i think, even psvita still got new games. some weird japanese and indie mostly tho.
Nintendo Switch Event 2017-01-12 and Switch Launch discussion
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
There is, if said inferior hardware caters to your games' needs and it has a sizeable userbase that keeps buying games.
That will depend on the Switch's success or lack of thereof.
If the Switch fails, Nintendo will have to keep the 3DS doors open for as long as they get profits from it.
The Vita has 27 games confirmed to be coming in 2017 (plus another ~25 "TBA") and only one of them is not coming in cartridge format,
This last December, the Vita got 16 new games in Japan, whereas the 3DS got 11. And throughout 2016 the Vita got over 100 games.
Larger, better and higher resolution screen with capacitive touch capabilities make the Vita the platform of choice for visual novels nowadays.
Visual novels are hardly weird nowadays, BTW.
And considering how the Vita currently costs less than half the price of a Switch, I hardly see these japanese developers transitioning to the new console unless it gets huge initial sales.
Oh please. Of course the pre-orders are sold out. You think they're going to allocate 10 million pre-orders? It's free PR.
Thanks for proving my point, many members here will look to undermine the success of the Switch at every turn. If pre order sales were terrible it would be so meaningful, but if they are good it becomes a useless metric. I'm not saying it means much in terms of the long haul, simply that out of the gate, it looks good so far. The early short term success or lack there of in the first few months in meaningful. If its gets out of the gate quickly, and has sustained sales leading into the holiday season, third parties are going to take notice, and that's important from the perspective of software support. Its not that I think Nintendo has the perfect game plan with Switch, I don't, I feel like the system is priced too high, accessories are priced too high, online fee for a mobile app isn't attractive to me seems like crap as well. I'm just not convinced that these perceived hurdles or short comings will be a big deal to your average consumer. I'm sure a lot of people looked at the Wii, a supercharged Gamecube priced $150 higher than the Gamecube was at the time and expected Wii to fail, but instead it became one of the highest selling home gaming consoles of all time. Will the hybrid console gimmick work? I don't know, we will find out within 12 months of launch.
Like somebody else mentioned, Wii gets a lot of crap for being a shovelware console, but it in the sea of crap that was released, there were tons of really good games. Even outside of Nintendo's excellent first party games, EA released the best Tiger Woods Golf games on any systems, they were and still are excellent Gold sims. Red Steel 2 was an excellent action/shooter that really showed how motion controls could make the experience more fun on Wii. Ubisoft released a ground up Prince of Persia Forgotten Sands games that was great. Activision released not only the COD games, but the terrific Goldeneye 007. I could go on and on, but if you go to Metacritic and check out the Wii's best critically acclaimed game, it should become pretty obvious that a ton of excellent software graced the platform.
It's two million units, we know this because Nintendo announced that they would have two million units ready for launch. I'm sure not all two million are allocated to pre orders, but the bulk of them likely are. Wal-Mart took preorders longer than they were supposed to because early demand was so high.
Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
That's not proving your point. All it's proving is you have a considerable pro Nintendo bias that is affecting your interpretation of events and generates ill feeling when people counter your points which then pollutes the discussion.
We can cite Wii U as selling faster than anything but failing to sell in great numbers (Wii U exceeds Nintendo preorder expectations). This proves that great pre-order sales don't equate to a healthy platform. Therefore Switch isn't off to a great start. Well, that's subjective and depends what you measure it against. Let's call it a good start. It'll only be great if Nintendo provide numbers like 5 million preorders - that'd be great! It'd be a terrible start if preorders don't shift. Also, importantly, this is the expected start. Read back through this thread and those of us speculating on Switch 's future troubles have already said we expect the first n million to sell just fine and the problems for Switch come after the hardcore, existing Nintendo fanbase has been satisfied and Nintendo try to sell to everyone else who aren't so accommodating.
