Nintendo Down 6% After 'Switch' Console Unveil

[maddude]

The graphical power of the Switch is not a big concern for me. Yes, it is under powered compared to the PS4 and XB1, but they are both under powered compared to my PC.

I want a console that I can play easy to learn, fun, local multiplayer games on. Nintendo does that better than anyone else with their 1st party titles.

Better 3rd party support would be welcomed, and their controllers have gone to shit starting with the Wii. I'll be interested to see how this works as a controller compared to the too large Wii-U tablet.

 

[ChadD]

People keep assuming it will have less power then PS4/XB1...

The Nintendo Switch;
Is really the Nvidia Shield Nintendo Edition.

The shield with its older X1 chip was fast enough to stream 1080p 60fps PC games for "geforce now". Steam 4k Netflix. As well as play android games with enough gusto that it would be fair to say the experience was very close to PS4.

I think its cool they will be going to carts... but I do wonder if they will go all out with a geforce now like service, or if Nvidia is just going to add a Nintendo branded front end or something.

Bottom line is though... the Shield can already be argued superior to PS4 if you have good internet.

IMO Nvidia Shield² for the win.

This isn't the greatest youtube review... but hey he does claim to compare it to the PS4. haha


Seriously though I am sure they are not going to be relying on streaming... I do wonder if there will be a Nintendo stream service though.

 

[dgz]

Imagine being 10 years old and having one or two of these in your group of friends. Man...

Only a non-gamer wouldn't be impressed by with Nintendo showed. Single AND multi-system multiplayer? And on the go? This would be amazing for kids. We didn't have anything like that back in the day.

I am glad they didn't go with Android.

 

[M76]

Maybe it has to do something with the completely unrealistic situations portrayed in the video. I was going "Yeah, that would never happen IRL" every few seconds.

 

[DukenukemX]

People keep assuming it will have less power then PS4/XB1...

The Nintendo Switch;
Is really the Nvidia Shield Nintendo Edition.

The shield with its older X1 chip was fast enough to stream 1080p 60fps PC games for "geforce now". Steam 4k Netflix. As well as play android games with enough gusto that it would be fair to say the experience was very close to PS4.

I think its cool they will be going to carts... but I do wonder if they will go all out with a geforce now like service, or if Nvidia is just going to add a Nintendo branded front end or something.

Bottom line is though... the Shield can already be argued superior to PS4 if you have good internet.

IMO Nvidia Shield² for the win.

This isn't the greatest youtube review... but hey he does claim to compare it to the PS4. haha


Seriously though I am sure they are not going to be relying on streaming... I do wonder if there will be a Nintendo stream service though.

Except the most impressive game I could find for the Shield is Borderlands 2 or Borderlands The Pre-Sequel. Which aren't demanding games to begin with. Most of the games are Indie titles or games for PC from over 10 years ago.

 

[ChadD]

Except the most impressive game I could find for the Shield is Borderlands 2 or Borderlands The Pre-Sequel. Which aren't demanding games to begin with. Most of the games are Indie titles or games for PC from over 10 years ago.

The most interesting gaming option for the shield is their geforce now service. Which streams PC games run on Nvidias servers at extreme settings to the shield at 1080p 60fps. I don't see nintendo running a gaming Netflix.... still the reasoning behind nvidias cancellation of Shield 2 a few months back is now clear. So I do have to wonder if geforce now has a Nintendo rebrand coming in 6 months. Perhaps it will end up being something like "Switch Live powered by Nvidia". I don't know how great it would be trying to stream games mobile... but at least docked with a good internet connection it would be pretty solid. Shields x1 chip has a lot of built in codecs just for that purpose and it does a great job streaming if your connection is solid. I can't imagine Nvidia is just giving up on the idea completely.

 

[PersonalJ]

Investors are probably looking at previous history of portable consoles. Sega made a portable console 20 years ago. It was called the Nomad and flopped hard.

Twenty years ago is not relevant in the mobile space, they see this is a stupid idea because people already carry a mobile gaming device - their smart phone.

 

[reFre5h]

I'm confused by all the people saying this is competing with phones and the mobile games. There are hardly any mobile games worth playing that aren't super basic clones, and the few that are constantly drain your battery. So you might as well play them at home or with your phone charger in.

Also mobile games have garbage tier control schemes and support for BT controllers is few and far between, outside of emulators for older systems.

