Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

I still think the Switch has a much larger demographic appeal. I can see Kids getting one for Birthday/Christmas and these are also the most likely to use them in handheld option - mostly because they don't drive and the main time I used my Gameboy was on the school bus or whilst being driven to places. I can see Kids being more likely to get-together outside of the house too. Again that's not to say some adults won't use them in portable mode whilst on the train/bus to/from work or during their lunch breaks or, as @Rudy_Manchego states, whilst at home and with limited access to a TV.

As a Parent, I can see the 'benefits' and its cheaper than buying a PS4 and a Handheld. As I have stated before, I can see its 'benefits' to hardcore gamers and how it compliments PC/XB1/PS4 gamers. I know that a lot of gamers have more than 1 device but for those that can only have 1 for whatever reason, its unlikely to be the 'priority' device. On the other hand though, those 'more casual' gamers (much as I hate that term) will be more interested in the Switch because of its 'versatility' and games that may not take 'heavy time investment' - a good alternative to the mobile/tablet/3DS - something they can put in their bag and take on holiday (an alternative to Kindle or eBook for non-avid book fans). If you look at how popular Pokemon Go was - and not just 'hardcore' gamers, the Switch is aimed at those 'gamers' too. I don't think it has quite the demographic range that Wii had with its motion sports/fitness appealing to elderly - maybe not 'directly' but the fact these appeared in 'elderly' homes to encourage more mobility in a 'safe' environment. I know many 'non-gamers', ones that would never buy a console owning a Wii for sports/fitness/party games - even my daughters who hated the idea of 'gaming' on consoles bought a Wii to access fitness and dance games. When my daughters left home, they had a Wii for these and often had house parties with a 'Dance' game for 'entertainment'. I don't know if Switch can recapture that demographic but it does have the potential I guess...

@Tasuki I could actually see the Switch appealing to older gamers. People with more responsibilities such as work, children, etc. aren't going to want to be tied down to one spot when things need to be attended to throughout the day. Maybe little Suzie is watching Spongebob Squarepants on the TV, but since you have a Switch, you can squeeze in a little bit of Zelda/Mario Kart time.

@Ralizah I can see that but then again I find it hard to picture familes that only have one tv, but that is probably just me.

@Tasuki It's not that they only have one TV. It's that you can be wherever you need to be at any time without parking yourself in front of a TV somewhere and still be able to play console-quality games. It's also that, if you want to play with someone else, the Switch easily allows for multiplayer, with or without an extra controller, whenever the need arises. It's having as few obstacles as possible between myself and the game I want to play.

The PS4 demands that I sacrifice chunks of my life to play on it. The Switch is able to fit in to whatever environmental and situational niche I need it to. And that's why I appreciate its design so much.

@Ralizah I guess. Honestly I have never felt that way. It's just like if I want to watch TV or a movie. I guess I just never felt confined is all. Then again as I said I enjoy playing a game on a big screen TV with the surround sound and all that. Stuff you just can't get from a handheld.

@Ralizah Think you've hit the nail on the head there. Everyone has different requirements and commitments which they are forced to fit their free time around. For those who travel a lot or cant command premium lounge space when they need it, the Switch is a dream. The opposite of that are people who have far more free time in the home (maybe after work) who only share their space with their significant other (or enjoying the single life : )). For these people, it would be more about the quality of the experience, as portability just isn't important for them. I'm not commenting on the games, just the portability/in situ discussion.

@Tasuki When I lived with my parents, we had two (lounge/my room). Years later, just me and my partner, one TV does the job. Even though we do different things sometimes in the evening, we still like being in the same room. If my wife wanted to use the tele (she prefers her iPad), I would certainly be more likely to game on Switch.

