox Live still lets you do quite a few things for free. (Although I gladly admit the free capabilities suck compared to the Gold capabilities.)
The page loads these two images:
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/exper...
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/exper...
and these two:
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/prese...
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/prese...
Any idea why?
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/exper...
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/exper...
and these two:
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/prese...
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/assets/img/event/top/prese...
Any idea why?
The one question that still hasn't been answered is will purchased eShop titles from the Wii U carry over to the Switch?
Wii purchased titles could be transferred and played on the Wii U, but the Wii U had the "Wii Mode" to handle that and Wii disks.
Right now it seems, sadly, backward compatibility is something that is dying off with this generation.
Wii purchased titles could be transferred and played on the Wii U, but the Wii U had the "Wii Mode" to handle that and Wii disks.
Right now it seems, sadly, backward compatibility is something that is dying off with this generation.
Wii U eShop titles are linked to the console, not to the user's account. Ignoring the fact that the Switch runs on completely different hardware, you can't even transfer your purchases games to a new console if yours breaks. Your only option is to ask Nintendo nicely to link them to your new console and hope they will.
Looks incredibly interesting. If Nintendo opens this platform to indie developers it could become hugely successful
According to their twitter feed[1], Nicalis is at least publishing two titles for the Switch, including the Binding of Isaac (they did release a previous version on the 3DS though).
Yacht Club Games [2] is also porting their retro-platformer Shovel Knight along with all its extension to the Switch. They also have a previous experience with Nintendo with a release of their game on 3DS and Wii U.
So at least 2 indie developpers I like are working on the Switch.
[1]: https://twitter.com/nicalis [2]: http://yachtclubgames.com/2017/01/switch-up/
Yacht Club Games [2] is also porting their retro-platformer Shovel Knight along with all its extension to the Switch. They also have a previous experience with Nintendo with a release of their game on 3DS and Wii U.
So at least 2 indie developpers I like are working on the Switch.
[1]: https://twitter.com/nicalis [2]: http://yachtclubgames.com/2017/01/switch-up/
Wouldn't be surprised if they did--they already use Unity as the default SDK for WiiU and the 3DS, so they're pretty keyed into that indie dev world now it seems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(game_engine)
And if their security is as shitty as the 3DS, then they won't have a choice in the matter.
The Binding of Isaac: Afterbirth is confirmed as a launch title.
Apparently they are. I can't find the source anymore but I read it was going to be open for everyone. Dev kit is supposed to be $3k.
A good plot twist:
Nintendo just sells these left & right Switch controllers you stick to the Switch screen BUT tries to get other smartphone manufacturers to integrate connectors to the left & right Switch controllers PLUS builds there own mobile phones. This is still the biggest bummer when playing games on phones—no physical buttons.
At the end of the day, Nintendo must get into the smartphone market and if it's just as a modded Android distribution or heck, just a pure Android with their own game app store (like Steam). They would have the killer properties to gain significant traction and enough users who would install a new app store just to play Mario (but they gave this opportunity away to Apple...).
Nintendo just sells these left & right Switch controllers you stick to the Switch screen BUT tries to get other smartphone manufacturers to integrate connectors to the left & right Switch controllers PLUS builds there own mobile phones. This is still the biggest bummer when playing games on phones—no physical buttons.
At the end of the day, Nintendo must get into the smartphone market and if it's just as a modded Android distribution or heck, just a pure Android with their own game app store (like Steam). They would have the killer properties to gain significant traction and enough users who would install a new app store just to play Mario (but they gave this opportunity away to Apple...).
And then being Android everyone would just steal their games since they would be available on Pirate Bay and startups everywhere would be trying to "disrupt" the games industry by making Nintendo JoyCon knockoffs. At which point Chinese manufacturers would be selling them on Alibaba for $2 each.
Somehow I don't think this would be good for Nintendo.
Somehow I don't think this would be good for Nintendo.
Current concern on the gaming forums is the lack of high-profile launch games, with Splatoon 2 and Mario not being present at that time. Can Zelda alone sell systems? (probably yes)
They don't call them Zelda Boxes for nothing. I'll admit I'm biased, but I see nearly every Zelda game as easily in the top 3, if not the killer app of each Nintendo system.
Legend of Zelda - NES
Link to the Past - SNES
Links Awakening - Gameboy
Ocarina of Time - N64
Wind Waker - Gamecube
Twilight Princess - Wii
Skyward Sword - Wii
Heck, even the promise of how perfectly the WiiU's controller could have been for a Zelda game, was enough for me to buy the system.
I guess that makes me a fanboy. As long as Nintendo keeps making Zelda games, I'll keep buying the necessary hardware.
Legend of Zelda - NES
Link to the Past - SNES
Links Awakening - Gameboy
Ocarina of Time - N64
Wind Waker - Gamecube
Twilight Princess - Wii
Skyward Sword - Wii
Heck, even the promise of how perfectly the WiiU's controller could have been for a Zelda game, was enough for me to buy the system.
I guess that makes me a fanboy. As long as Nintendo keeps making Zelda games, I'll keep buying the necessary hardware.
They don't call them Zelda Boxes for nothing. I'll admit I'm biased, but I see nearly every Zelda game as easily in the top 3, if not the killer app of each Nintendo system.
