Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@Octane: I agree with you. I think, just for Mario, Zelda and Xenoblade alone that I will be purchasing a Switch at some point but I'm kind of relieved that I don't feel compelled to get one at launch now. The first half of this year especially is so jam-packed on PS4 and Xbox One so not having to budget around buying a new console is nice. And by the time I'm ready to get the Switch it may well have close to 10 games I really want and maybe even be available at a lower than $300 price point. I have a feeling some big announcements are being held back but even still, the game I really want is quite a bit away so I'm content to hold out. I do think this thing is a going to be a huge seller though, especially when Pokemon drops and it seems like a great console for the diehard Nintendo fan.

I like the idea and wish it all the best, but for me the pricing his a little higher than I would have liked. After blowing a wadge on PSVR, I need to justify new hardware purchases to myself and wife.

At £279 in the UK (I think it works out as, correct me at wrong), it is priced higher than an XB1 and PS4, and with games and accessories I'd have to make the choice between something like the PS4 Pro or even Scorpio and this. It makes the Switch more of a wait and see risk, which I think will be the what a lot of non-Die hard Nintendo fans. That won't help third-party support.

I was hoping for around the £200 mark for launch. I'm not sure they could have afforded it with the state of the hardware but if it were priced closer to a traditional handheld on the market now it would make a big difference. I really want to like this device having missed the Wii U generation but in March, if I had the cash (I don't) I would probably put the money down on a Pro where I know I will use it than this. Still variety is the splice of rice as they say.

Welcome to Nintendo last home console...such a shame to even think this but after wii u and now switch i think its inevitable, no one does it quite like Nintendo and thats where the problems start...

@teknium_:
To be fair shouldn't we at least let them launch the system first and see how it does before calling it the last Nintendo console? It wasn't the greatest presentation of all-time but some of the reaction has been overly dramatic.

@Gamer83: im 45yo and Nintendo has been a huge part of my gaming life,but its a sad state of affairs when being different is the wrong way to go and i think this will be nintendo downfall with switch as much as iove what ive seen there is a little part of me that wishes nintendo had made a "box" without all the bells and whistles that switch has, that was able to compete with sony and ms but also had the best 1st party games bar none

@teknium_: Well, I completely understand the concern and I actually agree that going for a more straight forward approach would've been my preference. I was hoping for a console at least more capable than the base PS4 and close to PS4 Pro performance, but it is what it is. A lot of people have also asked Nintendo for years to merge the home and handheld divisions and now the company has effectively done that. Last time Nintendo went toe-to-toe in the hardware arms race ended in a disaster when it lost to Sony, massively, for a second time in a row but was also edged by a new come once again this time in MS a company which released a console that failed to gain much support outside of Western studios. So I can't completely argue with Nintendo's direction this time around. Could it end bad? Sure, anything is possible but this is mainly a handheld system, at least it seems that way to me, and a Nintendo handheld has never failed. This will also be the first time Pokemon will be playable on the television set, that can't be underestimated.

That's never going to happen, though. Nintendo can never, ever compete with MS and Sony on that front. They just can't. They don't have the resources or financial clout. Not to mention that for their own games, there isn't much point.

What Nintendo can do is create the absolute best platform for their own titles, for as long as they are able to do so without doing a Sega and resorting to becoming a software company. And for that alone the Switch looks fantastic. Zelda and the new Mario look wonderful, and the idea of being able to take that away with me for my lunch break at work or on the plane is very exciting.

Not sure I'll get one at launch either, trying to decide between getting this and a PSVR in 2017, so we'll see I guess.

I honestly think ms might be headed the same way with scorpio, why would i need such a supposedly powerful and quite likely expensive console when i could throw a little bit more money at half decent pc and play all ms exclusives on that?... Im not a big fan of what sony did with pro but i can see it happening again over the next few years, soft launch a console "evolution" mid cycle of a current console...

That Nintendo Switch presentation was absolutely terrible.

Since i loved my vita it always bugged me that the 3ds with those ugly games beat the crap out of the vita. Now i can game on the go with console like games. In february i start as CPA at Ernst and Young and since i have to travel a lot this thing is perfect. Im in doubt wether to pre order or not :/ but that Mario game made me excited.

Switch charge is expected to last 2-6hours...what do you think it will be realistically 1.5-4hours?

@teknium_: 2-6 hours is also what the vita does. I game like 1 /2 hours max.