I suppose at the end of the day if you want to feel like I'm biased for some reason, that's your prerogative, but it does get my goat. Why the hell would I want Nintendo to fail? Or Succeed? I'm not an employee or a shareholder. Why do I care about being right? It's not like my career is dependent on never being wrong. I have no vested/emotional interest whatsoever so it irks me that persons like yourself who are invested for love of the company decide to see me as the enemy. All the Nintendo detractors have done in this forum for the past ten years is point out Nintendo's choices and character, and been habitually right to do so (yes, they do always go with the cheapest hardware!).
For the good of the ongoing discussion, I'd recommend you put personal feeling to one side and just engage in the arguments at hand logically instead of drawing lines and choosing sides.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
It's a pretty much given knowledge that Nintendo has an established fanbase of around 3-4 million people who will purchase pretty much any hardware the company puts out there. They will definitely sell 4 million consoles in the Switch's lifetime.
This also means they would sell those 2 million they have in time for launch, regardless of how much of those are pre-orders.
Those first 2 million sales mean nothing for predicting the console's success. Nintendo will be in a huge mess if they don't sell a lot more than that during 2017.
We would all be eating our collective hats if Nintendo had e.g. 6 million consoles for pre-order and claimed they were all sold out. But for all we know, the pre-orders could amount to 200k consoles, which is a super-safe number for Nintendo to brag about all pre-orders being sold out.
The bulk of them are likely not pre-orders. The last thing the company wants is a launch day with empty shelves, which would severely undermine marketing and mindshare within retail stores.
Lastly, I think almost everyone here wants Nintendo to succeed. More players = more competition = better products for customers and less stagnation in the market.
This doesn't mean that everyone is rooting for the Switch to succeed. It's just not a good product right now. Terrible pricing, terrible library, apparently terrible hardware.
The faster Nintendo gets around the Switch's current form - either by making another console very fast or drastically lowering its price and/or drastically increasing its library's quality+quantity - the better for the company and for us customers.
No question that my being a fan of Nintendo creates a positive bias for Nintendo. With that said, are insinuating that negative bias for Nintendo doesn't exist? If so, your being very naïve. Even if your personally completely impartial, most people have at least some bias for one reason or another. For example, if your someone who passionately wanted Nintendo to release a standard high powered console akin to the PS4 Pro, and then they reveal the Switch and now that person is very disappointed. They now have a negative attitude towards the product. Not because of what it is, but because its not what they really wanted from Nintendo.
Actually a Google search suggest otherwise. Gamestop has all their launch stock allocated to preorders. I also read that Gamestop had 500k Wii U consoles for launch back in 2012, Gamestop gets a large allocation from Nintendo.
http://bgr.com/2017/01/16/gamestop-nintendo-switch-preorder-stock/
Thanks, I wasn't aware of actual numbers. It still doesn't tell us how many pre-orders were allocated, likely less than half. Even if they're in a situation where most of the stock is already allocated and they're basically not going to have anything to sell on launch day, it's still not very impressive for multiple reasons stated in posts above and elsewhere in this thread.
All 2 million tells me is that they're being conservative with stock as they're gambling with the high price and unsure beyond their fan base if it's another WiiU, they were terrible at organizing units being made early enough, or a combination of both. Irrespective, my point still stands. It's an irrelevant feat but the message that they "sold out of pre-orders in x minutes/hours" gets out and generates hype.
No. I'm just saying it isn't a topic of conversation.
Pointing out people's biases for or against never aids a discussion that's trying to be impartial and objective (even if some contributors aren't). Nintendo announced 2 million for the first month. http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/n...-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/
However, later remarks said they could make more if there was more demand. If these 2 million are preorders, I'd expect some announcement that Nintendo are making more for launch as that'd be good for their investors to hear.
I don't know if having empty shelves and eBay'd Switches is better than having plenty of stock.
No. I'm just saying it isn't a topic of conversation.
Nintendo announced 2 million for the first month. http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/26/n...-loss-plans-to-ship-2-million-units-in-march/
However, later remarks said they could make more if there was more demand. If these 2 million are preorders, I'd expect some announcement that Nintendo are making more for launch as that'd be good for their investors to hear.