So... it's offering Zelda / Mario level games to compete with... trash?

 

[Stiler]

I'm confused by all the people saying this is competing with phones and the mobile games. There are hardly any mobile games worth playing that aren't super basic clones, and the few that are constantly drain your battery. So you might as well play them at home or with your phone charger in.

Also mobile games have garbage tier control schemes and support for BT controllers is few and far between, outside of emulators for older systems.

So... it's offering Zelda / Mario level games to compete with... trash?

Higher quality games aren't going to magically change the market.

Hardware Year-Over-Year Comparison - VGChartz

Mobile game sales/microtransactions dwarf any hand-held game out there.

This will appeal to die hard gamers and Nintendo fans, but for the mainstream market it will likely play out just like the 3ds.

 

[haste.]

I'm surprised by this, most of the opinion pieces I've read (Kotaku, Engadget, Ars, TheVerge) had a very positive reception to the Switch and thought investors would also follow suit. I bet if Nintendo announced a new Pokémon launching alongside the console - it'd be raining investor jizz right now.

Investors aren't the same people writing for websites with tech bias. The announcement was lackluster at best except for people that have loyalty to the Nintendo brand. It seems to be stuck somewhere in the middle and not really sure what it's identity is - definitely not a home console in the 4k generation and too large to be a portable to replace the current offerings. The companies with deeper pockets are racing to put out rigs with more horsepower, meanwhile Nintendo took a step back and went with mobile. PS4 was dominating this generation until recently (the downturn is likely due to market saturation as well as xone price cuts) and most chalk it up to the fact it was the much more powerful console.

 

[DukenukemX]

The most interesting gaming option for the shield is their geforce now service. Which streams PC games run on Nvidias servers at extreme settings to the shield at 1080p 60fps.

I'm sure someone cares out there, cause I don't. To me, streaming games online is... ahem, "the most painfully retarded thing I've seen in a while" **cough** WTF Even?

I don't see nintendo running a gaming Netflix.... still the reasoning behind nvidias cancellation of Shield 2 a few months back is now clear. So I do have to wonder if geforce now has a Nintendo rebrand coming in 6 months. Perhaps it will end up being something like "Switch Live powered by Nvidia". I don't know how great it would be trying to stream games mobile... but at least docked with a good internet connection it would be pretty solid. Shields x1 chip has a lot of built in codecs just for that purpose and it does a great job streaming if your connection is solid. I can't imagine Nvidia is just giving up on the idea completely.

The cancellation is due to nobody buying it. The best use of a Shield device is emulators, and if you're that creative then you really don't need a Shield for that. My PC can even run Nintendo Wii U games now. Also, there are applications you can use to stream games from your PC for free. So yea, good luck with that.

 

[Palladium@SG]

I have everything negative to say about my own n3DSXL hardware and the online features, but Switch is nowhere as underpowered than the 3DS for a portable for their respective time era, and the target audience of Nintendo don't care about specs as long as the good games keep flowing.

 

[Sycraft]

Investors aren't the same people writing for websites with tech bias. The announcement was lackluster at best except for people that have loyalty to the Nintendo brand. It seems to be stuck somewhere in the middle and not really sure what it's identity is - definitely not a home console in the 4k generation and too large to be a portable to replace the current offerings. The companies with deeper pockets are racing to put out rigs with more horsepower, meanwhile Nintendo took a step back and went with mobile. PS4 was dominating this generation until recently (the downturn is likely due to market saturation as well as xone price cuts) and most chalk it up to the fact it was the much more powerful console.

Also an issue investors may have is how it is being marketed, which could lead to it not doing so well. Nintendo is selling it as a console, as in something to compete with the Xboner and PS4. Thing is, for that, it is likely to suck. The portable aspect of it means its hardware will be lower spec and that is a problem for getting games ported to the platform. It may be a top shelf mobile device, but if the marketing push and sales are towards being a console, that could lead to a situation where it under-performs.

For that matter even if it is pushed as a mobile device, it might not do well. It is larger than what has been being sold for mobile gaming currently, and depending on price it might be more than people want to pay. If it doesn't do well there it could kind of be a device with no good market.

We'll have to see, and a downturn like that is a disappointment reaction, not a panic one, but I can see why investors aren't overjoyed at the prospect.

 

[d8lock]

For those wondering why or saying it's a cool concept, it might be cool to you but the market says otherwise.

The Handheld market has been drastically taken over the past years by Mobile phones. PEople simply do not want to lug around a giant portable system whent hey can simply whip out their phone and play games on that + text + browse the web, etc.

On top of this because it's focused on being portable that means likely that it's going to be underpowered compared to sony/ms, especially with Scorpio and the ps4 pro.

So you have an underpowered home console and a handheld that the vast majority of people probably don't want to use it for it's portableness.

It's like the Sega game gear. That thing was huge compared to the gameboy, the gameboy was something you could simply slip into your pocket whereas the game gear was something you had to lug around in a bag or something.

I've never seen anybody slip an original gameboy into their pocket.

 

[TheGeekFreek]

These will be filling up your local goodwill in no time.

 

[ChadD]

I'm sure someone cares out there, cause I don't. To me, streaming games online is... ahem, "the most painfully retarded thing I've seen in a while" **cough** WTF Even?

The cancellation is due to nobody buying it. The best use of a Shield device is emulators, and if you're that creative then you really don't need a Shield for that. My PC can even run Nintendo Wii U games now. Also, there are applications you can use to stream games from your PC for free. So yea, good luck with that.

Yes play station now does suck. Geforce now is pretty darn good... yes I have tried it, was pretty sweet even if the game selection wasn't. I played a bunch of stuff at 1080p60fps games like TombRaider and Arkham where flawless, no different then playing on a PC with maxed out settings. The key is the internet connection... question is do enough folks in the USA have fast enough internet to make a Nintendo version of Geforce now a success. That's the key, if you have internet that tends to lag yes I am sure it sucks as well. No doubt though Nvidias streaming is much better then sonys. (which has to do with their chips embedded codecs designed for exactly that purpose).

Nintendo could be the company to launch a version that catches on like Netflix did for video. It sure would solve a lot of the issues for game developers and Nintendo.
For developers their would be no need to port... just produce a PC version and let Nintendo/Nvidia host the game on their Servers. For consumers as long as you have a good internet connection you get a machine that never needs to be upgraded to play the latest greatest games. If developers release more eye candy great... because your streaming game box doesn't have to do the work their servers do. All you need is a box to connect to the server.

Game streaming is the future... that doesn't mean the Switch will be streaming. There is a good possibility it will feature some form of it though. Its only a matter of time before some company hits the homerun on the tech. As I have seen it Nvidia already has the tech... I think the issue is still peoples connections, basic cable internet is just not good enough. If Nintendo doesn't go for that angle, I could see someone like Valve giving it a shot. Nvidia is betting on Nintendo clearly... would have been interesting if they had bet on Valve instead and built them a SteamStream Box instead. (as someone with a half decent connection I would be all over that)

 

[DukenukemX]

Yes play station now does suck. Geforce now is pretty darn good... yes I have tried it, was pretty sweet even if the game selection wasn't. I played a bunch of stuff at 1080p60fps games like TombRaider and Arkham where flawless, no different then playing on a PC with maxed out settings. The key is the internet connection... question is do enough folks in the USA have fast enough internet to make a Nintendo version of Geforce now a success. That's the key, if you have internet that tends to lag yes I am sure it sucks as well. No doubt though Nvidias streaming is much better then sonys. (which has to do with their chips embedded codecs designed for exactly that purpose).

There is not magic internet connection that'll make cloud gaming work. The distance from the server to your home will make a difference, but it's still going to have latency. If you have a low latency monitor with a Geforce GTX 1080, then this service will piss you off. You know what makes cloud gaming work? Your ability to tolerate latency.

Nintendo could be the company to launch a version that catches on like Netflix did for video. It sure would solve a lot of the issues for game developers and Nintendo.
For developers their would be no need to port... just produce a PC version and let Nintendo/Nvidia host the game on their Servers. For consumers as long as you have a good internet connection you get a machine that never needs to be upgraded to play the latest greatest games. If developers release more eye candy great... because your streaming game box doesn't have to do the work their servers do. All you need is a box to connect to the server.

There will never be a Netflix for cloud gaming. Who wants to pay for a service to play their games, while having to also buy the games? On top of that, you're also dependent on things like connection stability and speed, which is just a freaking mess. For what, to play a game on the go? That's what laptops and Nintendo 3DS's are for. I have no doubt that Nvidia isn't shacking Nintendo like crazy over the idea of how much money they could make. Nvidia wants the server market, cause their hardware has a lot more return there than on desktop or laptop machines.

Game streaming is the future...

I disagree. Companies want it to be the future, but it's so anti consumer I can't even. I mean I really can't even.

Its only a matter of time before some company hits the homerun on the tech. As I have seen it Nvidia already has the tech... I think the issue is still peoples connections, basic cable internet is just not good enough. If Nintendo doesn't go for that angle, I could see someone like Valve giving it a shot. Nvidia is betting on Nintendo clearly... would have been interesting if they had bet on Valve instead and built them a SteamStream Box instead. (as someone with a half decent connection I would be all over that)

Again, internet connection is not the key issue. Yes a lot of people have shit connections, and lots of people have data caps, but that's just the tip of the problem. Distance from your home to server is the key issue. Unless Nvidia, Sony, Valve, or maybe Nintendo puts servers all over the globe, which they won't cause it won't be cost effective. The other issue is price cause nobody wants to buy games they can only play if they pay a monthly fee. Nvidia did the smart thing and offer Steam keys for every game you buy with their service, but honestly this will never fly cause consumers will always run the game at home rather on a server.

Thirdly, you can do this at home. Plenty of free applications that allow you to play your PC games on mobile devices like a cloud service, like Kinoconsole. Which use the Nvidia, AMD, and probably Intel encoder codec portions of the GPU to do this. I can play any game I have on my PC, including emulators, without paying a monthly fee. What future does this tech have?

 

[ChadD]

There is not magic internet connection that'll make cloud gaming work. The distance from the server to your home will make a difference, but it's still going to have latency. If you have a low latency monitor with a Geforce GTX 1080, then this service will piss you off. You know what makes cloud gaming work? Your ability to tolerate latency.

There will never be a Netflix for cloud gaming. Who wants to pay for a service to play their games, while having to also buy the games? On top of that, you're also dependent on things like connection stability and speed, which is just a freaking mess. For what, to play a game on the go? That's what laptops and Nintendo 3DS's are for. I have no doubt that Nvidia isn't shacking Nintendo like crazy over the idea of how much money they could make. Nvidia wants the server market, cause their hardware has a lot more return there than on desktop or laptop machines.

I disagree. Companies want it to be the future, but it's so anti consumer I can't even. I mean I really can't even.

Again, internet connection is not the key issue. Yes a lot of people have shit connections, and lots of people have data caps, but that's just the tip of the problem. Distance from your home to server is the key issue. Unless Nvidia, Sony, Valve, or maybe Nintendo puts servers all over the globe, which they won't cause it won't be cost effective. The other issue is price cause nobody wants to buy games they can only play if they pay a monthly fee. Nvidia did the smart thing and offer Steam keys for every game you buy with their service, but honestly this will never fly cause consumers will always run the game at home rather on a server.

Thirdly, you can do this at home. Plenty of free applications that allow you to play your PC games on mobile devices like a cloud service, like Kinoconsole. Which use the Nvidia, AMD, and probably Intel encoder codec portions of the GPU to do this. I can play any game I have on my PC, including emulators, without paying a monthly fee. What future does this tech have?

Saying game streaming is anti consumer is as silly as saying Netflix or Apple Music are anti consumer. Netflix doesn't sell you physical copies of the movies you can stream, and they cycle content. What is the difference exactly. Nvidia did at the buy a game feature sure.. as I suspect no game companies where willing to sign them over rights to their newest games with out massive premiums. (same reason Brand new AAA movie releases on Netflix are uncommon, they are expensive to licence at that point) Nvidia choose to go the simple route... Licence older games for access on the service and sell the newest games as an unlock.

I would be fine with a service that was around the price of Netflix that had a Large selection of older games... and asked me to purchase a Unlock on newer games. Heck even if it was done as a rental, where you could pay and rent a game for a month ect. If I could buy the newest game... and play the 3 earlier games in the service for free, or go back and replay the older game(s) before the new one launched. That would be cool in my book. Just like rewarching a season on Netflix the day before a new season hits.

Of course there are issues with the service in general when it comes to games... yes latency is an issue. Those issues can be overcome and depending on the game they aren't a big deal... or are you going to try and convince me that Blizzard didn't have over 10 million people playing Warcraft at one point. Not that latency can't be an issue with MMOs... and yes I know they are streaming just inputs, not actual game engines. That is exactly what Nvidia has been working on at a hardware level for awhile now. All those fancy codecs you never heard off that get talked about being baked into Pascal and Maxwell before it are there for exactly that reason... not video.

I also don't completely disagree with you about the connection being the limiting factor... and you may well be right, it may be to much to ask for consumers to have high end internet connections quite yet. With Gforce Now this is what they recommend on the users end;

"Connectivity Requirements

• GeForce NOW streaming quality automatically adjusts to the speed of your broadband connection.
  • 10 Megabits per second – Required broadband connection speed
  • 20 Megabits per second – Recommended for 720p 60 FPS quality
  • 50 Megabits per second – Recommended for 1080p 60 FPS quality
• < 60ms ping time to one of six NVIDIA datacenters world-wide "

The biggest issue with a main stream version of such a service is for sure no doubt the latency. Once such a service though starts getting big numbers of users it might be surprising how fast that stuff solves itself. If you had told me 10 years ago that the entire world would be streaming 1080p on demand video over their internet connections without a thought about how it works. I would have called you crazy... in fact that is exactly what almost everyone said. Heck even large companies like Blockbuster who should have done thier due dillagence and seen it coming... didn't and passed on purchasing Netflix. Game streaming is the future no doubt in my mind. Of course I do question if Nintendo is the company to pull it off... and if it is far to soon to be expecting masses of people to have 50+ megabit per second connections with sub 60ms latency. I do so bring it on... but is there enough of those connections in NA in general ? Hard to say... if anything if they go this route such a service would be a massive hit in Japan where internet speeds and latency wouldn't handicap sales in anyway.

 

[Mchart]

Not sure why you guys are even arguing over game streaming when this thing is not a game streaming product. It's a device that will play first and third party titles printed on game cards that uses the hardware in the device itself. Go make a different thread about game streaming if that is what you want to talk about. It's completely irrelevant to this product.

My opinion is that anyone who can't see the value of Nintendo finally merging their handheld and console divisions doesn't realize just how much money the handheld side of Nintendo has been making over the years. Now instead of having to spend 50% of their resources on two different platforms we will have one unified platform that 100% of the first party titles will be on along with having outstanding third party support.

Compute power of this product is fairly irrelevant. It's obviously fast enough to run Wii U quality graphics which is great for a device that is mobile and given that when the device is docked they can feed it more power and cool better it likely runs the games at higher resolution / detail levels while being used as a console. It doesn't need to compete with PC quality graphics. It just needs to be good enough to output Wii U graphics @ 1080p.

 

[ChadD]

Not sure why you guys are even arguing over game streaming when this thing is not a game streaming product. It's a device that will play first and third party titles printed on game cards that uses the hardware in the device itself. Go make a different thread about game streaming if that is what you want to talk about. It's completely irrelevant to this product.

My opinion is that anyone who can't see the value of Nintendo finally merging their handheld and console divisions doesn't realize just how much money the handheld side of Nintendo has been making over the years. Now instead of having to spend 50% of their resources on two different platforms we will have one unified platform that 100% of the first party titles will be on along with having outstanding third party support.

Compute power of this product is fairly irrelevant. It's obviously fast enough to run Wii U quality graphics which is great for a device that is mobile and given that when the device is docked they can feed it more power and cool better it likely runs the games at higher resolution / detail levels while being used as a console. It doesn't need to compete with PC quality graphics. It just needs to be good enough to output Wii U graphics @ 1080p.

I agree with you, this is going to sell to people that love Nintendo. Because yes it will play Nintendo games, and merging both their console and mobile into one ecosystem is a great move.

Streaming came up as this product may well feature some form of streaming as an option. It may also be why they showed off some of the third party titles... and why those companies didn't want to confirm. In streaming form there is nothing Switch wouldn't be able to run... but third party companies may not wanna come out right now and say yes we are launching for this system when they aren't. (if they require a fast internet connection and a subscription to play).

I say it may well feature it as a feature... as Nvidia has steped away from a service they have already been selling (and is still in operation). Called Geforce Now. Which runs with their shield drvices. This new nintnedo device IS Shield 2. Nvidia cancelled shield 2 a few months ago... and gave a weak excuse about it being a buisness decision. It seems clear now the decision had likely been made months before, but prior to their release of the first Shield devices. Nintendo seems to have picked up the Nvidia Shield division. So I believe Nintendo and Nvidia may well be planning some big things for Nvidias Geforce Now tech.

