Nintendo Switch thread

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
Did anyone besides me get a Nintendo Switch? Zelda Breath of the Wild is easily one of the best games I have ever played. It is officially the highest rated video game of all time as well.
 

BigRedRage

Reckless
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
48,274
Reaction score
12,524
Location
SE valley
It's looks intriguing and fun but I probably won't buy it. I haven't owned a Nintendo since the Wii when it dropped and even that I didn't use much. If I had more time to game I'd be all over it though

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,343
Reaction score
3,939
I have a Wii U and will get it on that. Not paying $299 for the power of 2007. Then needing a sdcard, and a pro controller, and next thing you know it's up there past PS4 Pro and nearing rumored Scorpio pricing.

Literally, the raw power is similar to that of a 8800 GTS from May 2007, when docked. (architectural improvements increase the efficiency a bit, but not by much). Obviously far less power when undocked.

It's got launch buzz now, but they have almost no games in the pipeline (only ~80), almost no Western 3rd party support, and cost more then PS4/XB1 and they come with a controller and 500gb hard drive, plus AAA 3rd party support. Also for Switch, you need to pay for online. (though rumored to be about $25-30).

When the average consumer sees Switch, XB1, PS4, PS4 Pro, Scorpio all next to each other, they likely won't buy Switch. It costs more, and won't play the games everyone talks about. The call of duty's, the witcher's, the cyberpunk 2077, Fallouts, Battlefield's, etc. Switch serves a niche, but when you can buy a PS4 with a pro controller, and 500 gb hard drive...with guaranteed 3rd party support and get games such as Call of Duty with it (the deluxe one with basically two CoD games inside it with modern warfare remastered) for $249.99 and Switch costs $299 (with nothing except a pair of crazy Joy cons), it's going to struggle eventually.

It's pretty sad they could of made a $299 3 TFlop machine and given BOTW at 4k/60. Instead they gave us 720-900/30 with dips all for the sake of portability, that likely 70-80 percent of gamers don't care for and definitely don't want to compromise on power and price for it. That also makes it performing just a bit better then the Wii U version (Wii U's framerate will dip to 15 or so while Switch bottoms out at about 20).

It definitely will be a hit for those owning 3DS and other mobile devices. But console/pc gamers want more power and support.

But the system even with a 25 percent boost clock to mobile still clocks in at about 0.19 TFlops undocked and 0.39 TFlops docked.

A $379 GTX 1070 is 6.5-7.2 TFlops. PS4 Pro for $399 is 4.2 TFlops. Scorpio is rumored to be 6+. GTX 1080ti when clocked at 2000mhz is rumored to be ~14 TFlops. Volta/Vega is coming for Nvidia/AMD. We'll be at 30-40 TFlops in no time. So 0.19-0.39 is not going to get all that much support.

Even Nintendo is saying they might make 'another' handheld, and is still committed to the 3ds. That means less games for Switch, especially if they decide to make another handheld. I'd rather have a competitive console.

So in essence, Nintendo has given me and many others absolutely no reason to purchase Switch. If people care about portability, great, if not... it's far worse at launch then Wii U.

Even Wii U had 26 3rd party games at launch, including Mass Effect 3, Assassin's Creed III, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Batman: Arkham City, Zombi U, Madden, NBA2k13, Fifa, etc, etc. (but that's also because Wii U at the time was more powerful then 360/PS3, so it could get ports... Switch is massively far behind and won't).

Just about every 3rd party game I've seen announced is based off a PS3/360/Vita version of a game. Nintendo's 8th generation 'console' is still stuck at 6th generation power compared to everyone else. Oh it's more powerful, but not by much. In the end it's like less then 1/4th the power of PS4 (when docked aka its power mode), yet costs more and is 3 1/2 years newer.

Also there is CEMU, which is a Wii U emulator, they already got BOTW up and running on it. The authors use Patreon to crowd fund their development and they said 2-4 months it'll be playable. They've already showcased screenshots of BOTW running at 4k.