Maybe so, but there's no way[1] I would by a console just because I want to play a single game. It takes at least half a dozen exclusives that interest me (announced, they don't all have to be released yet) for me to consider buying another console.
[1] Not actually true: I'm considering buying a PS3 so that I can play Demon Souls. But a second hand PS3 is very cheap, so its not really the same thing IMHO.
Maybe so, but there's no way[1] I would by a console just because I want to play a single game. It takes at least half a dozen exclusives that interest me (announced, they don't all have to be released yet) for me to consider buying another console.
[1] Not actually true: I'm considering buying a PS3 so that I can play Demon Souls. But a second hand PS3 is very cheap, so its not really the same thing IMHO.
Monster Hunter has become a console seller for me after playing it for the first time on the Wii, so it looks like I'll be getting a Switch too.
(Cost of the console / number of hours played on Monster Hunter alone) always justifies it.
(Cost of the console / number of hours played on Monster Hunter alone) always justifies it.
I guess I look at it differently: Zelda games are so intriguing and enveloping for me, particularly the puzzle solving and tool usage, that the franchise stands alone, above any other, full stop. Outside of Zelda, I'm not a very big gamer, and the games I do play are ones that appear to have Zelda-like qualities.
You forgot the best Zelda game of all - Majora's Mask - N64.
You misspelled Ocarina of Time ;) It's on my list.
That game made me want to pull my hair out - the time limitations made it stressful, and I eventually just gave up.
While stressful, the time limitation wasn't exactly demanding. The song of half-time was available fairly early on. Two hours was plenty of time to do just about anything in the game.
I also own a CDI for those horrible jump and run Zelda games...yeah, yeah I know :D
How many games can you play at once?
How many consoles can Nintendo make per day?
Not having both Zelda and Mario at launch is probably good for reducing demand a bit to help them keep up, because it's nice to sell out but not by too much.
Mario Kart's turning up a month later. Splatoon is coming during the year some time (can't remember if they said when).
And saving Super Mario Odyssey for next holiday season is clear marketing savvy. They get the Nintendo hardcore now, a nice flow during the year as the library strengthens, and then a big boom of Mario people for that bizarrely crucial holiday season.
And staggering out games with online multiplayer makes sense if this new service they're offering needs to have a bit of shakedown time.
How many consoles can Nintendo make per day?
Not having both Zelda and Mario at launch is probably good for reducing demand a bit to help them keep up, because it's nice to sell out but not by too much.
Mario Kart's turning up a month later. Splatoon is coming during the year some time (can't remember if they said when).
And saving Super Mario Odyssey for next holiday season is clear marketing savvy. They get the Nintendo hardcore now, a nice flow during the year as the library strengthens, and then a big boom of Mario people for that bizarrely crucial holiday season.
And staggering out games with online multiplayer makes sense if this new service they're offering needs to have a bit of shakedown time.
> How many games can you play at once?
If there are 100 games released for a console, how many of those games would appeal to you ? 10? 20?
How long do you play a game for before you've finished it. And then what ?
One game every few months isn't enough. So they release Splatoon in a few months, I'm not interested in that so from my point of view there isn't anything to play that month.
If there are 100 games released for a console, how many of those games would appeal to you ? 10? 20?
How long do you play a game for before you've finished it. And then what ?
One game every few months isn't enough. So they release Splatoon in a few months, I'm not interested in that so from my point of view there isn't anything to play that month.
You're making some big claims about the cleverness of this marketing strategy. But I'm going to disagree that "reducing demand" and "staggering releases" are the way to release a video game console. I see no advantage to doing so.
After watching the presentation of Zelda, I would say yes.
The only other system to come with zelda at launch was the Wii, so I'd say yes, even though there were other factors involved.
Personally, I was waiting for zelda before picking up a wiiU, it's the first nintendo machine I haven't owned since the NES (which I was too young for).
Personally, I was waiting for zelda before picking up a wiiU, it's the first nintendo machine I haven't owned since the NES (which I was too young for).
Good point. What do you think is forcing them to release the system before most games are ready? I know Wii U hasn't been a great success, but would holding off the Switch for another six months have been so dire?
they shut down Wii U production a couple months back. I imagine this is slightly forced by stockholders to prove that Ninty is trying "something".
They shut it down? I thought I remember reading something about Nintendo saying that the Switch wasn't meant to replace the Wii U or the 3DS. I took that to mean that it would run in parallel.
The Wii U didn't sell a lot.
The 3DS did sell a lot.
The Wii U has a higher price than the 3DS, and that is revenue Nintendo needs.
So how to create something as successful as the 3DS, with but as valuable as the Wii U... this seems to be their answer.
Then, "software sells hardware" is Nintendo's motto. They do not license their intellectual property, all games are exclusively released on Nintendo consoles.
Now, it has always been challenging for game studios other than Nintendo to profit a lot by releasing on a Nintendo system. Mostly because specs are always lower than the current generation of competitor consoles.
The Wii U has a higher price than the 3DS, and that is revenue Nintendo needs.
So how to create something as successful as the 3DS, with but as valuable as the Wii U... this seems to be their answer.
Then, "software sells hardware" is Nintendo's motto. They do not license their intellectual property, all games are exclusively released on Nintendo consoles.
