Rootax
Veteran
And even that... I guess it will sell ok at start, zelda and gimmick effect, but after that...
What MS, Sony, Nintendo should be or are doing next
- Thread starter Nesh
- Start date
And even that... I guess it will sell ok at start, zelda and gimmick effect, but after that...
I think it simply won't see AAA cross platform but probably some indie cross platform support for medium to small scale titles. Look at the Vita for an idea of what might happen, you'll get a FIFA game but you'll only get roster update 'releases' from then on but the indie scene has been great. I just don't see there being the return on investment to try and cram a large modern game on there unless Nintendo really blow the door off with unit sales in the first few years.
I just watched a video on youtube, and a final comment really hit home with me. Does anyone really look at games like Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros, and Splatoon, and see ugly games? I would say 99% of the time the answer is now. This isn't the 360 to Wii downgrades we saw back in 2007. To you average consumer, your better looking 360/PS3 games still look good today, and to the vast majority of consumer, if you told them a given 360 game were a XB1 game, they wouldn't know the difference. Your average consumer isn't me and it isn't you, your average consumer doesn't frequent gaming or tech forums. Odds are because of our own personal preferences and bias, we are at a disadvantage when trying to figure out just what will sell well with the mass market.
Even more so when we they will be mostly looking at these games on a 6 inch display, as Switch will mainly be used portable.
And most "averagers" are quite content with 720p on a 1080p screen.
Rootax
Veteran
The average consumer still need games and a "hype" around a product. Wii sold very well but bombed for me, usage rate was low, it was a dust collector. Wii U bombed too. Good games, but not enough. I wonder how the Switch will change that. More big N game because of 1 platform, but... 3rd party won't do aaa game on that... I even wonder if most dev will use the 7xx mhz graphic mode, and not just stick with the 3xx speed, so no trouble testing the game with another gpu speed. Honestly, if it was just a portable device, successor of 3DS, I would applaud. But this as a home console ? It's worse than the Wii U imo, because, at least the Wii U was not far off XB360 and PS3 power wise. Now, they get out a little powerful console, but it's waaaayyyy weaker that xbone/ps4.
And I don't want to hear "oh Nintendo doesn't compete against them". Well, they don't decide that. Nintendo is a console maker, trying to get under your TV. MS and Sony too, end of story.
And I don't want to hear "oh Nintendo doesn't compete against them". Well, they don't decide that. Nintendo is a console maker, trying to get under your TV. MS and Sony too, end of story.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
The problem is not so much with the portable part as with the whole hybrid part. If Nintendo would have said here you go, Switch is our 3DS replacement nobody would have cared about specs. Nintendo handhelds never had great specs but they always had great games that worked really well on a handheld. Fine.
But they are marketing Switch as a portable home console. At least I expected a device that in docked mode would be "powerful" in the sense of nudging a bit more towards Xbox One rather then maybe-slightly-above-wuu460. In handheld mode I expected it to perform like a high'ish end soc you find in smartphones.
If the rumors are true Switch will end up 1.5 generations behind on the big screen so underwhelming at best and in portable mode graphics might look decent but battery life won't be great and the device looks rather large so it's not nearly as portable as a 3DS and I doubt it will be cheap either.
So instead of what could have been a win-win it now looks like a lose-lose.
But they are marketing Switch as a portable home console. At least I expected a device that in docked mode would be "powerful" in the sense of nudging a bit more towards Xbox One rather then maybe-slightly-above-wuu460. In handheld mode I expected it to perform like a high'ish end soc you find in smartphones.
If the rumors are true Switch will end up 1.5 generations behind on the big screen so underwhelming at best and in portable mode graphics might look decent but battery life won't be great and the device looks rather large so it's not nearly as portable as a 3DS and I doubt it will be cheap either.
So instead of what could have been a win-win it now looks like a lose-lose.
Switch/NX has always been about Nintendo doing more and being more than just a handheld company, to turn their fortunes around. So all the expectation/hope from gamers like us discussing was that Nintendo would have a change of heart and actually do something significant and effective business-wise to grow their audience beyond their loyal fanbase. The idea of a 2-in-1 console was different and maybe, if it got the third party support, could have attracted some of the shopper who otherwise will buy PS or XB. Instead we have just another handheld in real terms.
And evaluated from that perspective it's a handheld way bigger than 3DS so not as portable, with a gimmick. Was it really worth it? Is docking and sliding off the controls to make a separate controller really worth the whole design and implementation we have if the things just going to be a handheld? Or would N. have been better off with a 3DS replacement focussed on portability?
Because of Business and Competition. You can't complain that 3rd parties don't want to risk money supporting a platform that may be a financial loss. It's the same reason we don't get AAA ports to Vita or Wii U, or the many pretender consoles like Ouya, or AAA games for VR. Competition means there are enough platforms to cover 95% of all gamers - two consoles, PC, and mobile - and it's Nintendo's job to compete and make a viable platform; it's not the devs' and pubs' job to charitably support a new platform to make it a success.