That's the funny thing Nintendo doesn't realize. With their games trying for a visual level far behind Sony/MS/Western AAA devs, they could of had a device that could do their 1st party games, ALL of them, at 4k easily. $299 for 4k Nintendo games? Yep. (possibly $349).

Overall Switch should sell a good deal more then Wii U, but even with the fail of Wii U, Wii U+3ds had 80 million in sales and counting, so... Switch better beat that or it's worse off. Unless they do make a new handheld.

I think $299 plus expensive needed peripherals (for many) will keep the casuals away, who also still have no problem gaming on their phones which they already carry and are far more functional. Few casuals want to carry around ANOTHER device.

Oh and if you want to play Switch online and use online chat, you need to route it through a smartphone app. It's pretty convoluted.... and then you'll likely need a new headset because your PC/PS4/XB1 probably likely isn't designed to work on your phone. The cost for entry is pretty dang high, and way too high for a Nintendo only box for most.

Also the ads are pretty hilarious. Play it in the classroom, in the library, rooftop party, while cooking breakfast on the stove. The ads are pretty out there. Who does those things?

So in essence, if people are looking for a handheld, get a Switch... if you are looking for a console, with console games, pro controllers, digital downloads, etc... it doesn't look good.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
It is clear that Nintendo isn't vying for the ultra high end gamer/4k market. That has NEVER been their marketing base. Besides, you are comparing the specs of a $379 video card against a system that is $300 total. It is never going to be a fair fight.

Nintendo has always been about the games. When they have great games early in their console cycle, they do well. When they don't, they don't. Simple as that. BOTW is by far one of the best games that I have ever played in my life and I have been an avid gamer for over 30 years.
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,343
Reaction score
3,939
It is clear that Nintendo isn't vying for the ultra high end gamer/4k market. That has NEVER been their marketing base. Besides, you are comparing the specs of a $379 video card against a system that is $300 total. It is never going to be a fair fight.

Nintendo has always been about the games. When they have great games early in their console cycle, they do well. When they don't, they don't. Simple as that. BOTW is by far one of the best games that I have ever played in my life and I have been an avid gamer for over 30 years.

What I was saying is that they could give 4k gaming at $299, because Nintendo's graphical style is more artistic then realistic and it could be done at 3 TFlops.

$379 video card can be used to make a system from 2009 (like an i7 920) back in the game. It's considered upper midrange for 2016. For many people, a simple GPU upgrade can take a years old PC and breath 2-4 years of good life into it, and be the only outlay needed. I'm not talking about building a PC from the ground up.

So there are people who are looking for $300-400 to spend to enhance their gaming experience. Many people can choose just to upgrade their video card like a GTX 1070, or buy a PS4, or PS4 Pro, or XB1 and get much more value for their money.

But the fact is, even PS4 Pro costs less then a Switch if you take into account pro controller+SD card, and it has 4.2 Tflops. It's not even midrange. Heck in some locations around the world a Switch by itself is almost the price of a PS4 pro.

The platform for gaming is only enhanced with better power. 3 TFlops or portability for a console? That was the tradeoff. That's a drawback to many. I and likely most others would rather have the power.

There is no reason they couldn't of had two devices. A console and a handheld with unified software so that the console could run the handheld games.

Also they did use to play for power. Nes slogan was 'now you are playing with power'. SNES 'now you are playing with power...super power'. Gamecube at the time was the most powerful console system. They at these times WAS the console of choice for AAA 3rd party games from EA, Activision, etc.

That stopped when they went with low power devices.

It's only since Wii that they went the opposite route. But they had motion control gaming which blew up. That's over. Without something like that, their systems sit on their own merits for 1st party games that are few and far between.

1st party games that are objectively great, but can be let down performance wise. It's just sad to see it again with Switch. $299 definitely could of built a system that had great performance.