I've just read up on all of the details and the switch has some serious serious issues for gamers like us pushsquare regulars, my major 3 gripes so far;

$70 joycons
No no no no no. This is criminal. If I had a switch I would always have this in the back of my mind. We go through controllers, I'm on my 2nd ps4 controller. I'm not paying that no chance.

32gb storage
Welcome to 2017 Nintendo. That storage in a console is ridiculous!

Paid Online service
I pay Sony in my eyes for the IGC (rightly or wrongly) this terrible Nintendo offering is just a cash grab. They have the biggest back catalogue of all. How about rewarding your fans?

Really unimpressed, the only positives to come out of this presser are the wii u may drop in price and I can finally play Windwaker in hd.

@Sanquine: That's not strictly true. The Vita can game for 5 hours 30 mins, I've timed it on a train journey.

We're probably going to have to wait and see where the Switch's battery sits, but honestly, running a game like Zelda on the go was always going to be a big ask. I imagine it'll hug the three hour mark more than it does six hour.

Really underwhelmed by the presentation. I'll get Zelda on WiiU ...intrigued by retro stuff like Octopath traveler and Ultra Street Fighter 2: The Final Challengers.

@themcnoisy:

Agreed about the joycon prices. Just ridiculous nonsense. They better be the most high-quality controllers ever made or that price tag is going to be a real pain for some people ,especially parents of younger children.

_{Language -Tasuki-}

@get2sammyb: @themcnoisy: Pretty sure I saw it reported that battery will last UP to 3 hours with Zelda. That's pretty poor in my opinion, considering with volume and brightness you'll probably end up getting 2 hours. Somebody has also pointed out that the charging port would prevent you from charging whilst using the kickstand...that's poor design if that is the case.

Not quite sure what I was expecting from the conference but was disappointing. Other than Zelda and Mario (not launch) there wasn't anything interesting. The 3rd party showing was concerning, they barely announced any games. I'll be keeping my eye out in the time to come on what games get announced for the console and might buy it when the library looks good

I think what I am taking from this forum and friends is that everyone is having a wait and see attitude. Now obviously this is a Playstation site but most here are also cross platform gamers and if a lot of people are waiting to see what the support is like or how it performs etc. I think it is safe to say that it hasn't completely wowed everyone.

I thought the same about the Wii it has to be said and boy was I wrong there so I won't bet against Nintendo but I would say that the presentation had a lot of things going on but nothing that seemed to hook most. Some great gaming concepts but no idea how much developers will support them or if they are another gimmick. Some great looking games but hardly any at launch. Mobile but battery life has a question mark .Price is a little higher than expected (though not catastrophic) but then accessories make it more expensive than the current top of the line competitor.

@teknium_: What Nintendo appear to have done is look at their most successful devices in recent years and combine those into one. It has the portability of a gameboy, motion of the Wii and even has the virtual NES/SNES too. At most you can question there future proofing of this device - it does lack the power of its rivals and some of the other competition and with the 4k HDR era starting to take a foothold, you could question whether this will last the distance - especially at the price point. For the money, you can buy an XB1s and have a 4k HDR Bluray player and access to all the latest games and BC on the XB360 games, buy a PS4 Slim and again have access to all the latest games and VR, bluray player or for a bit more, the PS4 Pro with upto 4k games, a bluray player and VR. Games look quite colourful and typically Nintendo but I would hardly say they were on the same level as Uncharted 4 or Forza - different games I know. Skyrim looked OK but I bet it won't run at the same 'visual' settings as XB1 or PS4 - definitely not in 4k like the Pro. Lets not forget that its still a PS3 era game and games like Mass Effect: Andromeda won't be coming to Switch. Maybe that's not important for many here who maybe see the Switch as a 2nd Console but if you were also considering a Pro or Scorpio, maybe have or will be upgrading your TV to a 4k (HDR?) TV, even the XB1s could be a better 2nd console with its 4k HDR Bluray player as well as a 'decent' collection of exclusives. Mid cycle upgrades, like the Pro, were born out of necessity. We are moving into the next gen of display technology and VR launched as well. The PS4 (and Xbox One) are still very firmly planted in the HD era and as more and more people upgrade into 4k/HDR, these are a step into that. If the PS3 wasn't due out for a good few years, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a PS2 Pro to offer HD. Both the XB360 and PS3 launched relatively close to the start of the HD era - 4k has been around for a few years now and Sony are not ready to release its next gen console - so we got a Pro. Neither Sony or MS could build a 4k and VR ready console 3years ago at the price point they wanted. Yes VR works on a PS4 but it still as to compromise on resolution, visual effects and frame rates - at best its 'adequate'. Point is though, mid-cycle was necessary to future proof this generation. Whether we see a PS5 Pro or not could well depend on whether Sony need to future proof its next gen console or whether it has the power to see it through that era. Maybe if 8k and/or VR leap forward and the PS5 can't (or only just) copes we could see a PS5 Pro - assuming the hardware needed is cheap enough too at that point and games are being built for that technology.

