Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@BAMozzy: Yeah, the more I'm thinking about it, the less sense it makes. Maybe a horizontal position isn't that logical after all.

The only reason I'm getting it, is because it can play Nintendo games on a TV. I assume that this replaces both systems, meaning no exclusive games for either the handheld or home console. Less time spent on games being developed for both systems (like two versions of Mario Kart for example), means more time to develop new games. At least, I hope the software output will increase. Of course, the entire concept can go either way, it really depends on a few factors how it'll turn out. I hope it becomes somewhat of a success and gets actual third party support this time. Only time will tell.

Before you buy a 4K TV, read this. http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

You need a quite large TV to get the resolution benefit from 4K TVs. You can still get a benefit from other features though, such as HDR. Personally, I would prioritize the other things on your list, they will probably give you a more direct boost in enjoyment.

I would say that the Switch can be good if you are travelling a lot, or if you are in the market for a secondary console. Nintendo has much less overlap than the other two, for good and for bad. Those two blonde girls(1) who were travelling in the back of the car and played Mario kart in multiplayer was a clear use case for us parents.

(1) Head canon, not to be confused with actual footage.

@Tasuki: Ah, ok. If I'm not mistaken, DQX was a pay to play game when it was first released. Wonder if it's still has a subscription fee now.

Anyways, from a design stand point, I don't think its practical especially if I want to clean the slot (where you dock the portable console) when there's dust in it. I also don't really like the button layouts for the portable controls as they don't seem comfortable to use.

@Therad: As someone with a 4k TV and read that report, I can tell you that according to that, I would need a screen size of over 105" based on my seating arrangement. However I can see the difference between 1080p and 4k quite clearly on my 55" TV. Watching SkyQ Football in 4k is noticeably better than HD - the grass has texture on the long distance shots which look 'flat' at 1080p. The level of detail - especially in the mid range is noticeably sharper too. Things like 'hair' remain sharper and in more detail for longer as someone moves away from the camera. Colour is more accurate too - you have many more pixels to accurately portray the colour. In a 1080p 10x10 grid, that allows for a potential 100 colours to make up that little part of the picture. something as fine as Hair for example may have 2-3 strands per pixel and if its not all the same colour, that pixel would 'average' out the colour - this is why we lose hair definition on 1080p. On a 4k TV that same size 10x10 grid (now 20x20) offers 400 potential colours which would mean it doesn't have to average out the colours so much and why Hair can still keep its definition.
On most 1080p TV's, you can't see the individual pixels either unless you get up relatively close but you can tell the difference between a 900p and 1080p game as the 1080p looks a bit sharper - particularly around finer details. 4k looks a lot sharper again.
There is a growing number of gamers here with 4k TV's and I bet most don't sit 2-3ft away from their screen yet ALL will tell you that 4k is noticeably sharper and better than 1080p. Even though I consider myself a gamer and at the time, no console offered above 1080p, a 4k HDR seemed the logical purchase. It is 'backwards compatible' and upscales all content to fit the 4k screen (that doesn't mean I have been gaming in 4k for years LOL) but I also use my TV to watch content too. A 'good' TV can enhance the gaming as well as my TV for example has incredibly low input lag. It seems that HDR gaming is the 'future' and the Pro is the first console to offer games over 1080p and up to 4k. The Scorpio next year is likely to offer (up to) 4k and HDR too so buying a 4k HDR TV is central to my entertainment set-up going forward.

Anyway that is off-topic and irrelevant here as the 'Switch' is unlikely to offer resolutions above 1080p. Of course it will still work on 4k TV's - the TV will upscale the content to fit.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-24-behind-the-scene...

The trailer concludes with the advisory: "Game footage not final, graphics and features subject to change."

are you sh*tting me? So, no skyrim on the go? I hope the graphics will get better not worse

@Sanquine: Not only was the footage shown not final, none of the games are actually confirmed (aside from Zelda), and none of them were actually running on Switch.

Yeah, seems as though this was intended to be more of a proof of concept video telling us what the Switch is and what it can do. The games shown were just used as examples.

I mean, a lot of them are safe bets. Obviously Zelda is confirmed, but a sequel to Splatoon and Mario Kart 8 and a new 3D Mario would hardly be surprising announcements.

In other news - Nintendo has announced a Switch presentation for the 12th January where we'll apparently learn some crucial details, such as pricing and software.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/10/nintendo_switch_pres...

@Sanquine: The last thing Nintendo would do is false advertisement. They know they got a lot of flak for things in the past. The Wii U didn't sell well, and this is, well I wouldn't say their last chance, but they really need to hit a home run with this console. I don't worry too much about that. I've seen more people that are skeptical towards what was shown in the trailer, but look at it this way: We're 5 months removed from launch, surely they have plenty of games ready by now. It's clear that many projects were pulled from the Wii U and moved to NX. Why would they show Skyrim when they know it isn't going to happen? They would've picked another game if that was the case. I guess it's just Nintendo being tight with NDAs and all that, they won't even confirm their own games. This trailer was all about the hardware, and that's what they want to focus on right now. I'm sure all those games will get confirmed during the January event.

@Kidfried: I do agree that Nintendo is competing with third parties on their own console, nothing to do about that. However, the main reason why people don't buy third party games is because most aren't interested in them. At least, not interested in games like COD or FIFA (I don't buy them on my PS4 either!). The problem is that the crowd that buys those games aren't on Nintendo consoles. People who are more likely to buy the new entry in COD or Battlefield will buy a PS4 or Xbox for that. The reason is that a Nintendo console has never been a serious contender for multiplat games. Especially the Wii and Wii U, during the times when multiplat games became more established than before. The games were often late ports, lacked features and most were never released at all on their system.