Wii U was more powerful then PS3/360, but not by much and just about everyone waited for Sony/MS because just two months after launch we had Xbox One reveal and then PS4. But the gamepad in Wii U was literally more expensive then the console, so instead of competing against PS4/XB1, they created a gamepad with few uses. (Now with Switch, instead of being competitive, they are doing portability... which is better then simply a dumb client gamepad, but more of trying to make their 2007 vision they wanted out in 2011 right, except its 2017 and smartphones exist)

What Switch is, is literally the power of a top end cellphone from 2018-2019. So, in its expected lifetime, smartphones will become more powerful.

It's not that they're not competing for ultra high end. They aren't competing for high end, mid range, or lower midrange. It's basically a repackaged Nvidia Shield at lower clocks, with some customization in the chip. But 0.19 TFlops to 0.39 TFlops is really, really low. Great for a handheld, but severely underpowered for a console.

Heck right now a GTX 1050 is $109 and basically matches the power of a PS4, and $139 gets you 2.1 TFlops. Those are low end chips. A GTX 1050 is ~9x-10x the power of Switch undocked and 4-5x docked. Low end chip for $109. Switch can't even come close to competing with a low end chip. Again PS4 with games, pro controller, and 500 GB's for $249. An amazing value compared to Switch.

Even if they don't go for 4k... 1080/60 BOTW would be much more amazing then 720-900/30 fps with dips. Same game with those performance numbers would be much more enjoyable.

Literally the reason I'm holding back on BOTW right now is I can't stand 15-20-30 FPS. Last game I bought that was 30 FPS was GTA V on PS4. The 25-30 FPS sucked so bad it destroyed the experience. Still somewhat fun, but massively annoying, and a degraded experience.

I wanted to see what the performance was via reviews, like what Eurogamer did.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...a-breath-of-the-wild-switch-vs-wii-u-face-off

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

It's performance leaves much to be desired on Wii U and Switch. In fact the best performance is actually on Switch undocked. So I might as well buy it on Wii U and eventually rip it to PC with CEMU so I can play at either rock solid 4k/30 or hopefully a 60 FPS option at 1080 or 4k.

What would better benefit Nintendo. I believe competitive hardware worthy of $299 price would benefit Nintendo more. A 3 TFlop $299 machine that can compete and create amazing standalone titles, or portable for the same price that can't compete, won't get AAA 3rd party games, and has massive compromises with it's own 1st party games? BOTW's performance is not very good on Nintendo hardware Wii U and Switch.

Even a 3 TFlop system could be an upgrade path from a PS4/XB1. Better multiplats and Nintendo 1st party games (that run much better then on Switch/Wii U) for the same cost.

This time around they have Zelda, which you can get on Wii U and plays basically the same minus portability (well other then gamepad portability within 30 feet or so). Other than that they have Mario Kart 8 coming out in a couple months (already on Wii U), Splatoon 2 (that'll sell) then you have to wait until Mario Odyssey (which looks OK, it's not open world). Everything else is 2018-2020.

They are one company. They don't put out a lot of content themselves, so it'll take time. After that you NEED 3rd party to fill in those gaps. If Sony or MS had to rely mostly on 1st party titles I'd say the same thing. But they have the 3rd party support needed to flesh out the system.

I like Nintendo games, but they're trying to compete against PS4/XB1/smartphones/tablets and each has distinct advantages over it.

Plus the much more powerful systems are cheaper, with addons Nintendo charges for, and a game or two packed in while Switch has none.

Don't be surprised that many of the games announced for 2017 are actually 2018 or 2019. At the reveal most of the games they showed, didn't even have gameplay. They had cutscenes, title scenes, or literally people who went up there simply to announce a game. When 5 1/2 year old Skyrim is one of the best things you show, they were literally scraping bottom of the barrel in terms of Switch gameplay.

I get what you're saying, that when they make good games, it usually sells, but there doesn't seem to be many in the pipeline. After Zelda what is the next one? Splatoon? Not really. Fun, but not a must have. Mario Oddessy looks ok.

