Nintendo Switch Main Thread

[dyne]

I believe he's still stuck on wanting all the multi platform AAA games on a Nintendo system.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Not necessarily. Some developers have already stated that it's much easier to develop for the Switch due to the Unreal Engine support. They said it was a pain in the butt to develop for the Wii U. Sumo Digital said it only took about a week to port Snake Pass over to the Switch, and then after that they just had to do some fine tuning. So if the bulk of the code doesn't take much time at all, why wouldn't developers want to put a little time into porting over their games?

I guess I'm just thinking more along the lines of AAA type games like Red Dead Redemption 2 or ME: Andromeda. We're never going to see these games on Switch.

[eightslicesofpie]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I guess I'm just thinking more along the lines of AAA type games like Red Dead Redemption 2 or ME: Andromeda. We're never going to see these games on Switch.

tbh I wouldn't really want to get them on there anyway but I understand why others would be disappointed by that

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by eightslicesofpie

tbh I wouldn't really want to get them on there anyway but I understand why others would be disappointed by that

I still think it's a mistake to market this thing as a home console. I think if Nintendo had designed this to be just a little smaller, maybe similar to the Vita, and marketed it as the successor to the 3DS that also happened to dock to your TV, that messaging would've made more sense to me. However by Nintendo marketing this as a home console, it just puts them right back in the same position they were in with Wii U. Regardless of whether the Switch is easier to develop for or not, that doesn't change the fact that big AAA games won't be on it.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Regardless of whether the Switch is easier to develop for or not, that doesn't change the fact that big AAA games won't be on it.

It's your opinion. Some of what you consider "AAA games" I couldn't care less about. And so, for me, the Switch is great. It plays the games I'm interested in, and I can do it portably if I choose, or docked to the TV for a good console experience.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I still think it's a mistake to market this thing as a home console. I think if Nintendo had designed this to be just a little smaller, maybe similar to the Vita, and marketed it as the successor to the 3DS that also happened to dock to your TV, that messaging would've made more sense to me. However by Nintendo marketing this as a home console, it just puts them right back in the same position they were in with Wii U. Regardless of whether the Switch is easier to develop for or not, that doesn't change the fact that big AAA games won't be on it.

If they made it smaller it would have less power. Less power still means no 3rd party AAA games at all.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by dyne

If they made it smaller it would have less power. Less power still means no 3rd party AAA games at all.

Not only that, but smaller body size also means a smaller screen. He seems a bit illogical. Why the hell would I want to play on a smaller screen? The Switch screen as it is, is a little too small in my opinion. One of the main reason I hated playing in the 3DS was the crappy tiny screen with poor resolution.

[Scarface32]

YouTube

[Steedeel]

I wonder if we could have a Switch mark 2 version in two years? A Tegra 2 and 4K capability. Being Nintendo, I don't think we will but you never know. What do you guys think?

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

If they made it smaller it would have less power. Less power still means no 3rd party AAA games at all.

That's not true. Much of the Switch's bulk is due to it's screen size and the modular JoyCon design. Nintendo could've easily made the Switch design similar to the Vita and still included the same chipset.

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Not only that, but smaller body size also means a smaller screen. He seems a bit illogical. Why the hell would I want to play on a smaller screen? The Switch screen as it is, is a little too small in my opinion. One of the main reason I hated playing in the 3DS was the crappy tiny screen with poor resolution.

Because as it is, the Switch is not really that portable. You pretty much have to either put it in a back pack or a dedicated carrying case. At that point it might as well be a lap top. To me, if you can't comfortably fit it at least into a jacket pocket, it's not a portable device.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

To me, if you can't comfortably fit it at least into a jacket pocket, it's not a portable device.

Oh, you're one of those people.

Seriously, I have never, in my 30+ years of having portable devices, seen anyone carrying it in their pants/jacket pocket. Not a GameBoy, not a GameGear, nothing. With the ONE exception of the GameBoy Micro, and that's only because it was super tiny. Not even the GameBoy Pocket, I still saw people carry it in their bag.

How many people can you honestly say carries around a 3DS in their pocket? I haven't found a single one.

People love making the excuse for the Switch not being portable, being that it doesn't fit in a pocket (actually it does in some jeans). However, it's an unreasonable argument to make, since NO ONE does it in the real world with any of the previous portable gaming devices.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I wonder if we could have a Switch mark 2 version in two years? A Tegra 2 and 4K capability. Being Nintendo, I don't think we will but you never know. What do you guys think?

Nintendo did make reference to upgraded hardware in the future in one of their interviews. They said something along the lines of "people that are used to the handheld revisions might want to buy an updated Switch in a couple of years, whereas people used to consoles not being updated that often won't have to do so."