Now, it has always been challenging for game studios other than Nintendo to profit a lot by releasing on a Nintendo system. Mostly because specs are always lower than the current generation of competitor consoles.
I already paid for the game and now I have to pay again for multiplayer, when the prior two generations were pretty much free MP (when it even worked, that is.)
Why, Nintendo?
Why, Nintendo?
Because maybe this time it'll let them do a proper online infrastructure? These things aren't free, something Microsoft put in up front from the start and theirs is now ridiculously solid.
Nintendo are apparently working with DeNA on this (as well as on the smartphone games) so hopefully it'll be worth the money.
Nintendo are apparently working with DeNA on this (as well as on the smartphone games) so hopefully it'll be worth the money.
Well, seems like they are following the industry in this. You need Xbox Live Gold to play multiplayer on Xbox.
Same with Playstation multiplayer as of this gen (PS4).
The obvious answer would be that multiplayer servers cost money to run.
The obvious answer would be that multiplayer servers cost money to run.
A more obvious answer would be "Bring back the ability to host our own servers in-game, the hardware is obviously powerful enough."
First off, I'm super excited by this. However, is it just me or is it a little disturbing to see Mario and his crew greatly out of proportion with the other "humans" in the world of Mario Odyssey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ti9rFafwTw&t=65m49s)?
The two elder people at the end that play with Mario are about the same proportion as Mario. So what do you mean?
But for a second you see that the New York level is really just a few city blocks. And all the skyscrappers are just a background skybox. So the city level is Mario level kind of small, not a complete city like in Lego City Undercover.
Overall the new Super Mario finally returns to the Mario 64 and Galaxy kind of real 3D gameplay. I personally did't like the isometric 2.5D style simplified 3DS and WiiU Mario World games.
But for a second you see that the New York level is really just a few city blocks. And all the skyscrappers are just a background skybox. So the city level is Mario level kind of small, not a complete city like in Lego City Undercover.
Overall the new Super Mario finally returns to the Mario 64 and Galaxy kind of real 3D gameplay. I personally did't like the isometric 2.5D style simplified 3DS and WiiU Mario World games.
There are a few scenes throughout the trailer. In this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ti9rFafwTw&t=67m14s, notice how the people around Mario are proportioned like the ones in this world, while Mario, himself, likes like a, ahem... cartoon character.
Did you play Mario 3D World on Wii U? That wasn't simplified isometric 2.5D!
The camera is fixed in an isometric view, sometimes called 2.5D, it's more targeted to causual people. The older Mario 64 had a third person perspective, the camera follows the character. It allows a lot more immersion and more complex level design.
I work in games and I am still not sure I understand the difference. I found the camera in 3D World to be a bit more free than in Mario 64 (if I am recalling the camera rotation limitations correctly).
[deleted]
I found the whole "Mario in the real world" disturbing overall. A bit nightmarish.
Then definitely do not watch the 1993 Hollywood Super Mario Bros. movie, which is Mario in the real world complimented with really weird and distributing makeup/prosthetics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtMZKYnLg5c
It reminded me of Super Mario Sunshine, which is not a good thing.
I couldn't get Mario Is Missing! out of my head.
The Nintendo Wii was innovative and fun .. even the Wii U was a bit innovative and fun (ever play Mario Chase with friends .. worth buying Wii U for). Though... Switch does anyone see anything innovative besides a GameCube like system that is also portable?
The Wii U gets deserved flak for its paucity of titles, but there were some unbelievable gems sprinkled in there. The Nintendo Land pack-in game is an utter blast as a party game. And Mario Maker is probably the first "players build the levels" game whose interface doesn't feel arcane and esoteric, it really is a triumph of friendly UX.
Aaah yes. Nintendo Land is the ultimate party game. As far as my Nintendo Wii U purchase goes, I think all the hours of fun me and my friends had with Nintendo Land was worth the asking price alone. Then of course Mario Kart and Super Smash added some extra competitive and skill based fun for when we tired of Nintendo Land. And for some co-operative fun we had a blast with Rayman Legend, perhaps the best Rayman game to date!
I really have no regrets from buying the Wii U. It was such a good couch console!
I really have no regrets from buying the Wii U. It was such a good couch console!
Portable is huge. Those controllers are amazing. Portable motion-control party-games that don't need the screen? That sounds amazing for parties and icebreakers.
Wow! I believe Nintendo can make this a great experience for mobile gaming. It looks so good. I really like how you can engage your friends to play together.
I wonder what their plans for the 3DS will be given how the Switch is also portable.
As the dimensions of Switch is only a bit larger than the New 3DS XL, the XL is their best selling model and 3DS is already 6 years old and too slow even for direct Wii game ports without downscaling the textures, though it's still selling well - so the 3DS production will probably end in 2017/18.
I think there is a place for a $ 100 system for quite some time. So either Nintendo has a cheap successor for the 2/3DS, or they are going to sell them for quite a while at somewhat reduced prices. For casual gaming, the power is more than ample, and they can be made more sturdy and compact than the switch.
So they are pretty much becoming a one console company. This is a huge gamble given how successful the portables have been.