I own the system, and have had nintendo since the Atari 2600 era (yup, I'm that old) with the Donkey Kong game. The NES, Super NES, N64 and Gamecube (the last being my favorite nintendo console to date) were great systems, and have games that keep you coming back and playing...the Wii was fun for a while, but it's still a system that has great games. The Wii U (when I had it before I ended up selling it) only had a few titles that I played...Mario 3D World and Yoshi Woolly World...the rest just felt like rushed and quick-play games that didn't have the appeal of what nintendo usually puts into their games. I have a Switch, but bought it at the wrong time for myself (I also bought the Playstation VR at the same time). That being said, that the VR and PS4 are played a lot more (basically due to the game genres and varieties...but the Switch still is young and can catch up rather quickly), I'm not finding the new Zelda to be as great as Ocarina Of Time, the Original or Twilight Princess...Mario And Rabbids is fun, but the repeats throughout it, make it old. I never thought Splatoon or Arms looked good...my wife bought the Splatoon 2 game and I was right...it's boring to me and she didn't care for it either. Then there's Mario Kart 8, which I've played on the Wii U, so it's nothing new (and I'm really hoping that it's not going to be the only Mario Kart on the Switch...because they usually only make one Mario Kart per system). I am excited for Mario Odyssey (or Sonic Adventure repeat), but after that, nothing else really coming out for a while. I guess I can't wait to see what after the holidays holds...at least I'm hoping for a proper Pikmin, Animal Crossing and an early release date for the Kirby and Yoshi games!!!! And I'd love for the virtual arcade to finally come to the E-Shop as well.

My Switch is here, now I'm ready for Super Mario Odyssey. =P

So take this with a grain of salt, but today I was talking with a Nintendo Representative at Best Buy during a Mario Odyssey event and according to him the Switch won't have a VC. Instead when Nintendo launches their online service and people pay the yearly fee, they will also have access to a catalog of older games that they can stream instead of download so basically something like PS Now.

To me it made alot of sense, it encourages Nintendo fans to pay for online service, something that they haven't had to do before, where as they not only get the online service but also a whole catalog of old NES games.

Definitely an interesting thought and would explain why there's no VC on the Switch yet.

@Tasuki Hmm interesting idea and while, sure, this is a rumour, I think Nintendo are completely rethinking their VC strategy and this would make sense too.

I have always thought that the whole NES and SNES mini 'limited' run thing was to actually drum up interest in old games to make whatever their new VC plans were more attractive. I also think that they have put a lot of their classic titles on Wii, Wii U and 3DS VC's already (I know not later gens are really included) and a lot of people have either complained about buying for a third or fourth time or still have those systems. People buy something once, Nintendo makes a one off sale but a subscription service would mean people who only want a few titles have to subscribe rather than cherry pick. Not only that but I think it might help with licensing costs with third party publishers on classic games

I wonder if it would be more of a download rather than stream but you still don't own it but are renting it.

From what I gather, I thought Nintendo's online subscription would be offering 'classic' games on a 'rental' type basis. Every month you get access to a couple of games for free that are playable for that month only and, as they are 'rented' as such, you replace these with their next month's offerings. Whether they will also sell those games for you to keep permanently, I don't now but wouldn't be surprised. At least that's how I understood it anyway

@BAMozzy Yeah, at before or close to launch they said it would be paid and as part of the subscription you got say 2 classic NES or SNES games a month but you could only play them for a month or something. People didn't like that, then they said they were revising their plans and I don't think there has been much else. I could be wrong though, I may be out of date.

While I need more monthly subscriptions like a need a second wee hole, in fairness this would set them apart. I like, for example, the games I get on PS Plus for the most part, I always play enough to make the service worthwhile along with the added parts and this would be a good incentive for me.

@Rudy_Manchego That's what I heard too and haven't heard anything different - but then I don't keep myself bang up to date with everything 'Nintendo'. To me it sounds a bit like PS+/Gold but with a cheaper price and as such, fewer of the benefits that owning these other subscription offer

It seemed like they were charging money to access online (like PS+) but instead of giving you free games you can keep indefinitely, they allow you access to just 2 'classics' that are replaced every month. Not sure if they will offer a discount in the store or even a discount on just those 2 games if you wanted to keep them permanently. I haven't heard anything new.

PS+ for me has proven to be far less 'value' than MS's Gold. I feel like I have not really benefited from my subscription - other than the access to online gaming - something I had free on PS3 and whilst its not an 'excessive' charge (although its now gone up to be more expensive than Gold), I don't buy digitally where possible and the Free games haven't provided me with more than 10hrs worth of enjoyment. In fact I wouldn't miss access to any of them if I were to cancel. In the past few months, things seem to have improved though but over the entire time I have been a PS+ subscriber, its not been 'great' value for me compared to Gold in the same period. Again, with Gold, I don't buy digital where possible and therefore don't take advantages of the discounts but the 4 free games a month have at least offered some value. The 360 games are permanent access too and MS have offered a lot more games that interested me on XB1 so its been the more worthwhile subscription. All this means is that value is perceived differently. PS+ to me feels more like a blackmail charge - not saying that Gold didn't either when I first started with that - I refused to pay during the OG Xbox era but I also had a week internet service. The Switches portability though does raise questions about Online gaming and how you can connect when out and about. Would you need to connect to your Mobile phone 3/4G as their data charges can be expensive and limited too. Going over your package is extortionate and I could see people being hit with massive mobile bills.

