Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@WanderingBullet: I think that any game that gets ported to the Switch won't be confirmed until January. As far as I understand MHXX, it's an expansion of the previous games, I'm not sure if it's DLC or a standalone version. Even if it's the latter, it'll look the same as the previous game, and I'm not sure how well a 3DS game looks on a big TV screen. That may prove some difficulty porting the game. I think that Capcom is currently more interested in milking the 3DS fanbase than creating a new fanbase on the Switch. I'm not surprised if it doesn't end up on the Switch.

@Octane: Yeah, I was kinda hoping to see a new MH game instead of an expansion of MHX. Hopefully, this isn't the new 2017 MH project Capcom was referring to awhile back but my feeling is that it's most likely is.

@WanderingBullet: Chances are it is. I don't think we can expect two MH games next year. After all, it's Capcom we're talking about.

It seems the Switch GPU will around 1.0tflops http://goodnewsgaming.com/2016/10/rumor-nintendo-switch-gpu-i... according to a Japanese publication. I see some others speculating it may be able to top out at up to 1.5tflops but that still puts it in the XB1 area but still under that of the PS4. The difference of course is that this is in a small form hand-held device.

If that is the case, and as the dock is nothing more than a charging cradle and method of transferring the image to a big screen - not providing a 'boost' to processing power - how do you feel about that? Sony are releasing a 4.2tflop console this year and Scorpio is 6tflops (at least according to MS) so Nintendo's Switch which releases between those and their next generation can't match the new consoles and could be under that of over 3yr old consoles. Does this matter to you? Do you think they can still offer something to most gamers or do you think yet another under-powered console with the 'mobile' option is likely to go the same way as the WiiU?

@BAMozzy: For Nintendo it's not really about the power but the games. However though a lack of power can prove to make it difficult or even justify third party companies releasing games for it. Unless they do watered down ports of PS4/Xbox One games like they did with the PS3 and Xbox 360. The question is if that's the case will customers be ok with sacrificing say levels or appearences for mobility? Like for example if Activision was to port Infinite Warfare to the Switch like they ported BO3 to the PS3 and 360 will people be ok with no single player mode, downgrade graphics and less multiplayer maps?

@Tasuki: No one would buy it (and rightfully so). But Activision would then use that as a reason to justify not supporting the system. It's a vicious circle.

@get2sammyb: Exactly and that is what happened with the Wii U. Once third parties like EA stoped supporting it was dead. I know alot of people who bought a PS4 or Xbox One due to the Wii U not having games like Madden on them. And they were lifelong fans of Nintendo.

@Tasuki: Chances are at 1-1.5tflops, it could offer a lower resolution version with mobility but I struggle to see how that would work socially without carrying multiple pro controllers. It wouldn't work well with splitting the joycons down. Part of the attraction you would think would be the mobility and in a game like CoD - its MP/co-op - both of which offer split screen on PS4/XB1.

I don't think the difference will be as significant as PS3 to PS4 so much as the power puts it in the XB1 area and that manages to play this generations games with little problem. Yes some games may not have the highest frame rate on that console but games aren't cut to run and it looks like its going to be around at least another year.

The main issue with 3rd Party multi-platform releases is that on the Switch its most likely to be the least visually impressive or suffer the most performance issues. For MP games, its likely to have the smallest user base too. Unless its the only console you own, the only reason to consider buying that version would be for its mobility. I know that the PS4/XB1 will still be around but compared to what the 'Pro' and 'Scorpio' versions could look like and no doubt be the primary images used by developers/publishers, the Switch version could look even more dated by comparison and what about in 2-3years time?

It still could play games like the Witcher 3, Fallout 4 etc (maybe at 720-900p) whilst on the go but is that going to be enough for gamers going forward with its competition offering up to 4k versions and HDR? Like you said in a few years, maybe it will get the latest games with something cut or get 3rd party games most gamers have already experienced.

Time will tell...