I think something had to change eventually. When the 3DS was announced, iPads weren't on the market (so tablets were still a very niche thing) and smartphones were still quite new. In the 7 years since, they've become omnipresent, and it didn't take long for them to become massively more powerful and capable than the 3DS while also being much more portable. I think Nintendo were justifiably worried that if they stayed on their current path, the next handheld wouldn't survive 7 years, just being utterly demolished by phones and tablets. At the same time, the Wii U was a relative failure, and it looked unlikely that they'd ever recapture the audience that made the Wii a phenomenon -- for related reasons, the Wii was an affordable novelty smash with people who weren't big game fans, and that market has all their needs satisfied by their phones and tablets now. So it makes total sense for them to fuse the handheld and console worlds together and focus all their efforts on one platform.
To my disappointment, personally. I wish it were a home console rather than a handheld for reasons that are entirely based on my own needs and tastes (I'll never take it outside so it adds cost for no benefit, the need for portability means games can never really make great use of the motion controls, a lot of multiplayer seems based on the joycons which look absurdly small for adult man hands).
To my disappointment, personally. I wish it were a home console rather than a handheld for reasons that are entirely based on my own needs and tastes (I'll never take it outside so it adds cost for no benefit, the need for portability means games can never really make great use of the motion controls, a lot of multiplayer seems based on the joycons which look absurdly small for adult man hands).
Nintendo Switch Product Pages:
JP: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/presentation.html
USA: http://www.nintendo.com/switch/
Each of these pages has videos from the presentation.
JP: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/switch/presentation.html
USA: http://www.nintendo.com/switch/
Each of these pages has videos from the presentation.
I've pre ordered it, but £280 is quite a large pill to swallow, especially when the US is getting it for $300.
Not sure if that's inflation or brexit or what, but damn.
Will see what happens in the next few weeks before deciding whether to cancel or not.
Not sure if that's inflation or brexit or what, but damn.
Will see what happens in the next few weeks before deciding whether to cancel or not.
If £280 is the retail price then it's £233 before VAT (20%) is added. At the current exchange rate that's $283 (US).
it's €320 in France, which seems to be about the same as £280 so I guess brexit has nothing to do with it.
It's a long tradition of making European pay more when it comes to electronics.
It's a long tradition of making European pay more when it comes to electronics.
I'm excited for the switch. I hope the Joy-Cons are comfortable. If it is, I have to admit it looks like a very versatile controller. Only downside is how expensive they are. The accessories really cost too much.
It was interesting to see how all previous Nintendo consoles made controller improvements. Reminded me why Nintendo won so many generations. It seems they're trying the same with the Switch.
Arms looks pretty cool. I'm looking forward to more games that smartly use the controller's features.
It was interesting to see how all previous Nintendo consoles made controller improvements. Reminded me why Nintendo won so many generations. It seems they're trying the same with the Switch.
Arms looks pretty cool. I'm looking forward to more games that smartly use the controller's features.
Even for a portable system I think Nintendo might have set the bar too low on graphics this time. Most of these games just don't look very good to the point of being visually distracting. It's almost an uncanny valley sort of thing where the graphics are just sort of good enough that the bad parts stick out like a sore thumb. It's most noticeable in the Mario game. Not sure that real world environments + weak graphics hardware was a good choice.
Just pre-ordered on Amazon UK for £279.99. Interestingly Tesco, a large retailer, are running an Adwords campaign advertising it at £499.99
Did anyone else think this looked like prep for taking over the low-end VR space, given all the emphasis on motion tracking? It seems like all they'd have to do is release a headset like Sony is doing with the PS4 and you'd have a good portable VR setup. Probably with a better library than Samsung gear too.
Splat ion 2 appears to be showing dual-wielding gyroscopic aiming. The joy-cons are already full vr/at constrollers, and I cloud see Nintendo moving to AR instead of VR
Watching the graphics quality of the Zelda demo, I can't help but think: If only this weren't on Nintendo. The graphics look equivalent to Elder Scrolls: Morrowind (2002). As with so many Nintendo demos; I find myself wishing they were a cross-platform game studio rather than a lagging hardware company.
Art direction makes up for it. By now, photorealism in games is becoming bland. Given a screenshot of most any random modern AAA game, without the HUD, I don't know if I could distinguish them. I won't argue that more graphical fidelity isn't better, but we've reached a saturation point where graphical fidelity alone won't sell your game.
I couldn't agree more. Over the years I have become less and less interested in games as they have become more and more realistic graphically.
The games I still enjoy playing have poor low resolution graphics, but they're challenging and fun.
This is one of the things I respect so much about Nintendo; they haven't given in to pressure to make everything realistic. They keep their focus on the game play and allow players to use their imagination when it comes to graphics.
The games I still enjoy playing have poor low resolution graphics, but they're challenging and fun.
This is one of the things I respect so much about Nintendo; they haven't given in to pressure to make everything realistic. They keep their focus on the game play and allow players to use their imagination when it comes to graphics.
There's still plenty of room for artistic style in graphically "realistic" games. Dishonored and the recent Deus Ex games (particularly the Human Revolution) are pretty good examples of both good graphical definition and a very strong sense of style. Going back a little further there were the Bioshock games, which also just ooze style (as well as being top tier in the realistic graphics dept for their time).
Scott McCloud (the comics artist) says something very interesting about that:
The more realistic the character drawings are, they less _you_ project yourself into the story.
If this works for a static medium like comics, it could be much more important for dynamic conten like videogames. No wonder that cartoon-like characters like Mario, Link, or Pacman comes to mind before Chris Renfield (for instance).