@Rudy_Manchego Remember, this comes from a Nintendo rep at Best Buy, he doesn't know any more than we do, so this is hardly a rumour. Streaming to a portable device doesn't make a lot of sense. It's hardly play anywhere, when you can only access the VC titles at home. And Nintendo has to run all these games on dedicated servers somewhere, when they can easily offer them as a small download. Plus, why would they make their entire library available for only €20 a year, when they can sell an N64 game for €10, or a single Wii game for €20? It just doesn't make any sense.

@Octane Well there have been a few rumours of this ilk floating about but of course, pure speculation. As I said, I don't know if it will be streaming only but I can imagine that you don't physically own the copy if you stop paying.

Not sure I agree on the whole ownership thing - the games industry WANTS a service model. Firstly, pricing hasn't been released as far as I am aware other than access to their online services. They could easily charge more for additional packages. So say they said, right instead of $20 a year, for $40 a year you get access to X amount of games per month. That is $20 a year, per year for any subscribers. It seems like a good deal, I'll pay extra for it. Half the current user base get it so, I don't know 2-3 million people just as it stand now. Let's guess. That is 2-3 million x an additional $20 - that is over $40million in guaranteed revenue YEARLY. All companies and investors would rather that then getting to sell a theoretical set of sales of a game that people may or not may not purchase. Don't forget, they aren't necessarily selling the games so licensing becomes cheaper. It is a rental situation effectively. The average joe who might pick up Mario 64 or Twighlight princess for nostalgia may make 1-2 purchases at most but might happily stump up way more than that for a subscription over several years.

As said, all speculation but a service model that guarantees revenue is always more attractive than possible one off purchases.

@BAMozzy I agree on Gold - one of my close friends is a big XB gamer and it has it in the bag I think. PS Plus has got better but it isn't as consistent and really favours the gamer who doesn't purchase lots of games since they'll get good games for a bargain!

@Rudy_Manchego Personally I think Gold also is more for the Gamer - get to keep two 'classics' as well as get 1-2 quality XB1 games every month. Its cheaper (now) and also has some great discounts on games in its weekly sales (if you buy digitally) - no different from PS+ in that regard. Live is more stable and seems more consistent to me than PSN too. PSN has improved a lot since the PS3 days but its still not quite up to the standards of Live. This, coupled with Game Pass and the discounts that offers, I think the Xbox has the best option for gamers on a budget at the moment. Without spending more than the cost of both Gold and Game Pass, every month you can download a LOT of games to play.

@Octane That's why I said take it with a grain of salt. Still I think @Rudy_Manchego has a point that guarantee revenue looks better than one off purchases at least on paper.

I guess what it comes down too is how much Nintendo has made with VC sales over the past few years. Obviously they probably made a killing with the Wii considering even if a fraction of Wii owners bought VC games. Wii U not so much, considering that

1) The amount of Wii Us sold
2) The selection of VC titles compared to Wii
3) Making people rebuy VC games that they owned on the Wii

Add those up and they probably didn't make all that much on VC sales of course it's all speculation as I don't have the numbers in front of me, but that might be a reason for Nintendo to please their stockholders going with a Netflix subscripting based plan guaranteed to at least $10 or whatever it is a year.

Not only that but maybe they will have it like Netflix where you can stream the library to your phone through their app, thus solving the Switches problem of no internet connection.

@Tasuki Well, number 1 isn't a problem with VC, that's just because the Wii U didn't sell. I mean, they're not going to stop making Kirby games because the one on Wii U didn't sell, that's just the result of releasing anything on the Wii U. The Wii U has a surprisingly large VC selection, with 300 games. The Wii had a few more with 397, but you can access all of them on your Wii U as well.

The only issue is re-buying the games. But a small upgrade fee is expected as long as they have to develop new emulators for their new systems.

How do you play them on your phone though?

Anyway, whatever form the VC will take, I doubt it will replace regular downloads. I could see it as an additional service, but I can't see them missing out on the individual sales.

I had a look at PSNow by the way, and a three-month sub is $45. I can only assume Nintendo's service would be just as expensive. I just doesn't make any sense to stream the games to a system that is perfectly capable of playing those games by itself.