The Switch is DOOMED

[Kylo Ken]

You're comparing an iPad to a video game system. What people want out of each of them isn't going to be the same. It's apples and oranges.

And you're missing something big; it's not just about whether it can fit in people's pockets or not. Without a seamless sleep mode like the 3DS, it won't be very good as a handheld whether it can fit in pockets or not. Even iPads you can just lock and put away at a moment's notice if need be. We haven't seen if the Switch can do that. That's far more important than its size. Any portable device needs to be something you can start and stop using at the drop of a hat. Until the Switch has that, it will never be equal to the 3DS in terms of portability.

This may just be my loopy self, but how about the power button?

 

[Azure Sage]

This may just be my loopy self, but how about the power button?

Does the power button put it to sleep or does it shut it off entirely, closing the game? Can we enter and exit sleep mode freely with the power button as if we were opening and closing a 3DS? Even a PSP could do this. If the Switch can't, it won't be a very good handheld.

 

[Lozjam]

You're comparing an iPad to a video game system. What people want out of each of them isn't going to be the same. It's apples and oranges.

And you're missing something big; it's not just about whether it can fit in people's pockets or not. Without a seamless sleep mode like the 3DS, it won't be very good as a handheld whether it can fit in pockets or not. Even iPads you can just lock and put away at a moment's notice if need be. We haven't seen if the Switch can do that. That's far more important than its size. Any portable device needs to be something you can start and stop using at the drop of a hat. Until the Switch has that, it will never be equal to the 3DS in terms of portability.

iPad is a gaming device, to the mass public. This is the crowd that Nintendo wants to pick up.

And, plus, why are you complaining that there is no sleep mode, even though that's not confirmed, and I know almost for sure that it will have it. Sleep mode is listed within the patents for the Switch(the actual patents that detail the exact specifications of the system). I can say, almost 100% that the Switch will be able to go into a sleep mode of some sort.

 

[Kylo Ken]

It turns the power off, dude.

 

[Azure Sage]

iPad is a gaming device, to the mass public. This is the crowd that Nintendo wants to pick up.

And, plus, why are you complaining that there is no sleep mode, even though that's not confirmed, and I know almost for sure that it will have it. Sleep mode is listed within the patents for the Switch(the actual patents that detail the exact specifications of the system). I can say, almost 100% that the Switch will be able to go into a sleep mode of some sort.

If it can, then my only issue will be it's size. I would need to buy a case for it and that's just more money to throw at Nintendo... but that's another issue entirely.

Don't get me wrong here, I love everything we've seen of the Switch so far and I will happily buy it... and play it in tandem with the 3DS. If things keep progressing in the hybrid direction, then the 3DS can be phased out. But it's way too goddamn early for that right now.

 

[Dio]

First mistake. It's not really a hybrid. It's not a handheld. It's like people are completely ignoring everything we've seen and read. This isn't replacing the 3DS because it's nothing like the 3DS. You can't put it in your pocket, you can't take it everywhere with you, and the battery life on it while playing big games is not good. Not. A. Handheld.

Due to the fact I think it is a hybrid and because you dont think it is, this shows Nintendo have made the mistake of using unclear messaging and marketing. The likes of which we saw with the Wii U. People were like 'What the **** is a Wii U? A new controller? A new console?' And now people are like 'What the **** is the Switch? Is it a home console a handheld or a hybrid?'

Doomed.

Although I don't disagree that Nintendo should not be releasing the games on both platforms, you're missing the fact that the Switch has console-only games coming for it. The 3DS doesn't have most of the games coming for Switch. It only has Fire Emblem. Not a strong argument.

It does have Switch only games BUT if we get a repeat of what happened with HW, 2D mario and Smash. The latter two being heavy hitting console sellers which Wii U could not afford to share with a cheaper portable console.

Since I saw FE Warriors being dual release I painted a picture of a Switch future where we yet again have the same situation where exclusives could end up few and far between. And so I could say this would contribute to the doom of the console as it did to the Wii U before it.

And for others it's Mario or Splatoon or their misplaced sense of portability of the console. In other words, your opinion on this particular issue is irrelevant.

Personal like for Zelda isn't relevant.
However Zelda is the one coming on release day and is the only release day title that has massive interest and is a worldwide renowned franchise.

One game on both the 3DS and Switch doesn't put it in competition with the 3DS. This would have to turn into a trend. As of right now it isn't a trend. Although I completely agree with you: if it does become a trend, it would be very worrisome.

I'm not saying they have to go that route but right away with a dual release gives me that impression they might.