The more realistic the character drawings are, they less _you_ project yourself into the story.
If this works for a static medium like comics, it could be much more important for dynamic conten like videogames. No wonder that cartoon-like characters like Mario, Link, or Pacman comes to mind before Chris Renfield (for instance).
Your memory of Morrowind is way off. It's fairly common to remember games as looking far better than they did. This looks competitive with games that came out just a couple of years ago on the latest generation of consoles.
> The graphics look equivalent to Elder Scrolls: Morrowind (2002).
What?! Okay so it might not look quite as pretty as The Witcher 3 or Uncharted 4 but it still looks modern. The explosion/fire/smoke effects are beautiful. The art style isn't for photo-realistic but to have a unique-yet-familiar style that allows them to make use of exaggerated/cartoon-like presentation.
Saying it looks like a 15 year old game is extremely unfair and totally wrong.
What?! Okay so it might not look quite as pretty as The Witcher 3 or Uncharted 4 but it still looks modern. The explosion/fire/smoke effects are beautiful. The art style isn't for photo-realistic but to have a unique-yet-familiar style that allows them to make use of exaggerated/cartoon-like presentation.
Saying it looks like a 15 year old game is extremely unfair and totally wrong.
Yes and this Minecraft game looks like it was made in the 80s...pretty horrible as well. It's not just Nintendo, the subpar graphics have spread everywhere.
Do people really care about graphics that much? My guess would most casual gamers actually don't. Gameplay > all.
Do people really care about graphics that much? My guess would most casual gamers actually don't. Gameplay > all.
Lower point of entry for third party developers is important. Strong hardware and hard/expensive development is what killed the PS Vita.
[deleted]
OT: There is a popular program/interstitial in Japan called Pythagoras Switch[0]. I wonder if the name is a partial reference to that.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0B1hgP1tlE
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0B1hgP1tlE
Loved that show while I was in Japan, but I doubt there is a reference here.
Since the initial reveal, I have been utterly underwhelmed by this product. I fail to see a viable market or a satisfactory use case for such an oddly designed and artificially limited gaming device, and am confident that it will be yet another failure in a long line of Nintendo failures.
No touch screen? Not a single camera for AR content and/or social communication? The controllers look miniscule in the actor's tiny hands. The dock HAD to cover the screen of the device? I foresee the controller sliding and locking mechanism wearing down over time, leading to sloppy interconnection between the controllers and the device.
I could go on with the horrible design choices, but I cannot think of a single redeeming quality. It looks like the market is 6-12 year olds.
No touch screen? Not a single camera for AR content and/or social communication? The controllers look miniscule in the actor's tiny hands. The dock HAD to cover the screen of the device? I foresee the controller sliding and locking mechanism wearing down over time, leading to sloppy interconnection between the controllers and the device.
I could go on with the horrible design choices, but I cannot think of a single redeeming quality. It looks like the market is 6-12 year olds.
Just an FYI, it is a touch screen, according to the presentation at the 41m50s mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuC4YLLkqME&feature=youtu.be...
It has a touch screen and there is a camera in the joycon
> I fail to see a viable market or a satisfactory use case for such an oddly designed and artificially limited gaming device, and am confident that it will be yet another failure in a long line of Nintendo failures.
It is a portable console that I can take on business trips. That's a use-case :)
It is a portable console that I can take on business trips. That's a use-case :)
> The dock HAD to cover the screen of the device
Why shouldn't it? You're not able to use the Switch when it's docked, and the screen is disabled, so why show the screen?
Why shouldn't it? You're not able to use the Switch when it's docked, and the screen is disabled, so why show the screen?
I admire Nintendo's effort but I think they need to make a phone to really compete and they need something graphically powerful. That is to say, they need to raise prices at launch of a new device to ensure the hardware has enough of a shelf life. Spending $300 on a portable for gaming after spending twice that on a phone capable of gaming seems like a hard sell to the mass market/casual gamer.
Will this really be able to stand up against iPhones and Android devices in a year or two? I sadly don't think so... the maxwell X1 it's shipping with will be under power as soon as a device is released and woefully as soon as other device manufacturers start shipping X2 (I think that's the name) Pascal or whatever new PowerVR chipset debuts soon based devices.
I think a lot of the tech going into VR like motion controls and low latency displays will destroy some of Nintendo's technical advantage they're as no longer the only game in town with it.
Finally, while making the SDK better by using open standards I think most devs would prefer a larger market; which, both iOS and Android provide.
I've been a Nintendo fan in a big way for 25 years and want to be wrong but I worry if they don't go big in another decade they'll be in the same place as Sega. I bought a Wii U solely for Smash Bros and will buy a Switch when it's (Smash Bros) ported but I don't think most folks are quite so obsessed or willing to invest that much for one game.
Glad to eat my words in a few months, hopefully I do.
Edit: updated with reference to another GPU manufacturer. For my point it's not the exact SOC that matters it's the speed of iteration/capabilities on the near horizon.
Edit 2: Here's a year old benchmark showing how the maxwell X1 stacks up:
http://wccftech.com/snapdragon-820-benchmarks/
Edit 3: added "casual gamer" after mass market for clarity.
