*** Nintendo Switch ***

The thing is, if Nintendo had 13/14 titles out at launch, how many of them would have actually been bought at launch?

I appreciate people saying that they want to have a choice etc, but if 75% of those would have been left on the shelves, as opposed to just having a small lineup at launch and a staggered release of games throughout the year, it will give those titles an actual chance.

Like as weird as the game is, 1-2 Switch will sell well because of the whole HD Rumble dynamic, Bomberman will appeal to the nostalgic gamers and Zelda is Zelda.

So I think they have done the right thing here.
 
If Nintendo didn't release the Switch and made games for the PS4 instead, would they be worse games. And if so why? (And any other game that is planned for the switch)
Click to expand...

There are many factors involved but Nintendo wouldn't stand to make as much money per unit sold if they released games on another platform (e.g. royalty fees), and they wouldn't necessarily sell more.
So in the long term Nintendo games could have lower budgets and therefore get worse.
With Nintendo's focus on local multiplayer guess who would get most of that money spent on additional controllers, the platform holder.
Nintendo are going to start charging for an online service. Again, there are many factors.

There are just so many benefits for Nintendo having their own platform and ecosystem, having full control over these things means they can invest more in software in the long term, and be more flexible with their own ideas. Releasing Wiimotes and Wii games on another platform instead of on their own Wii console would have been a terrible business decision.

It's really hard to compete with Nintendo on their own platform.

Sasahara said:
If Zelda is indeed almost identical to the Wii U version, you'll just paying more so you can play it on the go. Add to that, in portable mode it will possibly be inferior to the Wii U version due to the 720p and under-clocking on an already under-clocked CPU.
Click to expand...

The Wii U version of Zelda is 720p, and based on what we've seen runs at lower average FPS than the Switch version.
Docked, the Switch version is 900p (while still running significantly smoother than the Wii U version).
 
malachi said:
Good question and has a simple answer. Look at Sega now compared to the 90's, that's the answer.

After the Dreamcast they said "the hell with this! cant be bothered with hardware anymore" But Sega was given a warning to go software only just before the Saturn and they ignored it. I think it was the CEO of Sega Europe at the time who suggested it and was kicked out the meeting and later left Sega (or was sacked) Nintendo hasn't been given that warning yet.

Sega didn't have as many well known IP's as Nintendo and when Sega releases Sonic games these days it goes unnoticed. That is their own fault to be fair and it be a shame if Nintendo did the same to Mario, Zelda or even Pokemon. Cheapens them out and devalues their IP's to other companies. Abit like if Apple officially released OSX for standard based PC's.

That said, Im soooooooooooooooooooo looking forward to Sonic Mania. After playing the demo last year, the Switch version will be on my list. :)

If and thats a big IF, the Switch does well for 18 months and continues to solider on you can bet Microsoft and Sony will follow up with something similar to steal the limelight.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the Sonic games have been ignored on other consoles because generally they have been rubbish rather than anything else.

Your right though while Sega did have a large IP catalogue there seem to have been very few that were wildly successful in the Western World to the degree of the Nintendo series, that's probably the reason they've picked up series like Football Manager, Company of Heroes, etc over the last few years.
 
malachi said:
Good question and has a simple answer. Look at Sega now compared to the 90's, that's the answer.

After the Dreamcast they said "the hell with this! cant be bothered with hardware anymore" But Sega was given a warning to go software only just before the Saturn and they ignored it. I think it was the CEO of Sega Europe at the time who suggested it and was kicked out the meeting and later left Sega (or was sacked) Nintendo hasn't been given that warning yet.

Sega didn't have as many well known IP's as Nintendo and when Sega releases Sonic games these days it goes unnoticed. That is their own fault to be fair and it be a shame if Nintendo did the same to Mario, Zelda or even Pokemon. Cheapens them out and devalues their IP's to other companies. Abit like if Apple officially released OSX for standard based PC's.

That said, Im soooooooooooooooooooo looking forward to Sonic Mania. After playing the demo last year, the Switch version will be on my list. :)

If and thats a big IF, the Switch does well for 18 months and continues to solider on you can bet Microsoft and Sony will follow up with something similar to steal the limelight.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Sega had more exclusive ip then anyone else! Want me to list a few
 
Sugnid said:
The thing is, if Nintendo had 13/14 titles out at launch, how many of them would have actually been bought at launch?

I appreciate people saying that they want to have a choice etc, but if 75% of those would have been left on the shelves, as opposed to just having a small lineup at launch and a staggered release of games throughout the year, it will give those titles an actual chance.

Like as weird as the game is, 1-2 Switch will sell well because of the whole HD Rumble dynamic, Bomberman will appeal to the nostalgic gamers and Zelda is Zelda.

So I think they have done the right thing here.
Click to expand...

From a business standpoint, I think it's a decent idea. There must be some tidy profit in 1|2 Switch and Arms as £40 releases. I can't imagine they'd sell well at all at that price if there was a decent launch line-up.