Funny, because everything I've seen and read says the Switch is equal to or more powerful than your beloved XBO. I'm waiting to see it in action, of course, but I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Aside from your own bias, that is.

Everywhere says the Switch is less powerful than both other home consoles and graphical comparisons have favoured the Msoft and Sony machines.

Ah yes, disingenuous arguments are so funny. Because 13 million people isn't a crowd, right? What's a crowd? 14 million?

The owner base of the 3DS and PS4 is a crowd.

(On FE Warriors)

And all indications lead to the conclusion that the console version is going to be better, because a console version will always be better. Better controls, more power behind the system, and so better visuals and frame rate (assuming all the gameplay features are the same).

The Wii U versions of Smash and HW were better if console versions are always so. Those still sold better on the 3DS and clearly didn't encourage enough Wii U sales.

So on the one hand, you're arguing that the PS4 is better because it has better graphics. And on the other hand you say the 3DS is better because people don't want better graphics. I mean, let's just say this argument wouldn't hold up in court.

You've made this same argument in the past. If you're telling us that, if given an option, people will choose the PS4 version of a game because it has better graphics, but at the same time telling us that graphics don't matter when it comes to 3DS and Switch, then I'm not sure what you're really trying to say.

There isn't just one market and the Switch needs to tap into more than one. That is what I am trying to say.You have the handheld market, diehard Nintendo/Sony/Msoft console fans. Then you have the mainstream gamers. Switch's current message is appealing only to the diehard Nintendo console fans just as the Wii U did. Which is a mistake.

However by advertising it as a hybrid and phasing it out they could replace the 3DS, gain all the Wii U owners and tempt the undecided mainstream gamers with their first party content.

Yes you will get the graphics whores who can't be won over but a lot of the mainstream I think would be won over by Switch having all the 3rd party games they could get on the other consoles but also with great first party exclusive content like Zelda, Pokémon and Mario, plus the appeal of being able to take COD on the bus.

I mean, I get that people aren't going to buy a brand new, $300 piece of hardware to play one game (or are they?), especially assuming that game is Fire Emblem Warriors. But more than likely, most people are getting the Switch for other games. Now, once they have the Switch, are they going to choose the better of the two versions of the game, or not? According to you, they will. They will get the Switch version. Because "When you have a [Switch] which plays them better whilst they look superior to [the] version on [the 3DS]..." why would you not choose the Switch version? I mean, that's your very argument.

You have to actually buy a Switch to play the superior version. The 3DS crowd is much bigger and we can assume the majority of 3DS units have been sold to their buyers now. They wont want to dish out more money for a console which seemingly has most of the games they could already get without paying another $300.

Good business would be to force these people onto the Switch by phasing out the 3DS.

Also, I'd like to know where you got the fact that the PS4 will "play games better." You mean the PS4 has a better controller or what?

No, not the controller just the fact it is more powerful. Games will run smoother while looking better. That is all.

 

[Dio]

iPad is a gaming device, to the mass public. This is the crowd that Nintendo wants to pick up.

.

It is a tablet that has a huge audience. It also happens to have the ability to play games. It is not what I would call a gaming device.

Nintendo will not tap this market because Switch is not a console/ tablet hybrid. It is a home console/ handheld console hybrid.

 

[the8thark]

It is a tablet that has a huge audience. It also happens to have the ability to play games. It is not what I would call a gaming device.

This is correct. Most people buy an iPad for non gaming reasons and the gaming on it is jsut a side benefit. Also the sales of the iPad is dropping somewhat. Mostly due to cannibalisation by the tablet sized iPhones. Now people just get a tablet sized iPhone and do everything on it.

Nintendo will not tap this market because Switch is not a console/ tablet hybrid. It is a home console/ handheld console hybrid.

You are correct but for what reasons, you and I differ there. Nintendo will not tap this market because the iPad is not primarily a gaming device whereas the Switch is.

I believe the Switch will tap into the 3DS market. Those 3DS users who wish they could play better and better games on the go. The Switch delivers this for them. Sure it's a different kind of portability, but you can take your better quality games with you on the go. If people could play MK8 on the 3DS at the graphical of the Switch, everyone would do it. Sure a portion of the 3DS users like the extreme portability of the 3DS, but all the rest would be willing to take a slight portability hit for a huge graphical improve and a ton new more powerful games.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

I don't think you guys quite understand how times have changed, and the term "handheld" has changed.

We live in a world, where nobody cares about how big an object is for it to be considered portable. I live in college, and so I have a pretty good understanding of the core demographic. Mainly, college students. Our 18-26ish year olds.