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Oh, you're one of those people.

Seriously, I have never, in my 30+ years of having portable devices, seen anyone carrying it in their pants/jacket pocket. Not a GameBoy, not a GameGear, nothing. With the ONE exception of the GameBoy Micro, and that's only because it was super tiny. Not even the GameBoy Pocket, I still saw people carry it in their bag.

How many people can you honestly say carries around a 3DS in their pocket? I haven't found a single one.

People love making the excuse for the Switch not being portable, being that it doesn't fit in a pocket (actually it does in some jeans). However, it's an unreasonable argument to make, since NO ONE does it in the real world with any of the previous portable gaming devices.

Yeah but come on, the Switch is just...big (for a portable). I can't see a lot of people willingly carrying that thing around publicly. The last portable device I remember being that big was the Atari Lynx.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Nintendo did make reference to upgraded hardware in the future in one of their interviews. They said something along the lines of "people that are used to the handheld revisions might want to buy an updated Switch in a couple of years, whereas people used to consoles not being updated that often won't have to do so."

Maybe it's the way things will become.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

That's not true. Much of the Switch's bulk is due to it's screen size and the modular JoyCon design. Nintendo could've easily made the Switch design similar to the Vita and still included the same chipset.



Because as it is, the Switch is not really that portable. You pretty much have to either put it in a back pack or a dedicated carrying case. At that point it might as well be a lap top. To me, if you can't comfortably fit it at least into a jacket pocket, it's not a portable device.

You are thinking of a mobile device. A 13 inch tv can be portable lol.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Yeah but come on, the Switch is just...big (for a portable). I can't see a lot of people willingly carrying that thing around publicly. The last portable device I remember being that big was the Atari Lynx.

Sega GameGear was fatter, about the same length. I knew 5 people in my Middle School that carried them, including myself. We put them in our bags. And keep in mind, the battery packs and charging cables were huge back then. The battery pack used Nickel-Cadmium rechargeable battery cells, it was bulky and inefficient. I also carried it in a specially designed bag that could hold the GameGear, several games, the battery pack, the AC charger, the magnifying attachment, and the TV Tuner. If you didn't know, the GameGear could double as a portable Television via the TV Tuner.

No one whined about the size, the bulk, or the fact it didn't fit in a pocket.

Millennials are so spoiled. They want everything small, fast, and powerful. If it's not super power 4K at 60 FPS, they think it's a bad design...

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Nintendo could've easily made the Switch design similar to the Vita and still included the same chipset.

Half the system internally is the battery that already only lasts 3 hours. You make the system smaller, you have a smaller battery and running time is lessened even more still. There's no way they could make the system smaller, with the same chipset and not sacrifice battery life unless they knocked the screen resolution way down. I welcome all 720 p's.

The only other option is to incorporate controls onto the system itself to save on size but once you do that you're forcing people to get a Pro Controller unless you want to lay an HDMI cable across the floor and use the system as the controller for on tv play.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Sega GameGear was fatter, about the same length. I knew 5 people in my Middle School that carried them, including myself. We put them in our bags. And keep in mind, the battery packs and charging cables were huge back then. The battery pack used Nickel-Cadmium rechargeable battery cells, it was bulky and inefficient. I also carried it in a specially designed bag that could hold the GameGear, several games, the battery pack, the AC charger, the magnifying attachment, and the TV Tuner. If you didn't know, the GameGear could double as a portable Television via the TV Tuner.

No one whined about the size, the bulk, or the fact it didn't fit in a pocket.

Millennials are so spoiled. They want everything small, fast, and powerful. If it's not super power 4K at 60 FPS, they think it's a bad design...

LMAO believe me, I'm no "millennial."

[steve_dave]

My Vita - pouch then bag

My 3DS - case then bag

My iPad Pro 9.7 - basic cover then slipped into the tablet or laptop part of bag

My Bose QC35s - big Bose case then bag

My Switch will be the same: either I use the Mario case I have by itself or when I travel, slip the Swtch into the case then bag. I mean a single Joy-con is $50 so why risk snapping a joystick when a case can offer protection.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

Half the system internally is the battery that already only lasts 3 hours. You make the system smaller, you have a smaller battery and running time is lessened even more still. There's no way they could make the system smaller, with the same chipset and not sacrifice battery life unless they knocked the screen resolution way down. I welcome all 720 p's.

The only other option is to incorporate controls onto the system itself to save on size but once you do that you're forcing people to get a Pro Controller unless you want to lay an HDMI cable across the floor and use the system as the controller for on tv play.

Yeah but doesn't it stand to reason that if you have a smaller screen, you can have a smaller battery?