I don't know if having empty shelves and eBay'd Switches is better than having plenty of stock.
I agree, sort of, but I have a feeling you wouldn't shy away from pointing out if I am showing obvious positive bias. I think the tolerance for negative bias regarding Nintendo is far more accepted here, and more often doesn't get called out, but instead is played off as somehow being common sense. I'm sure "common sense" caused many naysayers to believe the DS and Wii would fail, and how wrong they were.
I will go ahead and take a break from this thread. I'm a passionate fan of Nintendo, and the negativity gets under my skin at time. Sales figures will be available within a few months, and then the picture will start to look much clearer.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Dude... my brain is hurting with this:
- Your implies a possession attribute. Your opinion, your post, your console, these are things that belong to you.
- You are can be shortened to your're, not your. You are being naive = You're being naive. If you are personally impartial = If you're personally impartial.
With that out of the way, at least in this forum (couldn't care less about reddits and neogafs) I don't recall anyone claiming they expected - or even wanted - Nintendo to release something akin to the PS4 Pro. Feel free to point out who posted something like this because I might be wrong, but I really don't recall that.
We're all aware that Nintendo was not going to compete on the most powerful CPU and GPU. What people hoped was for Nintendo to launch something that did not repeat Wii U's biggest mistake, which was to release a console with hardware so feeble that it would drive away 3rd party development.
Even if it was to be a hybrid, it should have hardware that was able to at least run the same games as the PS4One at a lower resolution like 720p or 540p.
And if it wasn't going to be able to do that and become a 3DS successor, at least it had to be cheap and it would need a strong library on day one.
Unless we're all wrong about the SoC, the Switch is neither of these things. It's very expensive for the old and slow hardware it's carrying. No 3rd-party adoption, no strong 1st-party library and no fast adoption through low price.
Gamestop is a chain of small specialized stores so that's expected from them IMO. People going to Gamestop for the Switch are buying a game and little else.
What I said should stand for larger retailer chains like best buy and walmart in the US, or mediamarkt and fnac in Europe. Those stores wouldn't be happy to announce a console for sale that people can't buy. They want their clients to enter their store, head to the furthest end of the furthest hall to grab the console so they have to look around and maybe decide to buy a bunch of other stuff they see in the way. Empty shelves are really bad for business there.
You read that but you were tricked:
From 500k pre-orders to 320k sales throughout two months.
Don't trust Gamestop's claims over pre-orders. They're most probably trying to repeat the same crap.
Where it's affecting the arguments, probably. The same would be said of negative bias too though. When people are presented data and instead of presenting counter arguments and alternative facts say their opponents are biased, then the discussion collapses. If people aren't coming round to one's own POV, it's always better to agree to disagree than start claiming they are prejudiced (whether they are prejudiced or not).
I flatly disagree. Every company has come in for its fair share of criticism here. Each has their unyielding advocates who do nothing but praise and, rarely, their perpetual detractors. The reason for Nintendo getting more criticism than others is because at the moment they are doing more to annoy us.
And have done for 10 years since launching Wii with GC hardware. So yeah, we're going to criticise them for decisions that don't match our ideals, just like bitching about MS's TV TV TV or Sony's pre-PS3 arrogance and weak-sauce PS4 firmware and lack of commitment towards some of their products (1st party Vita titles, EyeToy sequels).It depends on what the numbers are like. 6 months from now things could still look reasonably rosy (1 million sold a month for three months after launch) yet could nose dive after that. IMO the real litmus test will be holiday season. By then the Nintendo hardcore will be satisfied and we'll have a clear picture if Switch is selling the 3DS crowd or the general populace or no-one. Unless they sell crazy numbers month after month after launch and publisher after publisher announces upcoming titles at which point we're all proven wrong!