If Nintendo is trying to get the average gamer—the so-called "core gamer"—then they will be looking to tap into a demographic that is 30+ years old, not college students. The average gamer is a 30+ year old male.

And let me tell you. The fact that the iPad can't fit it in their pocket, won't make them think that they cannot take it anywhere. Because they literally, bring it everywhere they go. Everybody, and let me restate, everybody, either has a laptop or a tablet every single second of their existence. They put it in a bag, and they carry it with them. The same goes to my professors and fellow students. And guess what? The battery life on all of these devices is just as bad, 2-6 hours. Do you know what they do? They have charging banks, and they also carry charger cords with them.

Right, but they take it everywhere because it does everything. In my classes, most people that bring their iPads/tablets use them for word-processing, not playing games. In fact, I don't think I've personally seen anyone play a game on their iPad. Phones, yes. Tablets, no.

And what's portability if you have to be close to a wall so you can keep the Switch plugged in? Does that not defeat the very point of having a portable device? Yes. Yes it does. "I can take it anywhere I go ... as long as I sit by a wall next to a socket..."

This might not be what you personally want.... But the Switch's size and battery life is NOT going to affect the portability of the Switch to its main demographic. I can assure you that 100%. The Switch is 100% portable in modern standards, whether you guys like it or not.

It has nothing to do with what I want. It has to do with reality. I can assure you 100% that battery life will affect the portability of the Switch to its main demographic because I am their main demographic.

iPad is a gaming device, to the mass public. This is the crowd that Nintendo wants to pick up.

No, it isn't. The iPad is not a gaming device. Just like a phone isn't. You can play games on it, but that doesn't make it a gaming device. I used to have a graphing calculator when I was in high school. It played games. That didn't make it a gaming device. Just because you can play games on something doesn't mean that device is a gaming device.

And, plus, why are you complaining that there is no sleep mode, even though that's not confirmed, and I know almost for sure that it will have it. Sleep mode is listed within the patents for the Switch(the actual patents that detail the exact specifications of the system). I can say, almost 100% that the Switch will be able to go into a sleep mode of some sort.

You may not be wrong, but just because a company files a patent does not mean it will apply it to any of their products.

Due to the fact I think it is a hybrid and because you dont think it is, this shows Nintendo have made the mistake of using unclear messaging and marketing. The likes of which we saw with the Wii U. People were like 'What the **** is a Wii U? A new controller? A new console?' And now people are like 'What the **** is the Switch? Is it a home console a handheld or a hybrid?'

Doomed.

Nope. It's a console that you can take with you. It's very clear. And even if we argue about whether it's a console that you can take with you or a hybrid, Nintendo have done a very good job of explaining that this is a brand new thing. No one is confused as to whether this is a Wii U peripheral.

It does have Switch only games BUT if we get a repeat of what happened with HW, 2D mario and Smash. The latter two being heavy hitting console sellers which Wii U could not afford to share with a cheaper portable console.

Since I saw FE Warriors being dual release I painted a picture of a Switch future where we yet again have the same situation where exclusives could end up few and far between. And so I could say this would contribute to the doom of the console as it did to the Wii U before it.

I don't see a problem with games being released on both as long as (1) they are different enough to warrant two games and (2) the Switch gets its version first, and by a large amount of time. That way people would be able to clearly distinguish the two games as different.

Everywhere says the Switch is less powerful than both other home consoles and graphical comparisons have favoured the Msoft and Sony machines.

Look up the video @the8thark posted on the Switch reveal thread. Just sayin...

The owner base of the 3DS and PS4 is a crowd.

Well good to know that you've defined "crowd" for us.

Aside from that being absolutely absurd, if Nintendo manage to snag the entire Wii U owner base as a starting point, or even a large amount of it, within the first 12–18 months, it will likely be more successful commercially than the Wii U.

The Wii U versions of Smash and HW were better if console versions are always so. Those still sold better on the 3DS and clearly didn't encourage enough Wii U sales.

I'd say that was more because the Wii U had other problems besides exclusivity. By the time Smash and HW came out, it was pretty obvious the Wii U wasn't going to do well. That's not the case with the Switch.

There isn't just one market and the Switch needs to tap into more than one. That is what I am trying to say.You have the handheld market, diehard Nintendo/Sony/Msoft console fans. Then you have the mainstream gamers. Switch's current message is appealing only to the diehard Nintendo console fans just as the Wii U did. Which is a mistake.

I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. The games they announced—as few as they are—actually appeal to the mainstream gamer like never before. That has been literally their entire marketing campaign. No kids. No parents. Mainstream gamers.