@Tasuki:
I'll wait until January before drawing any final conclusions. I'm interested in the Switch for the simple fact it's Nintendo, I like Nintendo games and if some older franchises that we haven't seen in a while (Wave Race and F-Zero immediately come to mind) make a comeback it makes this an almost must-purchase at some point. I'm hoping power wise this thing isn't too weak because I'd love to be able to take whatever the next Tomb Raider is, the next Deus Ex, Assassin's Creed (and hell who knows? Maybe Rockstar jumps on board with GTA), etc on the go. But if the Switch versions of these games are significantly downgraded over what the base model PS4 and Xbox One can handle, that will be an issue. If the option is there for a better-performing, more featured version of a game, that's the one I know I'm going with over portability every single time. And that's also why I think that much as the PS4 Pro and Scorpio exist because Sony and MS are in an arms race (and for VR as well in Sony's case), both also had an eye trying to remain a bit of a leg up on Nintendo in the hardware department to continue to entice third parties to stick with PlayStation or Xbox as those big third party AAA games are far more important to the success of those brands than they are to Nintendo. If the people at Nintendo who are calling the shots pull their heads out for just two seconds and deliver a bunch of the franchises they've been sitting on for years, in addition to releasing new Pokemon, Mario and Zelda games, the Switch can survive on that alone.

This is a very good point and one I didn't consider!

Thinking about it though, no matter how Nintendo is marketing it, the Switch is essentially a powerful handheld with a tv mode and it will be supported by the companies that are still developing for the 3DS and Vita today (in Japan). If the console ends being big enough a hit, captivating the kids market (hello Pokemon, Yokai Watch etc.), the Nintendo loyalists and handled enthusiasts, then third parties might be interested in the occasional downgraded port of their biggest titles: I have little doubt that Ubisoft would release Assassin's Creed on the 3DS for its 60 millions users, if only the 3DS could run something similar to the ps4/xbone/pc version.
This theory falls apart if the price cuts the machine out of the handheld market. They couldn't sell the 3DS for 250$.

Also: the Switch is clearly something you play alongside your main gaming choice, be it a PC a PS4 or a Xbone, Nintendo's new handheld is hardly going to be your only videogame machine, unless you are a Nintendo loyalist and you don't mind missing a lot of great titles (that don't appeal to you).

@Feena: It seems to me that Nintendo are happy playing 'second fiddle' to the big boys in the gaming market. Whilst that may appeal to a section of gamers that may want more than one console, it also puts them at a disadvantage.

PS4 gamers at the moment for example have the choice of upgrading their console to the Pro to enjoy (some of) their games they already play as well as new releases at improved visual quality and performance and/or buy VR to get a completely new and different way to experience games. Xbox owners have the promise of a new more powerful console at the end of next year (6-9months after Switch) which will also offer VR too.

4k and HDR is definitely on the increase - the PS4, PS4 Pro and XB1s all offer HDR and the Pro and XB1s offer 4k (Pro in gaming, XB1s in Media). The Scorpio will offer 4k in gaming too. If, as analysts predict, the amount of people with 4k TV's does overtake the amount of 1080p TV's, could that affect sales of Nintendo's Switch? At best its 1080p capable but if it has less processing power than the XB1, those 3rd party games are 'unlikely' to hit 1080p - certainly not without either affecting the quality of the visual settings or frame rates. It maybe OK when played on the small screen but when plugged into a TV - especially a 4k HDR screen, then the lack of native resolution or visual settings will be obvious.

I am sure Nintendo could sell the 3DS for $250 if it had the dock to connect up to a big screen and some way to make the dual screen work effectively - especially if it offered better quality visuals and performance. Its not that much more than the 3DS XL (around £180 here - which would make it around $220 in the US with current exchange rates) so $30 more for the dock, more power etc seems reasonable if they can sell the XL for that much!

The Switch doesn't look like it has a rear camera although the images haven't been that clear - mostly showing the kickstand. This to me means that Pokemon Go won't be coming to Switch. Yes you may get yet another Pokemon [insert colour], Pokemon Arena etc as well as yet another Mario Kart, Mario 3D, Mario Bros, Smash Bros and of course the new Zelda and whilst these will no doubt be popular with the younger audiences and Nintendo loyalists is it enough to warrant a purchase over a more powerful PS4, PSVR or the upcoming Scorpio? Even as a '2nd' console, Sony and MS are trying to give its user base a reason to spend money on upgrading your current console choice and experience rather than seek an 'alternative' or '2nd choice'. They are hoping you put the money you may have spent on the Switch into, from Sony's perspective, the Pro or PSVR, and from MS's point of view, the XB1s or wait for Scorpio.