Wii did great because of motion controls. Wii Sports literally sold Wii's by the tens of millions. Because it sold so much, 3rd parties created special versions of games. I don't see that happening with Switch very often. The better it sells, the more special ports they'll get. But it'll have to be selling very, very well. We'll know more about that by the end of Summer or so. Wii U started out well, and then dropped off the cliff after the Sony/MS reveals. Switch will do better because it pulls in the 3ds crowd, but it's still a secondary system for most. Very few will roll with a Switch as their only platform, and this generation lots of people are buying fewer consoles. They'll buy a PS4 or XB1, but not likely both, and while Switch offers Nintendo games, most people don't want to pay a premium for it.

Remember PS3 was $500-600 and Xbox 360 was $299-399. Wii was $249. Free online. It had the advantage in price big time. Now it's the opposite. It's the most expensive console out of the three. PS4 Pro is cheaper in some markets, even in the US if you want a controller plus storage.

When Scorpio might cost $50 more then a Switch+pro controller+SD card+game... plus online charge it's got some competitive issues. You also need to pay for a special lan adapter if you want/need to have wired gaming. Heck because it's a portable there's cases and stuff. Switch is a very expensive proposition compared to it's competitors.

We live in a different world now. Most casuals are 100 percent satisfied with their smartphones. Heck there are Nintendo games on smartphones with Mario Run, Pokemon go, and Nintendo is said to be planning 2-3 releases per year. So I don't think very many of them will run and buy Nintendo hardware because they are getting their Nintendo fix already. Even when Pokemon Go launched it maybe shifted 50,000 extra Wii U's/3ds for a month. It's just a different world now with smartphones.

I want Nintendo to succeed, it's just I don't see this as a success, unless we move the goal posts and say that 20-65 million Switch's sold is a success. Not from a company that used to be able to flog 150 million handhelds+consoles in a generation.

I also hope you love it dreamcast. To each their own. I just feel the majority of the public that wishes to buy a system (less with smartphones), wants a system that drastically performs better then smartphones, and Switch doesn't, while costing more then those that do perform much better. I just wish Nintendo did Zelda justice by having some platform with 1080/60 or even 900/60. Something more then bottom of the barrel performance especially when they have the newest system and Zelda isn't graphically complex.
 
Last edited:

redheat

A real American hero
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Posts
921
Reaction score
218
Way to ruin the fun around here...
It's Nintendo. They've got great 1st party games and an amazing back catalog that will eventually be available. If you want to play Nintendo games with an added bonus on the go then this is a great purchase.

While it's no technical marvel Nintendo always puts out quality games/consoles that are innovative, challenging and most importantly fun! Even PC elitist spec bags can agree with that.
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,343
Reaction score
3,939
Way to ruin the fun around here...
It's Nintendo. They've got great 1st party games and an amazing back catalog that will eventually be available. If you want to play Nintendo games with an added bonus on the go then this is a great purchase.

While it's no technical marvel Nintendo always puts out quality games/consoles that are innovative, challenging and most importantly fun! Even PC elitist spec bags can agree with that.

I'm not ruining the fun, just stating the situation it finds itself in. If Zelda and anything they've announced so far or is currently out make the $299 proposition worth it for you, that's great.

But it's always important to know what a system can or can't do. What it has going for it, or what it doesn't. Ignoring that can only invite disappointment later on that is not necessary.

Wii U, which I have, had support cut very early because it failed. Also hardware is not software. No one wants to buy a system and see limited supported, but that was Wii U. Wii got 6 years of solid support. Wii U got about a full year, with about 2 years decent, then a couple more games since finishing it off with Zelda. But it's basically been dead since 2015, and Western 3rd party since late 2013.

Will Nintendo launch a handheld? They've suggested they might. A Pro version is 2-3 years to keep ahead of smartphones and some level of support? If they might not want to, can they be forced too by how this plays out? Might be important to think about that before buying one. One of the biggest talking points before launch was a unification of their internal teams to produce content for one system, thus increasing the capacity level of support. But that might not be the case if Nintendo splits it and continues supporting 3ds.