However by advertising it as a hybrid and phasing it out they could replace the 3DS, gain all the Wii U owners and tempt the undecided mainstream gamers with their first party content.

You just said the mainstream gamer and the handheld gamer are different. How would phasing out the 3DS bring in more mainstream gamers?

Yes you will get the graphics whores who can't be won over but a lot of the mainstream I think would be won over by Switch having all the 3rd party games they could get on the other consoles but also with great first party exclusive content like Zelda, Pokémon and Mario, plus the appeal of being able to take COD on the bus.

I think that's exactly what they're trying to do. And that's exactly the push that Nintendo are making. From what we've seen, this is exactly what they are actually doing. Whether it works or not is a different matter.

You have to actually buy a Switch to play the superior version. The 3DS crowd is much bigger and we can assume the majority of 3DS units have been sold to their buyers now. They wont want to dish out more money for a console which seemingly has most of the games they could already get without paying another $300.

Good business would be to force these people onto the Switch by phasing out the 3DS.

Except it isn't seemingly most of the games they could already get. It's one game.

Again, you're saying something is going to happen based on one occurrence of the thing. And again, if this becomes a trend, then I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. But as of right now, there is absolutely nothing pointing to that.

No, not the controller just the fact it is more powerful. Games will run smoother while looking better. That is all.

I'll counter that and say that while PS4 games are unquestionably of a higher visual fidelity, games on Nintendo consoles usually run smoother. Nintendo targets framerate as a more important factor than resolution.

As TotalBiscuit said: if the Switch runs comparable or even slightly less visual fidelity than the XBO and PS4, but does so at 60fps, it's is by default a better experience than the Pro running at 4K at 25fps. Because in the end, the presentation only goes so far if it actually affects the gameplay, and framerate can affect gameplay in really bad ways.

 

[the8thark]

I have read everything @Lozjam and @CrimsonCavalier have said.

• The iPad and iPhone are not primarily gaming devices. The Switch is primarily a gaming device.
• Nintendo are looking to target the average gamer. That being the 25 to 40 year old age bracket. Nintendo's marketing is showint this.
• Nintendo is also looking to target people who are not the traditional gamer. The joycons are proof of this. People who like games but don't enjoy sitting on the couch for hours on end have the opportunity to get active with the joycons. Arms is one example of this. Will there be more? I hope so.
• Battery life only affects the Switch to a degree. For those who want to play the Switch on the go, sure battery life matters. But for those just moving the Switch from one power point to the next, the batter life does not matter. Nintendo has made this easy. Just one console and one AC cable (assuming the joycons stay attached to the console).
• The advertising of the Switch is better than the WiiU. I understood perfectly what the WiiU was about. Millions didn't though. Whether they actually didn't or were just hating on Nintendo makes no difference. The advertising for the WiiU should have been better. On the other hand there is a lot less hate for the Switch. The majority of people understand what it is, what it does, the kind of portability it is and how to use it. I'd call that a win for Nintendo.
• Saying games need a 3DS version as well as a Switch version is silly. Yes the 3DS marketshare is huge. But that could all change on the 3rd March. If you take a look at the Switch pre-order lines in Japan I posted elsewhere on this forum you'll understand. So many people are saying these lines are much larger than the XB1 lines and comparable (or exceeding in some cases) the PS4 lines. Not an apples ot apples comparison as Japan is a bigger hand held market. Still there being lines of this size at all in Japan for a home console is really surprising. Maybe the Switch audience will cannibalise the 3DS market. I think it will. But to what extent is yet to be determined.
• The "mainstream gamer" can like mome or portable consoles. Mainstream gamer and portable gamer are not mutually exclusive. A lot of mainstream gamers love their 3DS and but all the deep 3DS games.
• Is the 3DS crowd bigger than the Switch crowd? The hype and pre-order lines for the Switch says we don't know yet. Wait a while and see the Switch sales figures. by sales figures, I don't mean the raw sales data. Sure thatis nice to know but the sell through rate is more important. Did Nintendo sell all their shipped Switch consoles in the first week and in all of March? Is the sales staying relatively strong in the following months (understanding the fact that most of the people who wanted one have pre-ordered it).
• The PS4 games do look better than the Switch games (on the few we do have direct comparisons). However the Switch versions are getting more features. For example in DQH 1/2 the Switch version looks slightly worse but it gets new characters, game options and HD rumble is totally integrated in. Also the Switch version does not look all that bad. Add in the fact that 900p or 1080p at a stable 30fps or 60 fps is better than UHD at a variable 15fps to 30 fps is the issue here. Sure Sony is making UHD look good but if the fps is not there, what's the point. A slightly lower graphical quality does not hurt the fun as much as dodgy frame rates do.
• People know the Switch is tablet portability and not 3DS portability. Even still many of the PS4 fans are excited that the Switch has any portability at all. The portability factor is winning them over more than the UHD of the PS4 Pro or the better graphics of the PS4 standardc ever did. Sure the hard PS4 fans will never switch but the more open minded PS4 fans are looking seriously at the Switch as a thing. Many of these people 5 years ago took the piss out of the WiiU.
• TotalBiscuit is totally correct.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

