Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

Expand

@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.