You also don't need a Switch to buy their back catalog. There is also no disc backwards compatibility, unlike Wii U. All that stuff is currently available.

Not much is innovative about Switch. If Wii motion was 1.0, and Wii motion plus was 1.1, Rumble HD is like 1.3. The biggest innovation was 0 to 1.0. It's not a huge change. Meanwhile handheld gaming has been around since 1989 and hooking handhelds to tv's has been done before. Nintendo has been innovative in its past, but lately its modestly evolutionary, not revolutionary. Switch is firmly in only evolutionary status.

No one is bagging on anyone for liking a system, but people should go in with eyes wide open. People shouldn't bag up or down the ladder at people. It's equally wrong.

Specs may not matter to you directly, but they do matter to the system itself. Specs in various ways can limit a console and end it prematurely. They also indicate appropriate price. Just because some people bag on people because of specs, doesn't mean specs don't matter. For whatever reason one side can say it's all that matters, and on the other some say they don't matter. Both are equally wrong.

We only have Switch now because Wii U failed. Because their 'innovation' without much use failed and diverted resources from what would have given it longer lasting support. It caused guts that were $50 to be priced at $299-350 because of a ~$140 gamepad. Wii U was the first attempt at what Switch is. Switch is the 2nd attempt at the same idea.

Did that mean there weren't some fun games. Of course not, but most saw it as an unwise purchase because it saw such limited support.

It's always important to realize that the only one who knows how to satisfy your gaming needs (if any) is yourself. There is no right answer in that respect except for what you feel. If you feel certain things don't matter, it's right for you and vice versa for people that think they do. But at some point there is a spot along the continuum that matters that is outside of name calling stuff that impacts whether a system succeeds or fails. Price too.

Basically blind faith isn't advised with anyone, especially not Nintendo lately. A price drop, a packed in game, and see how it sells long term would be prudent, but some people may feel otherwise.
 
Last edited:

BigRedRage

Reckless
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
48,274
Reaction score
12,524
Location
SE valley
I wish Nintendo would drop console making and become a 3rd party publisher like Sega did. I can imagine they would sell 3x the copies on xbox and playstation than they do on their own console.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
I wish Nintendo would drop console making and become a 3rd party publisher like Sega did. I can imagine they would sell 3x the copies on xbox and playstation than they do on their own console.

Nintendo would rather go out of business than do that IMO.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
It seems so, and would be a huge shame. It sucks missing out on all the mario games and etc but I cant drop $500 just to play a few mario games.

Everyone is so quick to write off Nintendo, but last time it was reported that they have over 10 billion dollars in the bank. Billions. They aren't going anywhere even if their next 3 consoles fail.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,343
Reaction score
3,939
Everyone is so quick to write off Nintendo, but last time it was reported that they have over 10 billion dollars in the bank. Billions. They aren't going anywhere even if their next 3 consoles fail.


They also used to have much more money in the bank, at one point it was 20-30 billion. So they've bled alot of cash due to Wii U.

They are conservative with money. They tend to sell things only at a profit, keep prices high on their games. Few sales, and when they do, they are bad. That helps.

They also jumped into mobile games, using 3rd party developers and getting a cut. This has bolstered them, but they were rushing Switch out the door clearly unready (even after a 5-6 month delay from last fall) to appease investors and hit their target year. They also needed some infusion on the books for the new year or it would of been investor hell in the Japanese stock bubble that has rewarded Nintendo with a stock price far too high. They could of had a huge drop... massive if they showed some major weakness.

But the 2-3 mobile releases they plan a year will definitely help offset some of it. Amiibo helps too.

There's also been rumors of them licensing their stuff for more movies/media stuff. I think they did a deal with some amusement park.

For Switch they didn't have that much R&D and got a good deal by using Nvidia's Shield X1 (also known as TX1) and plopping that in their new device. It is indeed a 2 year old mobile part comparable to 9-10 year old desktop parts.

Nvidia was sitting on tons of X1's and they offloaded them rather then eat a total loss by selling them to Nintendo for Switch.