If Nintendo want a wider audience, they need to provide a console with wider appeal. If they don't, they'll have a smaller appeal and smaller potential audience. They're free to make whatever choices they want, and they'll live with the consequences, including the Internet's armchair analyses and complaints/praises from potential consumers.
If Nintendo want a wider audience, they need to provide a console with wider appeal. If they don't, they'll have a smaller appeal and smaller potential audience. They're free to make whatever choices they want, and they'll live with the consequences, including the Internet's armchair analyses and complaints/praises from potential consumers.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I think someone confirmed that trailer is rendered using UE4 on PC and the devs don't even have a Switch dev kit.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
VR doesn't enter that list.
There's already Resident Evil 7 with full game support for VR.
My guess is within a year at least most driving and space simulators for the PS4 will support PSVR. And there's a good chance platformers will follow suit, as Bound already set a good precedence.
Come Scorpio and multiplatform AAA games that support PSVR will support Scorpio's VR too.
In the end, anything but fast-paced FPS games can easily become VR-able, and as time goes by there will probably be reduced effort to support VR.
It depends. Is it better to be a medium sized fish in a tiny pond or a medium sized fish in a massive sea? Selling to 20% of 1 million Switch owners isn't as profitable as selling to 5% of 250 million consoles and PCs. Early on, expect plenty of indie titles on Switch as they benefit from the visibility of being launch titles. Beyond that, it'll depend entirely on how much it costs to port versus likely sales, just like Wii U or Vita.
The competition is actually pretty limited. Nintendo don't make a FIFA or GTA or Halo or Skyrim, so anyone wanting to play these sorts of games needs third parties on a platform. And where these devs already have hundreds of millions of customers, Switch representing a few percent makes it too small to bother with unless it's incredibly easy to port.
Ports to VR aren't the same as supporting VR. We've heard repeatedly that VR needs games to be designed for it and ports themselves don't work well. Perhaps that's not true and ports will map? But right here, right now, there aren't meaningful numbers of AAA titles on VR and no-one's really investing in them. See the VR Software thread. eg. Facebook is funding a VR exclusive with the funds almost spent on the original Gears Of War, so a fraction of what a modern AAA title needs. And that's Facebook with limitless monies and an interest in making their platform meaningful!
Wii U, Vita, VR, are presently and for the next year not being targeted by big games. Switch is likely to be similar when it launches for the same business reasons.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
That's like saying it sounds idiotic not to sell refrigerators in Artic regions because you have less competition apart from the fact its always freezing there so nobody needs a fridge. Which is the situation Nintendo is in. Their games are good but there is a lot of genres they don't cover. There would be plenty of space for competition but not if Nintendo comes along with hardware that requires devs to build a completely new game. Why would anyone bother with that when ps4/xbox one/pc is a 100 million plus market which you can serve with essentially the same game?
Thats what everybody got so hyped up about. A Nvidia soc that looked like it could be powerful enough to allow for reasonably straight forward porting when in docked mode. The added bonus over ps4/xbox one would be that in portable mode you would be able to play those games everyone, making up for what looks to be a bulky device with limited battery life.
But as it looks even in docked mode the T1 will be clocked so low next years smartphones are going to be faster if current socs aren't already.
Do you have the source? Curious
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Some people have stated that. It doesn't make it automatically true for a significant portion of the population.
Bound is a platformer that is a spectacular experience in VR. Resident Evil 7's "VR port" is breathtaking and a significantly more immersive and scary experience than playing it on the screen despite the lower detail overall.
Ask 10 people what they think is the best Playroom VR demo was and 9 of them will tell you it was the Mario-like 3D platformer.
Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes works wonderfully in both 2D monitors and VR mode.
I'm convinced what VR really needs to go off is not a bunch of money thrown into AAA exclusives that will undoubtedly lose money (because the userbase is tiny and fragmented), but instead a little extra effort to just enable VR viewpoints on the next Gears of War, FIFA, Tomb Raider and others.
Not to mention just have DICE make a X-Wing / TIE Fighter reboot in time for ep. XIII or IX and people will be buying PSVR in droves.
This is beside the OP though.
Point is VR on PS4 is still powerful enough to warrant title parity. Switch on mobile mode is not, if the 2 SM @ 300MHz rumor is true. Which I increasingly think it may not be, BTW.
https://twitter.com/LaurakBuzz/status/810896657437048832
Last edited by a moderator:
It looked like a lose-lose since the concept was revealed. Most people could predict clearly then, this choice would mean a overengineered handheld and an underpowered tv console. That's simply limitations of real world technology. The spec leak are sure informative, but not in any way a revelation to those with realistic expectations.
That said, it might find its market, we never know...
