Nintendo Switch Event 2017-01-12 and Switch Launch discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but they could have put it on a more portable portable, like Vita or some other 3DS-like 'Switch' alternative. Even Vita is pretty chunky as far as portables go. Actually what maybe Switch should have been, if the console experience isn't all that, is a Nintendo phone? Comes with a standard controller dock cleverly engineered to be packable, unlike the existing cheap, cumbersome attachments from 3rd parties and with Nintendo games exclusive to it. Curious how that idea would fair.
 
Also Switch needs bulky hard case to carry. Analogs and joycon rails would wear out fast otherwise.
I'll carry mine in my rucksack and messenger bag; they've held countless mobile devices with no ill effects. The joycon rails and connectors are hard, either metal or a ceramic. They're not going to wear out easily even with dozens of connects/disconnects every day.

edit: played a bit more with my Switch this evening. The UI is incredibly immediate. Press a button and the thing reacts instantly. I know that's how it should be but PlayStation and Xbox don't feel this responsive. :nope: I reckon the OS is doing a lot behind the scenes to minimise interface delay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I got a soft carry case for mine. So far I've used it at the theater in handheld mode waiting for Logan to start, and at the library in kickstand modewhile my wife was looking around. I'm really enjoying the portable/flexible aspect of it.
 
Uhh.. what!?! :???: I know, weight is relative to people's strength. Here's the weights of a number of devices gamers may own - credit to Reddit's Pieceof_

zqiRnMDZxLwvIPxAS6zk3YdT0Zrtl6hJvNG051aQFfU.png

This is exactly the same thing I was thinking when I heard him say that. Most of the comments I've heard from people that own it is that it's heavier than the New 3DS, but that it doesn't "feel" heavy. It's still quite comfortable to use as a portable. I have talked to one or two people that didn't like the weight (they also thought the New 3DS XL was too heavy though).

It should at least feel more balanced than the 3DS, however. As it won't have the display hanging out one end. Which should counteract the feeling of weight when in use.

Regards,
SB
 
edit: played a bit more with my Switch this evening. The UI is incredibly immediate. Press a button and the thing reacts instantly. I know that's how it should be but PlayStation and Xbox don't feel this responsive. :nope: I reckon the OS is doing a lot behind the scenes to minimise interface delay.
PS Vita is even more responsive and has multitasking.
Also Switch method of handling multiple users is stupid.
Downloaded Dragon Quest demo from japanese eShop. Constantly ~20fps in battles and when transparencies involved.
 
Is the battery charging as slow as some places say? Where playing for 3 hours requires just about 3 hours to charge back up?
 
Is the battery charging as slow as some places say? Where playing for 3 hours requires just about 3 hours to charge back up?
I believe you need 3hrs to charge from 0 to 100. So playing 3hrs requires 3hrs charge is about right, if you're playing Zelda. What I'm interested in is whether it support quick charge, as in 60 to 80% full in less than 1hr then trickle charge or it is charging at the same rate all the way.
 
As far as I'm aware quick charging is not supported.

Anyway did anyone see the ifixit teardown pictures? There is so much free space around the battery, could easily fit another one in there. Wonder how long it will be before we'll see people attempting putting in larger batteries? Seems like the whole thing comes apart pretty easily.
 
I believe you need 3hrs to charge from 0 to 100. So playing 3hrs requires 3hrs charge is about right, if you're playing Zelda. What I'm interested in is whether it support quick charge, as in 60 to 80% full in less than 1hr then trickle charge or it is charging at the same rate all the way.
it does not support quick charge.
 
PS Vita is even more responsive and has multitasking.
What function can the Vita more quickly than the Switch equivalent? I have both. Evening browsing the store and built in help is so quick and fluid on Switch.

Also Switch method of handling multiple users is stupid.
And Vita's isn't!?!?
 
Nintendo-NVIDIA is in
http://time.com/4661055/nintendo-switch-interview/
"Whereas people who have been traditionally Nintendo handheld gamers, they may buy Nintendo Switch and then for example, if a new version were to come out later, then maybe they would decide to upgrade to that."
Most likely Nintendo will release a new mini version of the Switch as the successor of the 3DS, using older Tegra in the Switch makes sense with possible shrink in the roadmap.

After all the Switch is a handheld but unlike tablets or cellphones you can share the same screen with 2 or more people, on the launch day in my workplace when I saw people gathering around some desk I could know they brought the Switch there, it has nice viral/social effects to advertise itself.
 
Last edited:
What function can the Vita more quickly than the Switch equivalent? I have both. Evening browsing the store and built in help is so quick and fluid on Switch.
Going from left menu in store to games stutters a lot. Scrolling is not perfect either.
Also Switch does not have an option to change volume in quick home menu.

And Vita's isn't!?!?
PS4 is not.
It's interesting how much Switch menu resembles PS4 and Vita in everything.
Maybe Nintendo hired some Sony engineers :LOL:
 
Going from left menu in store to games stutters a lot. Scrolling is not perfect either.
I'm not getting that. eShop to Zelda, Zelda to eShop, back again.