From a customer's perspective, I'd sooner wait. I can't see those prices holding. I could stomach £280 for the console, but the games and accessories are priced 50% too high. A Switch at launch with Zelda, 1|2, Arms, and the Pro controller will cost just shy of £500...
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Wrong.

Sega had more exclusive ip then anyone else! Want me to list a few
Click to expand...

I believe the poster you quoted was claiming that Nintendo have a larger number of better known IPs, rather than simply having more.

I'm not sure that can be disputed really. Nintendo have a huge roster of well-known, recognisable and iconic characters and franchises. Sega have Sonic and Friends. The difference is pretty apparent if you compare the character line-up of, say, Sonic All Star Racing, and Super Smash Bros.
 
antijoke said:
What an odd way of thinking.

Maybe Nintendo would've filled Sony in on what they were doing and Sony would've released the dual shock for that game.

But that's all what ifs and not really a drop in quality.
Click to expand...

History has already shown us Nintendo and Sony can not agree on hardware.

Nintendo don't want to direct their resources to a third party. They want control and keep an eye on whats going so quality in their games does not drop. The only way to do that is keep everything in house.
 
SS-89 said:
Where exactly do you get your information from?



Nope

Nintendo - $7.9bn cash and cash equivalents + short term investments
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ntdoy/financials/balance-sheet

Sony - $17bn cash and cash equivalents + short term investments
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sne/financials?query=balance-sheet

Microsoft - $112bn cash and cash equivalents + short term investments
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/msft/financials?query=balance-sheet

Apple - $67bn cash and cash equivalents + short term investments (a lot of Apples mooted $200bn cash is actually tied up in long term marketable securities)
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/financials?query=balance-sheet

So as we can see Nintendo doesn't have hordes of cash to keep producing hardware failures and they're not even in the same ballpark as Apple and Microsoft. Admittedly there is more to this picture as Nintendo isn't as leveraged as Sony so its liquidity is significantly better but I'm not sure as a company they can keep producing hardware that doesn't compete. Microsoft on the other hand probably could but like Apple a lot of their cash sits abroad and they don't want to repatriate and pay tax on it.

Really hoping Nintendo have some more game announcements to flesh out the lineup shortly after release. I think they should stick to handhelds personally and bring first party titles out on another console (PS4 or Xbox)
Click to expand...

Sony's and Microsoft's gaming divisions are segregated from the core companies and do not share assets with their parent company, so your comparison is very inaccurate.
 
What drawbacks are there if Nintendo announced Switch was a PS4 Pro level console and Zelda was 4K native at 30fps? And everything else like Mario was also native 4K?

People would be falling over themselves to buy it and you damn sure 4K TV sales would rocket too.

malachi said:
History has already shown us Nintendo and Sony can not agree on hardware.

Nintendo don't want to direct their resources to a third party. They want control and keep an eye on whats going so quality in their games does not drop. The only way to do that is keep everything in house.
Click to expand...

Again this is total nonsense. Quality in their games would not drop at all, MS Sony would bend over backwards for Nintendo to have their IPs on their platform.
 
satchef1 said:
From a customer's perspective, I'd sooner wait. I can't see those prices holding. I could stomach £280 for the console, but the games and accessories are priced 50% too high. A Switch at launch with Zelda, 1|2, Arms, and the Pro controller will cost just shy of £500...
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd sooner waiti for a bundle with all of that for about £300. I am not desperate for one.
 
satchef1 said:
I believe the poster you quoted was claiming that Nintendo have a larger number of better known IPs, rather than simply having more.

I'm not sure that can be disputed really. Nintendo have a huge roster of well-known, recognisable and iconic characters and franchises. Sega have Sonic and Friends. The difference is pretty apparent if you compare the character line-up of, say, Sonic All Star Racing, and Super Smash Bros.
Click to expand...

Shenmue
Crazi taxi
Sega Rally
Daytona USA
Virtual fighter


Those are to name a few IP's
 
Zelda looks amazing, but I'm not sold on buying a Switch really as I can get it for my Wii U. Mario Odyssey will no doubt be good but looks a bit weird playing as a cartoony character, Mario, in a realistic looking world.
 
I'm still getting mine at launch, 1-2 switch doesn't interest me at all, and arms just looks like a newer wii sports boxing which I think will have limited replayability. I'll buy Zelda, and maybe bomberman, play them for a bit then not bother playing on it until more games come.

If they'd released with Mario, Mario Kart 8, and Skyrim I would have bought all of them at launch as well.
 
Anyone actually got one yet? Is it anygood! (wait, its not out yet is it.....)

Sons birthday coming up, weighing a switch or a ps4 pro. Not too worried about games yet, Zelda would do for now till Mario Kart arrives.

Just wondering when I could actually get a console.....
 
Last edited:
chroniclard said:
Anyone actually got one yet? Is it anygood! (wait, its not out yet is it.....)

Sons birthday coming up, weighing a switch or a ps4 pro. Not too worried about games yet, Zelda would do for now till Mario Kart arrives.

Just wondering when I could actually get a console.....
Click to expand...

It's out on 3rd of March, no punters have them yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom