Nintendo Switch

Wrench said:
I look at Nintendo as a catalyst anymore. Honestly, they came out with motion control. Sony and MS followed suit with the cameras. Sony went further with the eye and controllers.

DS has touch screen ps4 now has a touch sensor.

I'm curious to see how the mobility of this sends ripples through the pond.
Click to expand...

The advent of Ryzen APUs and the Creator's Update with Game Mode will enable seriously capable Windows based gaming tablets able to play 1000's of games plus all upcoming Xbox/Windows exclusives.

Able to play all my existing Steam, GOG and HB games and with emulators the back catalog of legacy console games plus all upcoming Microsoft first party games !!! HALO !!!) - now THAT's a HDTV capable portable gaming console.

Value vs. Nintendo Switch = 10x+.

Will also be the final nail in Nintendo's hardware coffin. The Switch will not sell 10M units lifetime.
 
Last edited:
cybereality said:
I guess my point was that had Nintendo beefed up the power, or included more/better accessories with the base unit, the price would likely be more than $299. If it was priced at $399 or even $349 it would be a much harder sell.

To be honest, I was surprised with all the stuff they managed to cram in the box and still meet a somewhat reasonable price-point.
Click to expand...


Lol

Most of those accessories cost 4 dollars to make.
 
cybereality said:
I guess my point was that had Nintendo beefed up the power, or included more/better accessories with the base unit, the price would likely be more than $299. If it was priced at $399 or even $349 it would be a much harder sell.

To be honest, I was surprised with all the stuff they managed to cram in the box and still meet a somewhat reasonable price-point.
Click to expand...

The only reason it feels like a value is because of the exorbitant accessory prices they've released so far.

Let's look at what you're really getting - a console (essentially a tablet), one full controller (from 2 JoyCons which are NOT full controllers, really), the dock (would be part of a base console anyway), and various cables.

How is that any different than any other console? Basically it's the same as the Wii-U but they put the whole console inside the tablet thing, and made the controllers removable. And other consoles generally come bundled with a game - out of the box, the Switch appears to have nothing.

$299 for the whole thing is honestly not terrible (except the lack of a bundled game)...$250 would have made more sense, and was the speculated price by everyone before the Nintendo presentation. But with the accessory prices they just went full retard. Plus, announcing a paid online service...it just seems like a really bad value unless you are a Nintendo die-hard, and I think there are fewer and fewer of those by the day.
 
To be fair, the Joy-Cons really are two controllers. A lot of components are duplicated: the gyro/accelerometer, the wireless chip, the rumble pack, the battery, the processing unit, etc. So the cost would be more than it they were together on one thing.
 
MavericK said:
The only reason it feels like a value is because of the exorbitant accessory prices they've released so far.

Let's look at what you're really getting - a console (essentially a tablet), one full controller (from 2 JoyCons which are NOT full controllers, really), the dock (would be part of a base console anyway), and various cables.

How is that any different than any other console? Basically it's the same as the Wii-U but they put the whole console inside the tablet thing, and made the controllers removable. And other consoles generally come bundled with a game - out of the box, the Switch appears to have nothing.

$299 for the whole thing is honestly not terrible (except the lack of a bundled game)...$250 would have made more sense, and was the speculated price by everyone before the Nintendo presentation. But with the accessory prices they just went full retard. Plus, announcing a paid online service...it just seems like a really bad value unless you are a Nintendo die-hard, and I think there are fewer and fewer of those by the day.
Click to expand...

It's brand spankin' new though. PS4's and Xbox's are bundled now because they are old news. I think Nintendo is thinking, it's launch, let's go for making as much profit as possible. I don't think you're WRONG, though, hell yeah a bundle would be much more enticing, but the people who want it day 1 are gonna pay to get it regardless. The hype meter is strong. And if they were to do something like making a jacked up price for a Zelda special edition with a custom skin on the tablet/controller....people would eat that up big time, I definitely see that as a more likely scenario over free bundled game for MSRP.
 
delita said:
And if they were to do something like making a jacked up price for a Zelda special edition with a custom skin on the tablet/controller....people would eat that up big time
Click to expand...
They already have, but it's a 3rd party add-on.
https://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-Switch-Zelda-Collectors-Screen-Protection/dp/B01MZ9QJ0Y

Also, most retailers seem to be sold-out already. Nintendo said they would have 2 million units at launch. It's not clear if all 2mil are sold, or if retailers only got a small number in the first batch. But there definitely are some people hyped.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
MavericK said:
The only reason it feels like a value is because of the exorbitant accessory prices they've released so far.

Let's look at what you're really getting - a console (essentially a tablet), one full controller (from 2 JoyCons which are NOT full controllers, really), the dock (would be part of a base console anyway), and various cables.

How is that any different than any other console? Basically it's the same as the Wii-U but they put the whole console inside the tablet thing, and made the controllers removable. And other consoles generally come bundled with a game - out of the box, the Switch appears to have nothing.

$299 for the whole thing is honestly not terrible (except the lack of a bundled game)...$250 would have made more sense, and was the speculated price by everyone before the Nintendo presentation. But with the accessory prices they just went full retard. Plus, announcing a paid online service...it just seems like a really bad value unless you are a Nintendo die-hard, and I think there are fewer and fewer of those by the day.
Click to expand...
The true portable aspect completely changes dynamics, from the Wii-U. Which was a console, with a half baked controllerisatablet idea.

Switch is fully portable. It's in a different dimension from PS4, Xbone, or even Wii-U.

Less Nintendo fans? They just announced Super Mario Odyssey. The first true successor to Super Mario 64. That game will likely be one for the history books. Just like SM64.
 
cybereality said:
They already have, but it's a 3rd party add-on.
https://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-Switch-Zelda-Collectors-Screen-Protection/dp/B01MZ9QJ0Y

Also, most retailers seem to be sold-out already. Nintendo said they would have 2 million units at launch. It's not clear if all 2mil are sold, or if retailers only got a small number in the first batch. But there definitely are some people hyped.
Click to expand...

2 million for the entire month, for the entire world. That is a very low number for nearly a full month. Either Nintendo is hedging their bets and under promising or they will only be able to ship 2 million for the entire month of March meaning it will have some serious shortages. Though Reggie is promising that there won't be major shortage issues in the US, so we'll see.

chameleoneel said:
The true portable aspect completely changes dynamics, from the Wii-U. Which was a console, with a half baked controllerisatablet idea.

Switch is fully portable. It's in a different dimension from PS4, Xbone, or even Wii-U.

Less Nintendo fans? They just announced Super Mario Odyssey. The first true successor to Super Mario 64. That game will likely be one for the history books. Just like SM64.
Click to expand...

SMO looks great, but I haven't seen a huge amount of hype for it just yet. That will probably change closer to release, but we'll see. It's a pity the game couldn't be done for launch or the early part of the launch window.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
If i can't fit the thing in my pocket i don't really consider it good for portable gaming, like the 3ds/vita.

I don't see how this is going to be a good sell to anyone who is just going to use it like a home console or the 12 million current wiiu owners that have to buy essentially the same console again 4 years later at the same price.

They would be better off making a non portable version of the console for cheaper like the Vita TV and include the procontroller or joycons.
 
yourgrandma said:
If i can't fit the thing in my pocket i don't really consider it good for portable gaming, like the 3ds/vita.

I don't see how this is going to be a good sell to anyone who is just going to use it like a home console or the 12 million current wiiu owners that have to buy essentially the same console again 4 years later at the same price.

They would be better off making a non portable version of the console for cheaper like the Vita TV and include the procontroller or joycons.
Click to expand...
Splitting install base with current Gen relevant, major features, is never a good idea.
Vita TV has limited game support, due to losing certain functions from not having the handheld control aspects.
Additionally, creating the Vita TV alienates the entire existence of the Vita. The whole idea of Vita is that it brought a PS3 like experience, to your hands. And the handheld aspect allowed some unique control options.
And then they just made it into a neutered version of itself. Where it wasn't quite a Vita, wasn't quite a PS3, can't play all the games.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
The true portable aspect completely changes dynamics, from the Wii-U. Which was a console, with a half baked controllerisatablet idea.

Switch is fully portable. It's in a different dimension from PS4, Xbone, or even Wii-U.

Less Nintendo fans? They just announced Super Mario Odyssey. The first true successor to Super Mario 64. That game will likely be one for the history books. Just like SM64.
Click to expand...

The new Mario set in a modern city setting is intriguing and I will wait until that comes out to get the Switch. By the holiday season the Switch will be a incredible machine to own with Zelda and Mario among others.
 
Mario in realistic looking city is a bit too jarring for me... he ends up looking like some crackhead midget psychopath...
 
chameleoneel said:
Splitting install base with current Gen relevant, major features, is never a good idea.
Vita TV has limited game support, due to losing certain functions from not having the handheld control aspects.
Additionally, creating the Vita TV alienates the entire existence of the Vita. The whole idea of Vita is that it brought a PS3 like experience, to your hands. And the handheld aspect allowed some unique control options.
And then they just made it into a neutered version of itself. Where it wasn't quite a Vita, wasn't quite a PS3, can't play all the games.
Click to expand...

The incompatibilities and problems with the vita tv don't apply to the switch because games will be required to be playable in a home console format without the touchscreen from the start.

I don't see how making a cheaper non mobile version is splitting the install base or a major feature loss, many never intend to use it that way in the first place and games don't lose any functionality without it.
 
Verge said:
But inflation isn't logical for consoles still being sold.

we know for a fact how much one costs in today's dollars, and it's about 250 tops.
Click to expand...

Are you at all familiar with normalizing data?

It doesn't matter that they're cheaper today when comparing at launch prices. Adjusting for inflation is absolutely logical because you need to normalize the data to make a fair comparison of launch prices. The fact of the matter is Xbone was $500 USD at retail in 2013 dollars and the Switch will be $300 USD at retail in 2017 dollars. Adjusting for inflation allows us to reconcile the difference between 2013 and 2017 dollars to make an objective comparison.

Obviously today's consumers couldn't care less that Xbone was 100% more expensive 4 years ago when they're looking at a new one on a shelf with a $250 sticker on it today. That's not the point because it's so utterly obvious that it's not even worth talking about it. The point the IGN article made was that the Switch is the 3rd cheapest console AT LAUNCH. That's worth talking about because apparently being the 3rd cheapest console ever wasn't good enough when speculation was floating around the $250 mark.

IMO, expecting Nintendo to shatter the "cheapest console at launch" record right now was an unrealistic expectation among speculators. I'm 100% sure there will be holiday bundles for the Switch in the $250 price range just like Wii U did before it.
 
Last edited:
SPARTAN VI said:
Are you at all familiar with normalizing data?

It doesn't matter that they're cheaper today when comparing at launch prices. Adjusting for inflation is absolutely logical because you need to normalize the data to make a fair comparison of launch prices. The fact of the matter is Xbone was $500 USD at retail in 2013 dollars and the Switch will be $300 USD at retail in 2017 dollars. Adjusting for inflation allows us to reconcile the difference between 2013 and 2017 dollars to make an objective comparison.

Obviously today's consumers couldn't care less that Xbone was 100% more expensive 4 years ago when they're looking at a new one on a shelf with a $250 sticker on it today. That's not the point because it's so utterly obvious that it's not even worth talking about it. The point the IGN article made was that the Switch is the 3rd cheapest console AT LAUNCH. That's worth talking about because apparently being the 3rd cheapest console ever wasn't good enough when speculation was floating around the $250 mark.

IMO, expecting Nintendo to shatter the "cheapest console at launch" record right now was an unrealistic expectation among speculators. I'm 100% sure there will be holiday bundles for the Switch in the $250 price range just like Wii U did before it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this. Almost did it myself, but if the guy needs an explanation on how inflation works he's beyond help...
 
I am still curious.... why are we still talking about "low historical launch price," when it clearly is irrelevant to "modern day launch price (that is a bit high)?"
 
jeremyshaw said:
I am still curious.... why are we still talking about "low historical launch price," when it clearly is irrelevant to "modern day launch price (that is a bit high)?"
Click to expand...

That's what i'm talking about, the other guys are way to crass to see the point LOL.


The launch price, inflation or not, is irrelevant. This console is going up against 250 dollar xbox one with 4k bluray, and > 300 dollar PS4. What they launched as has no bearing on the current climate.
 
jeremyshaw said:
I am still curious.... why are we still talking about "low historical launch price," when it clearly is irrelevant to "modern day launch price (that is a bit high)?"
Click to expand...

Remember this is in response to the IGN article that compared launch prices, which must be normalized for comparison. The take away is that $300 is the cheapest modern day console launch ever and that Project Scorpio (the next Xbox) will likely fall at the high end, if not slightly above, the established $300-500 launch price range. If you guys don't see the value in looking over these data points, then move right along. I'm not here to convince you, just explaining why IGN adjusted for inflation in their data set.
 
I'm in, once Mario is out for the holidays later this year...probably going to grab the crazy fancy collector's version of Zelda though, and not touch it until the holidays.
 
I'll wait until the fake/fake-ish scarcity is over, then buy one. Not into trying to hunt something down, or paying more than retail. Once it's easily available, I'll pick it up. Hopefully sometime in the first couple of months of release, but we'll see. Definitely excited for it, and Zelda. Mario will be nice too. I probably won't pick up the games I already have on the Wii U though. I'll wait for new ones. Though, if they moved the Zelda remakes over from the Wii U, I'd probably grab those, just so I have them all in one portable device. I replay them all fairly regularly.
 
MavericK said:
I'm not sure that the fact that you can buy a charging grip confirms that the one in-box can't do it, but if so...the joke gets even funnier.
Click to expand...

If it's true it's really dumb, but it they do really last 20 hours on a single charge then it's not as big of an issue. That's significantly longer than the shit battery life of the DS4 and about four AA batteries worth on the the XB1 pad. Still, if it's true it's something they need to make more clear before the system comes out. This feels like another case where they're going to claim "cost" as the reason like they try to do for justifying not including an AC adapter with the N3DSXL.
 
Verge said:
That's what i'm talking about, the other guys are way to crass to see the point LOL.


The launch price, inflation or not, is irrelevant. This console is going up against 250 dollar xbox one with 4k bluray, and > 300 dollar PS4. What they launched as has no bearing on the current climate.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the Switch has a high quality, touch capable screen, with next Gen haptic features. 3 batteries, and docks with USB-C. Because its portable. You cannot take xbone or PS4 on the bus with you.

Xbone has 4k. PS4 is powerful. Switch is portable.
 


so far so good, i totally skipped wii U so i preordered the switch without any second thoughts

btw, the bilinear filtering on the DF zelda video looks awful ! hope it's more of a build issue, like that E3 alpha version which couldn't run 30fps stable.
 
Last edited:
chameleoneel said:
Yeah and the Switch has a high quality, touch capable screen, with next Gen haptic features. 3 batteries, and docks with USB-C. Because its portable. You cannot take xbone or PS4 on the bus with you.

Xbone has 4k. PS4 is powerful. Switch is portable.
Click to expand...


High quality screen? You fucking joking? It's 720p, my poor eyes are going to bleed when i go from my iPad to this thing. High quality lol, it's crap compared to a 5 year old iPad 3.


And it doesn't dock with USB-C... you have to pay an extra 30 bucks for that feature.
 
SoFGR said:


so far so good, i totally skipped wii U so i preordered the switch without any second thoughts

btw, the bilinear filtering on the DF zelda video looks awful ! hope it's more of a build issue, like that E3 alpha version which couldn't run 30fps stable.
Click to expand...



Note how the speaker harps on how it looks better than other handhelds. Switch is a Handheld. Using it on a TV is an afterthought.

I was never into Nintendo so looking at that game, all I see is something I might have played when I was 10-12 years old. But without some kind of Nintendo Nostalgia, it never would have been something I played after entering my teen years.

I really think Nintendo is increasingly just selling to a shrinking group of Nintendo fans, and Switch is not going to expand that group.
 
Verge said:
High quality screen? You fucking joking? It's 720p, my poor eyes are going to bleed when i go from my iPad to this thing. High quality lol, it's crap compared to a 5 year old iPad 3.


And it doesn't dock with USB-C... you have to pay an extra 30 bucks for that feature.
Click to expand...
Dock is included; screen is shit resolution, though it apparently quite small (less than 7").

I still think HW is unjustifiably expensive for what you get (especially since it is a fat tablet with a small screen and plastic goobins hanging off of the side to dock two halves of a controller). But this gen of consoles were made to a cost. They have to be profitable from HW sales alone, from day one.

That being said, xbox exclusives have been a joke so far. Sony hasn't quite delivered any "must buy" exclusives (other than the usual Sony emo-wank nonsense). Nintendo hasn't progressed at all. But I still feel, of all the consoles released so far, the Switch is the only one worth buying. Just not at $300.
 
Verge said:
High quality screen? You fucking joking? It's 720p, my poor eyes are going to bleed when i go from my iPad to this thing. High quality lol, it's crap compared to a 5 year old iPad 3.


And it doesn't dock with USB-C... you have to pay an extra 30 bucks for that feature.
Click to expand...
It's uses USB-C to pipe all outgoing data to the dock, via one connection.

Resolution and screen quality, are two separate things. 720p makes sense, for a gaming machine.

The quality of the screen, is reportedly, quite high. Great viewing angles, good response time, high end touch and haptic features.
 
The controllers also feature motion control and HD rumble. Which is reportedly so nuanced, a demo with a closed box containing marbles, allowed players to reliably count the marbles as they rolled around.
 
Verge said:
High quality screen? You fucking joking? It's 720p, my poor eyes are going to bleed when i go from my iPad to this thing. High quality lol, it's crap compared to a 5 year old iPad 3.


And it doesn't dock with USB-C... you have to pay an extra 30 bucks for that feature.
Click to expand...

720p on a 6.2" screen is fine. It's still 236 ppi, which isn't bad at all. 1080p would suck up considerably more battery life for little to no real benefit at that screen size. You're using it play games, not look at super high quality pictures, or do a ton of web browsing (which sucks on phones and most tablets anyway). 1080p would drastically increase the cost as it would require much stronger hardware and a much bigger battery and much better cooling. And, as someone else pointed out, screen quality and resolution are different things. There are plenty of high resolution tablets and phones with shit quality screens.

It charges via USB-C and the dock connects to it via USB-C. There is no extra accessory to buy. You're thinking of the Joycons, which is a fair knock against the system. Though if they last 20 hours I'm not sure if it's as big of an issue. I can handle plugging them into tablet once every 20 hours vs charging my DS4 every 3-4 hours and swapping out batteries in my XB1 pad every 9-11 hours. The XB1 pad is less of a hassle, but it seems like every time I really get into a game on the PS4 the fucking controller needs to be plugged in.
 
I think the console looks OK however I don't believe it's a launch day purchase. I guess if you don't own a Wii U and want to play Breath of the Wild, then get a Switch. Otherwise just pickup Breath of the Wild for the Wii U.

I with the other poster above, I will get one but will wait until after the "fake scarcity" hype goes away.
 
Apparently there is a rumor about a foxxcon worker leaking accurate specs a while back. Apparently he got right the battery size, the dual color sku switch, hd rumble and couple things more.

He also stated that the soc was an A72 or A73 @ 1.73 and Pascal GPU @ 923. Apparently it is being speculated that the power consumption from A57@1Ghz is the same as the A72/[email protected], and that the GPU clock @923Mhz is in line with the multiplier of the EG leaked clocks.

This also falls in line with the rumor that the EG leak comes from the July devkit, and it was reported that in October there where new Devkits that are more powerfull...

It would not be that crazy, given what he got right and that spec bump before a console release is not uncommon.

Anyway.. I have this preordered, along with Zelda.

I can post source latter, Neogaf is blocked at my work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top