It's great for handhelds, but it's another Wii vs 360/PS3 level gulf in power, and would be worse if PS4/XB1 were actually powerful. PS4 Pro is basically what the Xbox360 was powerwise for the times IF PS4 Pro launched in 2013 instead of 2016. Cut the Xbox 360 in half or so and that's what PS4 was in 2013, and Xbox One a notch below.

So even with a much lower hurdle for Nintendo to jump over, instead of matching (they were given a gift and squandered it as 16nm was around for Nintendo versus 28nm for XB1/PS4) or surpassing, they just went from low power to ultra low power and now call a mobile setup a console, which they as a 1st party can partially get away with since their games still look like it's last decade. (great artistically, but simply behind the times in every other way massively)

But for 3rd party it's going to be very hard. Some people recently got all excited that Ubisoft had Cartman tweet 'Nin-ten-do I'm coming' and thought the new South Park game could come out. They flatly responded no, and it was talking about the cartoon.

The reason why people think they will fail is because they have had bomb after bomb hardware wise. They used to sell 150 million units, now they'll be lucky to sell 50-60 million Switch's. It could be far, far lower then that too. I've laid out the problems Switch's faces in the market so I won't rehash that again.

People wish to buy Nintendo games on other devices because Nintendo makes really bad hardware. It's a strange dichotomy. Great games, but their hardware is as equally bad as their games are good. Most people want one system, not two, and Nintendo can't be a #1 system for 80-90 percent of gamers. Heck for some they can't even be a #2 or #3 system. They'd literally be the fourth system for them (Sony, Microsoft, PC).

But they are very creative with peripherals, just rely far too much on them to offset crap internal hardware guts.

There's been plenty of problems (but most consoles have problems at launch) with Switch. Scratched screen from dock. Left joy con. Joy cons getting put on backwards too easily and becoming stuck.

Joy cons too easily sliding off. (this is would be one of my biggest fears with it, think about it... the things you hold onto your device with... detach). Over time, sliding them on and off will for some weaken their grip on it and you can bet many people will be breaking their Switch because of it. For some they were faulty to begin with.

Joy cons in the grip have horrible ergonomics with that right stick placement. Horrible. Worst I've seen. Worse then Wii U gamepad. Conversely the Switch gamepad has been getting some rave reviews, but that's a $70 add on for what everyone else packs inside the box.

Some think the left joycon issue is that Bluetooth uses a frequency that is absorbed by water (including water inside humans), and thus when you hold it, your hand is blocking the signal. The right joy con has a better antenna. The left joycon has a crap antenna, basically doesn't have one. Like literally only the right has a proper antenna. So it's literally bad design. But the right joycon isn't immune.

There's issues with cartridges falling out, issues where the cartridges aren't registering. Orange Screen. Blue Screen. Loud noises. Heck even issues where someone bought a game digitally, clicks on the icon, and it says... put in the cartridge. A few other things too.

But if you go back you can find numerous issues with other devices. It's just completely not ready. Online is in beta. No apps. No browser.

They are originally a card company, are fiscally conservative, so there are ways for them to stay afloat. But there indeed might come a time where they don't make hardware anymore. As is, they've (for at least now) given up on consoles and are calling their handheld a console. So in a sense, it's already here.

Meanwhile mobile/tablets has taken over the on the go gaming Nintendo used to dominate. So they have massive pressure on both fronts. Whatever they do, it'll have get past that.

I remember when people were pegging Wii U at 1 TFlop, it's just sad to see that Switch, it's successor still isn't even remotely close to that.

The die shot has confirmed it is a X1 off the shelf part in the first post in the thread below (the gif showing a comparison of a stock X1 and what's in Switch). So 393 GFlops docked basically confirmed. With two mobile modes garnering 153 and 193 GFlops. 256 Cuda cores.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1352765
 

BigRedRage

Reckless
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
48,274
Reaction score
12,524
Location
SE valley
maybe not having online is done on purpose to get you to buy extra controllers instead
 

CardsFan88

ASFN Addict
Joined
May 28, 2002
Posts
7,343
Reaction score
3,939
maybe not having online is done on purpose to get you to buy extra controllers instead

Nah but sort of, their focus is just a bit different. The joycons pretty much tell it all. It's included, a pro controller isn't. That's also going to make 3rd party games harder to come, because many people won't have a pro controller and the joy cons+ grip is a poor substitute.