If you think about it... it would be very smart. The average Nintendo fan will buy switch to play their nintendo carts, and a handful of third party true switch games. For the die hard gamers that are always bad mouthing Nintnedo, they would have an option to sub to a Nintendo branded version of Geforce now and play all the GPU intensive games their frineds are playing on PS4/Xbone/PC with equal or better fidelity.

Until we know for sure... streaming isn't not part of the plan. I would bet it is... seeing as the SOC being used was designed to stream games (they included a bunch of hardware codecs that have no other purpose at all). Also knowing that Nvidia has hundreds of millions of R&D dollars sunk into those codecs and the tech behind Geforce now. I can't imagine they would walk away from an investment of that scale, to make a Nintendo console. If that was the case Nvidia would sign a different deal with Nintendo where they could still produce shield products.

 

[Mchart]

'Die hard' gamers who want the latest CoD or some such similar crap will never consider Nintendo anyways. They are either people that want to save money and buy whatever latest X86 based $400 console there is, or they are people that have the money for a computer. Although i'd wager most of those die-hard computer folks (Like me) have more use for a Nintendo system since it's basically the only system left with games I can't get on a PC.

 

[ChadD]

'Die hard' gamers who want the latest CoD or some such similar crap will never consider Nintendo anyways. They are either people that want to save money and buy whatever latest X86 based $400 console there is, or they are people that have the money for a computer. Although i'd wager most of those die-hard computer folks (Like me) have more use for a Nintendo system since it's basically the only system left with games I can't get on a PC.

I do agree with you, and Nintendo consoles are the only ones I have bought. (ok I did buy a PS3 to use as a Blu / Netflix box... still does that job very well) lol

A service may still appeal to a mass of players though. On the Wii Nintendo found selling old Nintendo games in their Virtual console made them lots of coin. I could see a game streaming service that featured tons of old Nintendo classics being a popular service for almost everyone. Of course those old games would work either way... even if they are downloaded. Its not like Shield 2 wouldn't have the Horse power to handle that... just saying a gaming service could have lots of games offered to hook all sorts of customers, not just the "Die Hard" kids.

 

[Inu]

As long as i can still aim the same way as i did on Splatoon... we're golden. Joystick aiming is so 2014.

 

[Derangel]

People keep assuming it will have less power then PS4/XB1...

The Nintendo Switch;
Is really the Nvidia Shield Nintendo Edition.

The shield with its older X1 chip was fast enough to stream 1080p 60fps PC games for "geforce now". Steam 4k Netflix. As well as play android games with enough gusto that it would be fair to say the experience was very close to PS4.

I think its cool they will be going to carts... but I do wonder if they will go all out with a geforce now like service, or if Nvidia is just going to add a Nintendo branded front end or something.

Bottom line is though... the Shield can already be argued superior to PS4 if you have good internet.

IMO Nvidia Shield² for the win.

Seriously though I am sure they are not going to be relying on streaming... I do wonder if there will be a Nintendo stream service though.

It's a custom Tegra. Potentially based off of the X2. Nvidia's wording in their announcement states it uses the same architecture as the top performing GPUs right now. Which sounds like it's Pascal-based, which points to the X2. There is 0 chance of Nintendo doing a game streaming service. The market isn't there for it, the speeds aren't there for it, and it makes no sense on a system that's designed to be used both in and out of the home.

As long as i can still aim the same way as i did on Splatoon... we're golden. Joystick aiming is so 2014.

I wouldn't count on it. So far no spec rumor has pointed to there being any kind of motion tech in the tablet itself. The Joy-cons are supposedly motion devices, so maybe that would be an option for playing Splatoon Switch, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Inu]

It's a custom Tegra. Potentially based off of the X2. Nvidia's wording in their announcement states it uses the same architecture as the top performing GPUs right now. Which sounds like it's Pascal-based, which points to the X2. There is 0 chance of Nintendo doing a game streaming service. The market isn't there for it, the speeds aren't there for it, and it makes no sense on a system that's designed to be used both in and out of the home.



I wouldn't count on it. So far no spec rumor has pointed to there being any kind of motion tech in the tablet itself. The Joy-cons are supposedly motion devices, so maybe that would be an option for playing Splatoon Switch, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Hopefully we'll know on Jan 12th... So long to wait.

 

[Derangel]

Hopefully we'll know on Jan 12th... So long to wait.

Indeed. At least we have a date for when we'll know more and waiting until after the holidays makes sense, but still.