I think though that the Switch won't be marketed so much as a 'console' like PS4/XB1 but more like a 'mobile device' like the 3DS and Vita. I can see Nintendo selling it essentially as a 'Gameboy' (all Nintendo hand-helds are 'Gameboys' to me but then I am old - LOL) that can also connect to the TV rather than a console that can become a mobile gaming device. That takes them out of that firing range so to speak. They won't find themselves being put up against the PS4 Pro or (eventually) Scorpio but find themselves being compared with the Vita, Tablets and Phones as far as 'gaming' is concerned. At least IF they are sensible they should do that. Head to Head its obvious they can't compete and unlikely to get the full range of new 3rd Party support but they could still get a lot of 3rd Party Support selling mobile versions of current/older AAA games - some with improved visuals too. Games like Red Dead Redemption (not 2), Mass Effect, Burnout: Paradise etc at 900-1080p as well as offering portable, maybe slightly inferior visually modern (current gen) games. EA, Activision, UbiSoft etc could and no doubt would be happy to sell 'more' games - especially older games that may require minimal work - but its not worth their time if the Switch is marketed as a 'console' and can't compete with the latest from the big boys - why buy an inferior version of a game you are most likely if not entirely playing at home anyway? If its going to spend 95%+ of its time docked, then buying an inferior version doesn't make much sense to me.

As a mobile device, competing with the 3DS, Vita, Phones/Tablets though its got a chance to be the leading device and gives 3rd party developers a platform to bring their games to the mobile audience with the added bonus of being able to connect it up to a larger, more static screen occasionally if you want.

Lets not forget that Nintendo have a long history of dominating the mobile gaming space - although coming under challenge now from phones and tablets, so this is the market they should be targeting with the switch primarily - offering a better gaming experience than the 3DS, Vita and phone/tablets can offer.

@BAMozzy: Couple of things, I don't think the dock will do any computing, but I reckon the tablet will be underclocked, and once the system is docked, it'll output a higher res to the TV. There will be a power brick in the dock and probably additional cooling.

Third party support will definitely be an issue down the road. However, the PS3 and 360 are still support to some degree. So it'll be a good four years until we see third party support completely drop off. Diminishing returns are definitely a thing, and there will be a time when a Switch-like device is all that is needed for gaming. You don't need a bigger device, because the difference in visuals won't be visible at all. It's just that Nintendo may be too early with such device. Maybe the effects of diminishing returns isn't that big in the coming years. Because 4K is rising, and that will require some extra power too. After that? 8K? At what point does it become completely unnecessary?

Nintendo has also said that they're treating this as a home console first and foremost (probably to avoid the competition with the 3DS, which they will keep supporting into 2017). I'm not sure if it's the right message. But hopefully they'll focus on what it actually is, a system that plays home console games, but that can also be taken on the go.

Games that are predominantly bought for their multiplayer will not sell additional units on Switch because of portability because there's zero chance people will be able to play them on the go, will be handy though going round a friends to play multiplayer along side them. For me it's all about the games, (when is it not). Probably though I'll be sticking with my Vita for a while yet.

I know I am at odds with others in this opinion but I think people would like the idea of console level gaming on the go. However, actually being able to provide that begs more questions then it answers.

As mentioned on this thread - how will MP work? As a home console, how will it compare to PS4/XB1? What will the price point be? How will they get publisher support?

I think there needs to be a tradeoff between price, graphical output and types of games put out. If the price is lower but the experience and library good, I could see people having this as a second console for the gaming on the go aspect. SO for me, I'll not pass judgement till I see these details and keep loving my Vita (metaphorically, not phsyically).

@Octane: Its possible the Switch will have some form of lower power mode for battery saving when used as a mobile device and switch to the full speed version when docked and able to draw power from the mains but its still not likely to push it up to and/or beyond the PS4 power. When using the screen, it can get away with lower quality visuals because of the size that if blown up to the size of the average TV would look 'poor' by console standards and therefore may need a 'higher' level setting just to be comparable with the mini screen.

The problem arises though when we compare to other home consoles on the same TV. I have owned a 4k TV for a few years now and have a number of games on both my XB1 and PS4 that have a 'different' resolution. Both console images are upscaled to 4k to fit the screen size. In the case of PS4, my TV handles the upscaling by stretching a native 1080p image to 4x its size where as the XB1 is upscaling a 900p image to 1080p and then my TV upscales this to 4k. That means with PS4, a quarter of the image is native and on XB1 around a sixth! The difference is clear and obvious!

As we move into the next year and beyond, both Sony and MS will have consoles that will be able to offer resolutions much closer and actually fit a 4k resolution. Even with Checkerboard rendering, that's double the native pixel count of a full 1080p resolution. Add in HDR on top of that, the difference between a 900p (or less) SDR version on the same size TV screen compared to 1530p (2x1080p) or higher HDR version, the gulf is far more than SD to HD gaming was.