Will this really be able to stand up against iPhones and Android devices in a year or two? I sadly don't think so... the maxwell X1 it's shipping with will be under power as soon as a device is released and woefully as soon as other device manufacturers start shipping X2 (I think that's the name) Pascal or whatever new PowerVR chipset debuts soon based devices.
I think a lot of the tech going into VR like motion controls and low latency displays will destroy some of Nintendo's technical advantage they're as no longer the only game in town with it.
Finally, while making the SDK better by using open standards I think most devs would prefer a larger market; which, both iOS and Android provide.
I've been a Nintendo fan in a big way for 25 years and want to be wrong but I worry if they don't go big in another decade they'll be in the same place as Sega. I bought a Wii U solely for Smash Bros and will buy a Switch when it's (Smash Bros) ported but I don't think most folks are quite so obsessed or willing to invest that much for one game.
Glad to eat my words in a few months, hopefully I do.
Edit: updated with reference to another GPU manufacturer. For my point it's not the exact SOC that matters it's the speed of iteration/capabilities on the near horizon.
Edit 2: Here's a year old benchmark showing how the maxwell X1 stacks up:
http://wccftech.com/snapdragon-820-benchmarks/
Edit 3: added "casual gamer" after mass market for clarity.
Power doesn't matter. Phones get slower with each passing year as more bloat is added OTA. Consoles get faster as new games exploit more and more of the power available at launch. The experience has almost always been better on consoles, and not the most powerful ones.
If it were about power we would wax nostalgic about the NeoGeo, TurboGrafx 16, and Atari Jaguar.
If it were about power we would wax nostalgic about the NeoGeo, TurboGrafx 16, and Atari Jaguar.
The Neo Geo is still popular for all famous arcade games like King of Fighters. And people still play them for competition. You can't really say the same thing for the Super Famicom and the like.
Plus "power does not matter" does not make sense. It worked for Nintendo before. The SUper Famicom was the most powerful console at the time and it sold better than the Megadrive. The N64 did not beat the playstation but it was more powerful 3D-wise but they made the wrong choice to go with cartridges then. Nevertheless the N64 sold well and had very good games too.
The started dropping the ball with the Gamecube in terms of Raw Power - it was not better than the Xbox or the PS2 or at least not significantly to make any difference. And guess what, this is when Iwata was leading the design of the console. He is at the root of "we don't care about graphics, old-gen is the best". It did not work well. Even the Wii was not so much of a success- they sold a lot of hardware but very few games per system. Most consumers bought it for Wii Sports and left it at that and most units collected dust soon within a year of purchase.
Plus "power does not matter" does not make sense. It worked for Nintendo before. The SUper Famicom was the most powerful console at the time and it sold better than the Megadrive. The N64 did not beat the playstation but it was more powerful 3D-wise but they made the wrong choice to go with cartridges then. Nevertheless the N64 sold well and had very good games too.
The started dropping the ball with the Gamecube in terms of Raw Power - it was not better than the Xbox or the PS2 or at least not significantly to make any difference. And guess what, this is when Iwata was leading the design of the console. He is at the root of "we don't care about graphics, old-gen is the best". It did not work well. Even the Wii was not so much of a success- they sold a lot of hardware but very few games per system. Most consumers bought it for Wii Sports and left it at that and most units collected dust soon within a year of purchase.
The reason for Neo Geo being more popular than SNES in competitions is probably that the Neo Geo catalog was almost all competitive simultaneous 2-player games (as they doubled as arcade games), while in the SNES most iconic games are single-player. For SNES games with the simultaneous multiplayer mode (e.g. Super Mario Kart) championships are also healthy.
In my opinion SNES and Neo Geo were, each in its style, the best consoles of all time, and in general they have aged really well, as can also be seen by the persisting popularity of their games in 2017. I think this is probably because they were the pinnacle of 2D gaming. Of course 3D bought amazing possibilities to gaming, but for example the precious artfulness and attention to detail in Last Blade II (IMO a much better game than the overrated KoFs, by the way) is something I am still yet to see in a modern fighting game. On the other hand, when I play an early 3D game like many PSX releases, I just see things that can be done much better now, which makes the game look more dated.
In my opinion SNES and Neo Geo were, each in its style, the best consoles of all time, and in general they have aged really well, as can also be seen by the persisting popularity of their games in 2017. I think this is probably because they were the pinnacle of 2D gaming. Of course 3D bought amazing possibilities to gaming, but for example the precious artfulness and attention to detail in Last Blade II (IMO a much better game than the overrated KoFs, by the way) is something I am still yet to see in a modern fighting game. On the other hand, when I play an early 3D game like many PSX releases, I just see things that can be done much better now, which makes the game look more dated.
The Neo-Geo is truly a way to bring games you would find in an arcade home while the SNES has long single player games which don't work in an arcade setting. So it's not that surprising the Neo-Geo games are more suitable for competition than most SNES games.
Xbox and PS2 were also sold at a loss for a long time, I don't think the xbox was breaking even on it's investment until late into the 360 lifetime. Nintendo can't compete on those terms, they aren't a wing of a huge multinational company (merely a small multi national company) that can take losses like that.
I don't think that going for power is a strategy that would likely work for Nintendo. Whatever is fast now will be slow in one or two years. However, the special control scheme they have is unique and might be great for casuals just like the original Wii was. If this is great at parties with non gamers it will be a success. I personally prefer some more serious games, but what I like doesn't matter.