More evidence of Nintendo not having a clue about gaming synergy and showcasing system capabilities, their game LoZBoW doesnt support HD Rumble.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/zelda-hd-rumble/
The next game in the Legend of Zelda franchise, Breath of the Wild, will not utilize the Switch’s “HD rumble” feature, despite being a launch game for Nintendo’s next-generation console. Purportedly this is because Nintendo wants parity between that version and the one that will release on its current-gen system, the Wii U.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/zelda-hd-rumble/
The next game in the Legend of Zelda franchise, Breath of the Wild, will not utilize the Switch’s “HD rumble” feature, despite being a launch game for Nintendo’s next-generation console. Purportedly this is because Nintendo wants parity between that version and the one that will release on its current-gen system, the Wii U.
"Buy our new console, which we're purposefully keeping the same as the old one so the old console owners don't feel left out."
TBH I think that's an excuse. Either the HD rumble feature was finalised too late, or they just felt it wasn't something they could realistically add to the game without it being an obvious gimmick (like motion control in the original Uncharted, which really as pointlessly shoe-horned in as a checkbox feature that just got in the way of the game).
It's even questionable what HD rumble actually brings to the table. Sony were talking about that in PS3's era but never implemented it. Could they not get it working adequately, or did their tests find that people basically only respond to significant jolts in the controller and anything more subtle gets overlooked? I certainly think that's a possibility.
TBH I think that's an excuse. Either the HD rumble feature was finalised too late, or they just felt it wasn't something they could realistically add to the game without it being an obvious gimmick (like motion control in the original Uncharted, which really as pointlessly shoe-horned in as a checkbox feature that just got in the way of the game).
It's even questionable what HD rumble actually brings to the table. Sony were talking about that in PS3's era but never implemented it. Could they not get it working adequately, or did their tests find that people basically only respond to significant jolts in the controller and anything more subtle gets overlooked? I certainly think that's a possibility.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Nothing beats the shoehorned touch stuff in Vita's Uncharted Golden Abyss.
You had to literally rub the hole screen top to bottom to proceed with the story, and this happened several times.
Some gimmicks like the second screen in the Wii U I thought were brilliant (hud-less games!), but some are just cringe worthy.
I can't edit your post on a phone without getting a stroke, but I'd like to point out that the fastest other commercially available SoC in terms of graphics that Nintendo could have chosen is the Snapdragon 820. Made with FinFet transistors, no less. And it is handily outperformed by even a vanilla Tegra X1.
It will be interesting to see just what the Switch contains in terms of silicon, but calling it "old and slow" is bizarre unless you are insisting on comparing a 3W battery powered mobile SoC against 100W mains powered stationary consoles. And that is also bizarre, but for other reasons.
The Switch is what it is - the far and away most powerful mobile console yet. Critisizing it for not being a forklift just doesn't make much sense. It's not a toaster either. Or a coffee table. Does that warrant gnashing of teeth as well?
Will it be a commercial success? That remains to be seen.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
1 - The Snapdragon 820 shouldn't even be compared to the TX1 because it's a SoC for smartphones with a good deal of its power and heat budget dedicated to WiFi, Bluetooth and increasingly large LTE-Advanced baseband processors.
2 - The S820 in 5" smartphones is only "handily outperformed" by the Shield TV that has a heatsink with a heatpipe and is plugged to the wall, or is on par with a 4 times larger Pixel C.
3 - Even considering 1) the Snapdragon 820 would handily outperform a TX1 if both were put inside the Switch's power and heat envelope, at least in handheld mode.
4 - Again considering 1) and the volume that a handheld from NIntendo guarantees, why should they go with an off-the-shelf SoC that was not made with gaming as a priority?
5 - When it released, the Vita (sold for $250) had a performance comparable to the A5X that released months later. The fastest commercially available SoC was the MSM8960, with a Adreno 225. Care to see how that compares to the A5X?
I'm calling it old and slow if it's just a downclocked TX1. That's the whole basis for the criticism.
Perhaps it's not. I sure wish it was something far more gaming-focused (and consequently more powerful).
This argument is mostly over the semantics of 'old and slow'. Perhaps people should define some better criteria to measure Switch against? Certainly it's not as fast as a brand new, bleeding edge, custom SOC could be, but it is about as fast as anything out there in a mobile device as I understand it from chatter.
- Status