They just are way behind the curve with it. They didn't take online gaming seriously so when Microsoft set the bar with XBLive and Sony rushed to catch up during PS3 era, Nintendo sat on its thumbs. Their franchises were traditionally single player or local multiplayer.

Wii U had a huge 1st day patch that basically installed everything. Even game developers were guessing up until a week or two before Wii U launch.

Now they are trying to up their game and investing in it, and thus why they will charge for it, rumored to be $25-30 dollars, and a 30 day rental per month of a NES/SNES game (which is really crappy compared to XBLive and PS+ games which you have access to as long as you keep the subscription).

But they are still focused more on single player and local multiplayer. Splatoon is really their biggest foray into a game designed around online multiplayer. Mario Kart is just a local multiplayer game that works with online so they added it.

Personally I think they could have a major hit on their hands if they made a Plants Vs. Zombies Garden Warfare type game but with their character. Call it something like Mario vs. Bowser: Mushroom Warfare. PvZ is a cartoony game, but it's one heck of an online shooter. Nintendo has all the characters needed (and two defined sides) to make it work.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
Now they are trying to up their game and investing in it, and thus why they will charge for it, rumored to be $25-30 dollars, and a 30 day rental per month of a NES/SNES game (which is really crappy compared to XBLive and PS+ games which you have access to as long as you keep the subscription).

..and it is also HALF of the price. Why are you expecting the same level of service from the two? Maybe you change your expectations?

Personally I think they could have a major hit on their hands if they made a Plants Vs. Zombies Garden Warfare type game but with their character. Call it something like Mario vs. Bowser: Mushroom Warfare. PvZ is a cartoony game, but it's one heck of an online shooter. Nintendo has all the characters needed (and two defined sides) to make it work.

This I could agree with, but they would be just as well off delivering a Super Smash Bros this year.
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
Splatoon had their first Test Fire for one hour a bit ago. Back to the best online shooter out there. (sorry Overwatch)
 

Bert

Walkin' on Sunshine
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Posts
10,139
Reaction score
3,234
Location
Arizona
I think a great solution to all this conjecture is you guys should all just play Overwatch with me. :p
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
Thanks but no thanks. :)
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
It will be thrown out of court quickly.

Man Splatoon 2 is so much fun. A game that finally pries me away from Rocket League.
 

BigRedRage

Reckless
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Posts
48,274
Reaction score
12,524
Location
SE valley
that game looks fun, no way I can justify buying a switch though, barely have time to play xbox =P
 

Ronin

…..
Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Posts
137,884
Reaction score
57,259
Location
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Nintendo Switch Eshop Adds Two New Games Today
Running around at the speed of sound.

A new pair of games is now available in the Nintendo Switch Eshop. Today, Sega's 2D Sonic revival, Sonic Mania, and the action-adventure game Troll and I join the console's library.

Sonic Mania in particular is a noteworthy release, as it marks a long-awaited return to form for Sega's series. The new 2D title hearkens back to Sonic's glory days, featuring the same visuals and gameplay as his iconic Genesis adventures. Reviewers have greeted Sonic Mania with nearly universal praise; in GameSpot's review, critic Matt Espineli awarded the game a 9/10 and called it a "charming celebration of the past and a natural progression of the series' classic 2D formula."

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-eshop-adds-two-new-games-today/1100-6452529/
 
OP
OP
dreamcastrocks

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,182
Reaction score
11,755
Sonic Mania is really good. I played that at E3. Feels very much like the Sonic of old.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
542,176
Posts
5,306,326
Members
6,290
Latest member
stbmd
Top