Maybe if 4k hadn't come to households until 2017, Sony maybe would have opted to hold out a year or two with just a PS4 Slim and then built a PS5 for the 4k HDR era instead. Circumstances around them (and MS) ultimately drove these to make mid-cycle consoles. Its not as if developers aren't making games in 4k either - another aspect that may have contributed to these companies. Most games are built in 4k and scaled down for consoles. I bet all AAA games in the last 2 years were built in 4k and then scaled down to 1080p (or less) for the console market. Building a 4k console isn't going to affect the developers. They aren't going to suddenly have to rebuild their games at higher resolution. It means that when it comes to porting, they don't have to scale them back as much. The software is already in place which again makes the decision to build a mid-cycle console an easier decision.

The Scorpio isn't likely to be 'cheap' but I doubt MS will be selling it at the same price as a decent win10 PC with a 4k HDR Bluray player. You would need a Win10 PC and Xbox type profile to play Xbox exclusives and Win10 alone costs around £90-100 if you wanted to upgrade. Of course you could spend more and get a decent PC, but to take advantage of the PC, you would need a decent monitor. I know you can plug them into a TV but then limit yourself to 60fps, more input lag (PC's often have a bit more lag than consoles - maybe not always noticeable though) etc and that seems to be a waste of a PC to me. Spend all that money just to use it as a console? If you do go the PC route and opt to have a decent PC set-up to optimise gaming, it can get very expensive - Win10 gaming PC, gaming keyboard/mouse, decent 4k monitor, Speaker system, desk/chair (assuming you have the space for this) etc. Don't spend enough on the right parts (CPU/GPU/RAM) and you may need to upgrade sooner. I wonder how those that spent $1k on a TitanX are feeling now a $400 GTX1070 beats it less than a year later?

I doubt the Scorpio will be more than $600 at the very most - Probably around the $500 - More than Pro and any other current console of course and I expect the Pro to drop in price by then too so $500 would be $150+ more expensive than current consoles. I know it won't offer native 4k/60 in every game and maybe a lot will be 4k/30 at most with some using similar techniques to give a 4k presentation as the Pro.

People will always prefer the simplicity of consoles and userbility. Its often just 'plug and play' and fits in with their set-up, sits under the TV, plays games etc. Some people don't want the hassle of PC's and just want to relax and play games from the comfort of their sofa.

Anyway getting back to the topic, the Switch is sandwiched between the release of the Pro and Scorpio - both of which are very much looking to the future and at least trying to deliver an experience to match up to the technology they are connected to. In terms of power, the Switch cannot match up with the 3yr old consoles its pricing itself alongside. Power isn't everything of course, you can have the most powerful hardware but if the software can't use it or developers don't create something for it, its pointless. Power though can help prolong the hardware and ensure it keeps up with the competition - by that I mean give developers a chance to port modern games over to it. Nintendo have a huge back library from being in the business for so long and it seems that they may rely on that to deliver a steady flow of games rather than offer developers a platform to bring their latest creations to it. Even if they do, would you want to play a game like Mass Effect, Cyberpunk (or whatever 3rd Party game you like) on a Switch or Pro/Scorpio - especially if you have a 4k TV? Maybe if you game a lot on the go I guess. Given the choice of these in (upto) 4k HDR or (upto) 1080p (or 720p on a 6.2" screen) with maybe lower visual settings/frame rates, its an easy decision for me.

I don't game on the go so its mobility is immaterial. I own a 4k HDR TV and whilst the Switch may appeal on a nostagic level - a console to offer a lot of Nintendo's old games (as well as a few 'fun' new ones), I can't see it competing with my Pro or XB1s (SScorpio if/when I upgrade). The money I save by not buying the Switch can go towards the Scorpio. I also won't have to have yet another online subscription either.

I am not knocking Switch or Nintendo's decision - more explaining why I won't be buying. I am sure some will get a lot of enjoyment and use from it but I can't see myself using it and like the Wii (my last Nintendo), it will become a dust collector.