I like it when I my messaging app show notification when I do a presentation.
Can't wait for a sexting notification to show when I share my Phone screen to TV.
Can't wait for a sexting notification to show when I share my Phone screen to TV.
Nobody actually uses Nvidia's mobile offerings as I understand it, do they?
Their "current" mobile offerings are the Tegra K1 or the X1. The upcoming SoC is the Tegra P1.
- Tegra K1 is used in the NVIDIA Shield Tablet/TV, Nexus 9, and two Chromebooks.
- Tegra X1 is in the Google Pixel C and NVIDIA's SHIELD Android TV.
- Tegra P1 or a variant is rumored to be powering the Nintendo Switch
- Tegra K1 is used in the NVIDIA Shield Tablet/TV, Nexus 9, and two Chromebooks.
- Tegra X1 is in the Google Pixel C and NVIDIA's SHIELD Android TV.
- Tegra P1 or a variant is rumored to be powering the Nintendo Switch
NVIDIA seems to have switched to targeting their Tegra series for automotive instead of mobile, where the margins can be higher.
For TK1 there's a longer list of devices on Wikipedia. The additional ones are the Jetson TK1 development board, Lenovo ThinkVision 28, Xiaomi MiPad, Snail Games OBox, UTStarcom MC8718, Google Project Tango tablet, Apalis TK1 System on Module, Fuze Tomahawk F1, JXD Singularity S192.
For TK1 there's a longer list of devices on Wikipedia. The additional ones are the Jetson TK1 development board, Lenovo ThinkVision 28, Xiaomi MiPad, Snail Games OBox, UTStarcom MC8718, Google Project Tango tablet, Apalis TK1 System on Module, Fuze Tomahawk F1, JXD Singularity S192.
I have both the Shield Tablet and the Shield TV. The tablet suffers from the form factor (16:10, still don't get why) but the Shield TV is a fantastic little device.
It makes it even more crazy that both of the nVidia devices retail for under $200 but Nintendo's supposedly subsidised console costs a third more.
It makes it even more crazy that both of the nVidia devices retail for under $200 but Nintendo's supposedly subsidised console costs a third more.
> Nintendo's supposedly subsidised console
Nintendo hasn't subsidized a console for years (and has been rather public about that). And Nintendo includes a full wireless controller with rechargeable batteries, a TV display dock, and a tablet charger -- none of that ships with the Shield K1 Tablet (not even a cheap USB charger). And Nintendo's Switch likely uses the faster X1 chip, not the slower K1 in the Shield Tablet.
It's not really fair to complain about Nintendo's $100 higher price over the Shield Tablet, without mentioning all extra stuff Nintendo throws in for that price that the Shield Tablet doesn't include.
Nintendo hasn't subsidized a console for years (and has been rather public about that). And Nintendo includes a full wireless controller with rechargeable batteries, a TV display dock, and a tablet charger -- none of that ships with the Shield K1 Tablet (not even a cheap USB charger). And Nintendo's Switch likely uses the faster X1 chip, not the slower K1 in the Shield Tablet.
It's not really fair to complain about Nintendo's $100 higher price over the Shield Tablet, without mentioning all extra stuff Nintendo throws in for that price that the Shield Tablet doesn't include.
[deleted]
The big question is how many people are willing to carry another device to play games vs using their phone with a good controller case. Are phone controllers at least standardized yet?
Would be awesome if I could use the Switch to also stream my PS4 and my Steam games to it. Don't it will, but that'd be cool.
What are some of the reasons why Nintendo Switch isn't just phone + app + chromecast-like device + bluetooth controllers?
Who would buy that? Screen is too small to be of great utility for gaming, cellphones have awful battery life for gaming, controllers wouldn't be as nice to bind to such a device while sticking it in a pocket, and it directly brings it into competition with Apple and Android phone vendors.
I love gaming as much as anyone else, but that makes a lot less sense than what Nintendo is currently doing. The Switch isn't a pocket-sized console, and doesn't pretend to be. It is big and powerful enough to drive a TV-based experience, while being portable enough for trips/public transit.
I love gaming as much as anyone else, but that makes a lot less sense than what Nintendo is currently doing. The Switch isn't a pocket-sized console, and doesn't pretend to be. It is big and powerful enough to drive a TV-based experience, while being portable enough for trips/public transit.
You need to look at how Nintendo makes games - they start with the device then build the story around that. Not the other way round, i.e making a story then looking at building it for the device. That is why the specs don't really matter or have ever mattered. Historically we've always heard spec complaints but a device user doesn't really talk as much about them (or even aware of them). At least compared to Playstation or Xbox.
I have an iPhone 6S and my battery life when 3D gaming is about smack in the middle of the Switch's range. Admittedly the Switch is presumably going to run better graphics, but still -- its battery life is about the same as cellphone battery life.
> cellphones have awful battery life for gaming
The video says the switch, depending on conditions has a battery life between 2.5 and 6.5 hours. That doesn't sound particularly better than a cellphone.
The video says the switch, depending on conditions has a battery life between 2.5 and 6.5 hours. That doesn't sound particularly better than a cellphone.