In terms of resolution, we may be at the extent of visible differences with 4k at the 'average' screen size. I sit around 7' away from my 55" TV and can see the difference between a 4k and 1080p picture although the differences are not as significant as they are between SD and HD. HD though covers a range of resolution between 720p and 1080p and the difference between the lower end of HD and native 4k is definitely noticeable and probably as much of a difference as SD to HD. 8k is likely to be a good few years away from becoming a reality and even then reserved for the Rich and Famous as a status symbol or anyone that can afford and fit a much larger than average Screen in their house. Its debatable as to whether or not you would see the extra fine detail 8K would offer - although the most likely benefits would be seen in the mid to long ranges and of course colour accuracy overall could improve albeit minor - no need to average the colours of 'small' or distant objects - hair/fur etc could still retain its individual strands of colour at further distances. These are likely to be relatively minor overall but HDR10 for example also applies to 8k resolution. In the next 5-10years though, I don't see consoles moving into the 8k space - the life span of the Switch but I do see them moving towards 4k HDR and offering 60fps too. Not only that, expanding into other areas like VR - all of this is still resource demanding. So while 8k may loom on the horizon in terms of Display quality, chances are that in the lifespan of current console and PC hardware, I can't see that being an issue.

For the majority of gamers we will most likely be gaming on 4k HDR TV's in the next 5-10yrs and that's where the Switch cannot compete with Sony, MS or PC's. The difference in 'visual' quality - even on 1080p TV's between the PS4 Pro and the PS4 is described by Digital Foundry as 'significant' so the difference between the Pro and Switch is likely to be greater.

I am not dissing Nintendo's decision but I am questioning its long term plan and viability. To me it makes more sense to pitch it as a mobile device primarily with added bonus of connecting to the TV. Would people be interested in buying an underpowered (by current standards) console when they could put that money towards a PS4 Pro or PSVR (which offers a whole new way to experience games, new and exclusive games too and has a lot of 3rd party interest which is likely to grow as well). Would they be willing to buy just for the mobility factor and Nintendo's in house developed games with maybe a few older or newer inferior (comparatively) 3rd party games?

I am questioning those that do buy, its their choice after all and their circumstances and preferences are different to mine. Admittedly I don't understand Nintendo's decision to make this as a 'console' knowing it will be sandwiched between 4x and 6x more powerful consoles. I can understand them marketing it as the most powerful hand-held for example, capable of delivering current gen games on the go but as a console for the next 5yrs+ it does seem somewhat under-powered to offer developers a platform for their games and for 'console' gamers to have the variety of games the others offer. Again it seems that Nintendo are settling for the 2nd or even 3rd choice option for gamers - behind one of the other Consoles and/or PC.

@KratosMD: I am not buying the hype untill Nintendo makes an official announcement and we know what games and companies will be supporting the Switch for its lifespan. I am still feeling burned by getting a Wii U on launch day and just getting one overall. I won't make the same mistake twice.

@KratosMD: And I am tired of everyone showing me that picture of companies who will support the Switch. That means jack. EA said they would support the Wii U but when sales weren't there they bailed. Ubisoft did the same, and so did several others. Just cause they said they will support it doesn't mean they will once the thing rolls out. I will wait a year or two when the sales numbers come in.

They are going to get tired of downgrading their games for the Switch just like they did with the Wii and Wii U. I will probably end up getting one but only for their great exclusives.

Zelda looks like it is going to be something special.

@KratosMD: No need to apologize and I apologize if my response seemed rude, wasn't meant to be. And you are right there. Most of the third part games on the Wii U were ports of 360/PS3 games in the beginning like Assassin's Creed III, Arkham City, Mass Effect 3 and Black Ops 2. But when newer entries in the series like Assassin's Creed Unity, Arkham Knight and Black Ops 3 came out for PS4 and Xbox One the Wii U was ignored for whatever reason whether that be power, sales or whatever.

So yeah I see what your getting at but and it's that reason that I as I said won't get hyped for it.

If those rumours are true, I'd want to know what a 'basic' model is. I don't think basic models do Nintendo any favours and confuse consumers (unless we are purley talking game bundles). If you sell portable gaming and home gaming with one model at a £200 mark I might be interested.

As for third party support, eveyone releases at least one title for a new console in case it turns out to be a hit. They judge it then on sales and revenue and investment from the parent company. I am sure Sony are providing incentives for developing VR games for example.

I love mobile gaming and quite like the idea of the Switch but Nintendo did mess up with the Wii U and I would want to be sure they don't do the same again.