Also Switch does not have an option to change volume in quick home menu.
Probably because there are hard volume button on device?
 
One has to say this for Nintendo and Switch - they really nailed the concept of a System Seller! The coverage Zelda is getting is definitely driving people to want a Switch. With such a strong launch title (98% metacritic), and one that has longevity to make up for a lack of a launch library, the value of the Switch in terms of 'having fun' is way up there.

With one game? In that case, the value of Wii U in terms of having fun would be off the charts, correct? That, in and of itself, isn't a very controversial statement (there are some excellent games on the Wii U) but I'm not sure I would use a single title as the yardstick for having fun value.

The take home message for the other console companies is, "this is how to appeal," and that's 'the games'. Not the features. Sticking a next-gen computer eye in the pack or removable controllers or any other feature without world-class software to make it meaningful is pointless. Nintendo did it with Wii, didn't do it with Wii U, and have done it again with Switch, and it's obvious the impact.

What metric are you using to quantify that that is the correct approach that others should use? It would seem to me the obvious one, the one other console companies would likely look at, is sales. Given that it just launched, I'm not sure the data exist to support that statement yet. Further, whether or not sales are spectacular, abysmal or somewhere in between it seems to me that there are other factors that are arguable just as important that one might look at when evaluating the Switch's launch and its overall health down the line for take away lessons. Including price, software lineup (software being used in its wider context), the state of the competition, the state of market its launching in, the positioning of the Switch in that market as a product, and the possible value propositions its offering to various consumers (which will vary by person but I suspect there's a handful of common key value propositions that could be put together). Looking back at some of the past consoles in recent memory those of some of factors that I think could be pointed to as key differentiators that ultimately impacted their overall sales.

If I were in charge, the moment I was given a new hardware concept to develop, I'd go to my software people and make sure that we had the most amazeballs couple of launch titles and include that in the project development as every part as important as the rest of the system.

Having a couple of amazing launch titles seems like solid advice in general. But I think your statement has some obvious assumptions built in, namely nailing the rest of the launch (including price, software lineup, features, etc.) in addition to some amazeballs launch titles. I'm not sure a strong argument could be made that Nintendo nailed the rest of the launch of the Switch outside of having an amazing launch game. Which is not to say that's your argument, its just to say that I'm not sure I would use the Switch as an example of a great launch. I suppose time well tell whether those other factors matter or not.

EDIT

TLDR: At the end of the day there are likely several lessons to take away from the launch of the Switch. If it turns out to be an amazing success, as a consumer there are some key lessons there I would rather the other console manufactures not take away and use examples of how to pull off a launch or of what's acceptable. Zelda BoTW quality launch title would be a prime example of what to do, some of the other factors, not so much.
 
Last edited:
I still think the console is a bit expensive for what it is, and 1,2 switch should have been bundled, its value is too low to purchase separately going by reviews...
Also unstable framerate on the reason #1 to purchase the console at release is not helpful.
 
With one game? In that case, the value of Wii U in terms of having fun would be off the charts, correct?
I'm talking launch. It's a lot easier to sell hardware a year+ in when there are lots of games, but at launch, how are you going to convince people to buy a new, expensive console? By offering an experience, be it LoZ, Wii Sports, Halo, whatever.

What metric are you using to quantify that that is the correct approach that others should use?
Internet chatter.
It would seem to me the obvious one, the one other console companies would likely look at, is sales.
Sales are pretty meaningless at launch. You invariably get a lot. If you want to gauge mindshare and whether the world is paying attention or not, media coverage and reporting is the metric of choice.

Having a couple of amazing launch titles seems like solid advice in general. But I think your statement has some obvious assumptions built in, namely nailing the rest of the launch (including price, software lineup, features, etc.) in addition to some amazeballs launch titles. I'm not sure a strong argument could be made that Nintendo nailed the rest of the launch of the Switch outside of having an amazing launch game. Which is not to say that's your argument, its just to say that I'm not sure I would use the Switch as an example of a great launch. I suppose time well tell whether those other factors matter or not.
Not sure where you read I'm saying Switch is great launch or has any bearing on the future. All I've said is it's better to come out with a 98% metacritic launch game that everyone's raving about, thereby promotion your new hardware for you, then a bunch of mediocre titles and promises and tech features and demos. How many people were eager to get an XB1 because of Kinect Fitness or Just Dance? How was the internet coverage for PS4's Playroom?

I wasn't even limiting by observation to Switch as I reference Wii (Wii Sports) and XBox (Halo) as to what a real system seller is and how it helps launch a product. Nor was I saying a great system seller is essential. The important point really is, where you say, 'Having a couple of amazing launch titles seems like solid advice in general,' it isn't a general rule and we don't often see system sellers of this calibre. Halo = 97%. ZBotW = 98%. KZSF = 73%. Ryse = 60%. Console companies aren't wielding system-sellers at launch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top