$300 for a tablet, chromecast device + bluetooth controllers that all integrate nicely is a pretty good deal.
Gaming on mobile phones with controllers is a pretty janky affair right now. Poor quality controllers and iffy compatibility are the norm. Getting your display remoted to the TV is also well in the "doesn't always work" territory.
Gaming on mobile phones with controllers is a pretty janky affair right now. Poor quality controllers and iffy compatibility are the norm. Getting your display remoted to the TV is also well in the "doesn't always work" territory.
Gaming on mobile phones with controllers is a pretty janky affair right now
That people are using controllers with phone games tells me that there are still lessons to be learned from the Wii.
That people are using controllers with phone games tells me that there are still lessons to be learned from the Wii.
game machines often have dedicated hardware made specifically for running games on otherwise slow hardware. Also things like extremely thin OSes with almost-real-time guarantees about the speed at which things will run.
The screen is also much larger than a Phone screen, more like an iPad. So now you're selling an iPad accessory, locked to Apple's store and architectuaral decisions.
Not to mention that selling it themselves like this while controlling software distribution lets them subsidize the cost of the machine with software sales
It would be quite a challenge to get Skyrim working on a phone, I imagine.
The screen is also much larger than a Phone screen, more like an iPad. So now you're selling an iPad accessory, locked to Apple's store and architectuaral decisions.
Not to mention that selling it themselves like this while controlling software distribution lets them subsidize the cost of the machine with software sales
It would be quite a challenge to get Skyrim working on a phone, I imagine.
Whose phone would it be when you are playing at the living room with all your friends?
Wanna put the phone on airplane mode so noone can interrupt when you are playing? Or want to have the owner of the phone take the phone away for calls when you are playing with the other guys?
And anybody wants to show their notification on the TV?
Wanna put the phone on airplane mode so noone can interrupt when you are playing? Or want to have the owner of the phone take the phone away for calls when you are playing with the other guys?
And anybody wants to show their notification on the TV?
Do you really consider any of these things serious problems?
Phone functionality could turn off in "game mode". As far as the owner of the device "taking it away" to use it while it's being played...how is this a device issue?
Phone functionality could turn off in "game mode". As far as the owner of the device "taking it away" to use it while it's being played...how is this a device issue?
Incoming calls while gaming would suck, for a start.
[deleted]
I will buy this if it has sports games.. and I don't mean Wii Sports like games... I mean... EA, 2k and so on.
The gaming community’s receptions to the Switch seems to be somewhat sceptical:
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=382
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2016/10/26/youth-adjacent
http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=382
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2016/10/26/youth-adjacent
To be clear, these cartoons are from 2016 and aren't based on yesterday's presentation.
Looks clunky as hell. How big is that thing? I notice that the video doesn't show actual humans playing it.
That controller gives me RSI just looking at the controller..... no thanks
Will 6 people play it on all 6 demo Sundays (in 6 cities)?
Overpriced, low battery life compared to iPad and only good game announced was 2011 released Skyrim.
If Nintendo wants to stay in game business they need to get serious. This press info was much worse than I expected it to be.
If Nintendo wants to stay in game business they need to get serious. This press info was much worse than I expected it to be.
The pricing is on the level of Apple for some reason.
So on launch we have the choice of Zelda... or the milking the cow game... really...
No titles at launch is common for Nintendo. SNES had F-Zero or Super Mario World. n64 had pilotwings or super mario 64. Gamecube had Luigi's Mansion, Wave Race something or other, and Super Monkey Ball.
Admittedly, Wii had a bunch of launch games.
Admittedly, Wii had a bunch of launch games.
Oh for fuck's sake Nintendo. Just put all the NES and SNES games on a little ARM box, sell if for 100 bucks and watch the money pour in.
// ThatPlayer: Of course not, but they could make deals for the popular ones, etc.
// ThatPlayer: Of course not, but they could make deals for the popular ones, etc.
I doubt they have the licenses for all the NES and SNES games to be able to sell them like that.
https://github.com/jasarien/Provenance An AppleTV 4 can be had for ~$150 with controller.
A Raspberry Pi might do it as well (at least for the likes of us.)
I'm just worried about Nintendo. They had some money troubles a couple of years (?) ago and I'm not sure this thing is going to fix it.
I'm just worried about Nintendo. They had some money troubles a couple of years (?) ago and I'm not sure this thing is going to fix it.
Essentially, they placed value squarely in the face of everything your PC/enthusiast-level gaming rig won't ever replace. The ability to pick up and play elsewhere. Like the Wii, it's not even trying to compete with the current crop of consoles. It's value proposition will be placed somewhere a bit obtusely, between your mobile phone and everything else you leave at home. Yes, this obviously functions as a home console as well, but I can't help but suspect Nintendo absolutely meant to go for what makes handhelds great. If any company can do it, they can. So what if it cannibalises their current 3DS offerings? Pokemon seems to be going strong with its fanbase.
The whole presentation, from the demonstration of the hardware to especially the finishing trademark "One more thing!" with Zelda making a predictable but nonetheless amazing launch date. It's a strategy that worked wonders for the Wii, remember, so why not?
Nintendo absolutely killed it, and I'll be keeping a really close eye on this thing. But the marketing and presentation was honestly textbook.
[1] https://youtu.be/uuC4YLLkqME?t=33m20s