@the8thark The first few months will tell a lot of what will probably happen in the future. I think Switch sales from launch through June/July will really give us a clear picture of what's happening, especially if we compare those figures to 3DS sales during the same time.

I'll be honest, right now, I don't think the Switch will sell well past the initial launch window (first 45 days or so) unless we start getting more information about upcoming games. Skyrim in the fall and Mario late 2017, well that's not good enough. Honestly, that just tells me to wait.

There need to be announcements of games coming now. Between launch and Xenoblade 2, there are no heavy hitters except Zelda. Not good enough. More games are needed, and more release dates. That will give people something tangible to be excited about.

 

[Lozjam]

@the8thark The first few months will tell a lot of what will probably happen in the future. I think Switch sales from launch through June/July will really give us a clear picture of what's happening, especially if we compare those figures to 3DS sales during the same time.

I'll be honest, right now, I don't think the Switch will sell well past the initial launch window (first 45 days or so) unless we start getting more information about upcoming games. Skyrim in the fall and Mario late 2017, well that's not good enough. Honestly, that just tells me to wait.

There need to be announcements of games coming now. Between launch and Xenoblade 2, there are no heavy hitters except Zelda. Not good enough. More games are needed, and more release dates. That will give people something tangible to be excited about.

I think it will be through holidays, when the Switchest biggest title is releasing. After Odyssee releases, this is truly when we will see how the switch is doing, and that's going to be the deciding factor of whether third parties jump in or jump ship.

Also, Arms, Splatoon 2, Dragon Quest(in Japan), and MK8D are definitely, unquestionably heavy hitters for the system. And they are coming within the first 4ish months of the system's life.

 

[the8thark]

I'll be honest, right now, I don't think the Switch will sell well past the initial launch window (first 45 days or so) unless we start getting more information about upcoming games. Skyrim in the fall and Mario late 2017, well that's not good enough. Honestly, that just tells me to wait.

If you want to play BotW, go get a Switch
If you don't want to play BotW, there's no reason to get a Switch now and you can wait till later.

This is basically how it is now.
A lot of people want to play BotW though.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

I think it will be through holidays, when the Switchest biggest title is releasing. After Odyssee releases, this is truly when we will see how the switch is doing, and that's going to be the deciding factor of whether third parties jump in or jump ship.

Also, Arms, Splatoon 2, Dragon Quest(in Japan), and MK8D are definitely, unquestionably heavy hitters for the system. And they are coming within the first 4ish months of the system's life.

Arms is not a heavy hitter. In no universe is that game a heavy hitter. I'd be willing to bet you real life money that games doesn't sell over 100,000 copies.

And as far as Dragon Quest, great, good for Japan. But when is the rest of the world getting the Dragon Quest games. Does Nintendo think only Japanese people play Dragon Quest? I want it. And as of today, there are no release dates for the West.

I think it will be through holidays, when the Switchest biggest title is releasing. After Odyssee releases, this is truly when we will see how the switch is doing, and that's going to be the deciding factor of whether third parties jump in or jump ship.

Interesting, because I see BoTW as the biggest title announced for the Switch to date. Hands down. From the online excitement, more people care about BoTW than Mario. It may be because Mario is late 2017 and BoTW is imminent, but I don't think the Switch's biggest title is Mario, not by a long shot.

But let's say that it is. Let's say that Mario is the game to push Switch sales. It's not coming until late 2017. So again, why bother? If people are waiting for Mario to get a Switch, why not wait until late 2017? The problem with good games from launch to summer still exists even if we agree that Mario is the biggest release on the console.

If you want to play BotW, go geet a Switch
If you don't want to play BotW, there's no reason to get a Switch now and you can wait till later.

I'm getting it on Wii U.

 

[Kylo Ken]

Nobody bought Destiny or Metal Gear Solid V on Xbox 360 if they could afford a PS4 with it. People always want the new stuff.