Now, the Switch is ''again'' underpowered compared to the PS4. However, we shouldn't forget the portable aspect. This is the first time that big console games can be played on the go. I think that's going to be a selling point. Hopefully they price the console accordingly and they may regain some of their success. Besides, let's not forget about the 60 million 3DS owners and 15 million Vita owners who will be looking for a replacement for their portable console. And if it also plays console games? Hopefully that'll be the selling point of this system. The library of games it'll receive. I find it hard to predict what will really happen, but it will do at least better than the Wii U, that's for sure.

@Kidfried: Having a console that only offers 1st party support limits the amount of software and of course choice. For those people who may buy the Switch as the secondary choice it may not be much of an issue but for those contemplating a console, the library of games is important.

The type of 3rd Party games offered can also make a difference. Why would I opt to buy a console if the majority of 3rd Party games releasing are in my collection on the XB360/PS3? Why buy a console when the big new games - the majority of releases - aren't being released to that console?

1st Party AAA releases are not exactly a steady stream of options and 3rd Party fills those holes. Its rare to go a whole month without a number of releases but 1st party software can be months apart.

Of course the Switch though does have an Ace up its sleeve (so to speak) in the mobility of it. Maybe for some the opportunity of playing 'older' games like Skyrim (if that does get confirmed) on the move as well as games like Fifa or CoD (2 of the biggest franchises) or even GTA as these all feature an online MP component too in a similar way to the social/mobile features demonstrated in the reveal video maybe enough temptation.

At my age, that type of mobile/social gaming is not something I want or appeals. I can see it working for my Kids in the back of the car on a long Journey or at times when they can't connect up to a TV because the 'parents' are using it but for me as a Parent/Adult etc, it has little benefit at all. Its a feature that I doubt I would use. I would much rather spend my money on a Tablet as that can offer more variety - music, films, games, internet browsing etc.

The Wii was very successful because it was unique. It appealed to a mass audience and importantly to non-gamers. The control scheme meant that anyone could play - including your granny who would never go near a console before but knows how to play 'tennis'. It appealled to my daughters because of this simplistic control screen and until Kinect came out with its Dance, Fitness etc games, they loved the Wii - now though they won't go near a console. Its why that became so universally successful. The WiiU targeted gamers and whilst the touchscreen did offer something unique, it wasn't enough to appeal to that wide 'non-gaming' sector that the Wii did.

Yes Nintendo have some great first party games and no doubt many will buy the Switch as a 2nd (or more) gaming device but I think Nintendo really need to make a console that could be someones only choice, offering a great library and regular stream of games etc 3rd Party support takes the pressure off Nintendo and its developers too. Were we disappointed with Horizon: Zero Dawns delay? A bit but also knew that 'gap' will be filled by a variety of 3rd Party games releasing.

Whilst the hardware itself seems quite revolutionary in a lot of ways, my impression at the moment is that software seems locked in the past in a lot of ways too.

All Nintendo needs to do is release Pokemon Go 2 and this thing will sell like hotcakes.

The marketing towards 20 something's is a change though, not a kid in the original video. Seems odd to me.

True!

And I guess they were just trying to appeal to the "hardcore" gamers with the reveal video.

It seem the Switch will support SDXC cards up to 128GB ...that seems pretty out of date to me. You want to play Skyrim? Say hello to your 20 GB patches on day two...

@themcnoisy: Pokemon GO hype is pretty much gone. Will be difficult to repeat that with just a sequel or something like that.

@Feena: That's a strange rumour though. If it supports SDXC, it also supports 256GB, 500GB, and up to 2TB in theory.

@Octane: I hope so but it seems there is a limit! I hope the internal storage is not phone -sized because it will be pretty expensive to get the larger cards if it is compatible: 70€ for 128GB on amazon

@Feena: Yeah, price for SD cards is definitely an issue. Going digital is barely an option anymore. It depends on the games' file sizes, but buying a 128GB on top of every 5-10 games will become pretty expensive. Especially if you consider that retail games can often be found for less than the MSRP.

Pokemon Go was a thing because it was free. Releasing a version for Switch wouldn't have anywhere near the same impact.

@Feena: The difference here though is that games are unlikely to be 40GB+ like they are on current consoles. Skyrim was around 5GB on PS3 and save files were in the low MB. If they do keep to this era - albeit with a boost to output resolution - as the rumours were that Nintendo are targeting a minimum 900p, I doubt file sizes will an issue. Maybe the game 'cartridges/cards' will have a part allocated to game saves, updates etc - maybe even an area for DLC Expansions to be saved onto as well. That would free up a lot of the internal storage needs as often this gets filled by all of these and they are only needed if you are playing that specific game. The additional cards could operate in a similar way - just used for games and their specific DLC, updates etc. Game save files could be backed up to a cloud server too - although wouldn't be as useful in areas where internet access is limited/restricted - for example Aeroplanes.

If games are in the 5-10GB range (as they were on PS3, 128GB card could store more AAA games than the 500GB PS4.

Nintendo's gonna announce the price, system specs, and launch lineup in January 2017.

@BAMozzy: we'll get to know more in January it seems but I think, at least for a while, they will try to get all the current gen big hitters. Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed and all that jazz, that seemed the point of showing Skyrim remastered in the reveal clip.
Anyway even with my WiiU I quickly had to resort to external HD and I bough almost everything physically...and the files weren't that big, as you said. Something is funny, they surely don't want a PSVita memory card situation

Nintendo just announced Monster Hunter XX (Double Cross) for the 3DS coming out on March 2017. No mention of a Switch version unfortunately, though. Or maybe they're just saving it for the January announcement.