GRcade Predicts: The Future of the Nintendo Switch!

jawafour wrote:

Moggy wrote:...What people don't have is an endless wallet of money. Look at it this way, I have to decide whether to spend £250 on an Xbone with a big game, £250 on a PS4 with a big game, £280 on a Switch with no game...

Which of the three consoles represents the best option to most people?

I kinda see your argument, Moggy. But presumably you'll be taking the same stance when the Scorpio and PS5 arrive i.e. new consoles are expensive and the older ones are a better option?

I am not a fan at all of the upgraded consoles.

It is slightly different though (if I look at it from the perspective of somebody that doesn't own a console) as the upgraded versions of the Xbone/PS4 at least still have the big well known gaming franchises and have very large library's of games available (second hand Xbone/PS4 games are nice and cheap).

I wouldn't advise anybody to buy a Pro or a Scorpio though unless they are really serious gamers (and they would then just buy a PC anyway ).

Moggy wrote:It just sounds like you haven't read any of my posts in here. The only Nintendo consoles I have never owned are the NES and the Wii U. I am a long way from being anti-Nintendo.

What people don't have is an endless wallet of money. Look at it this way, I have to decide whether to spend £250 on an Xbone with a big game, £250 on a PS4 with a big game, £280 on a Switch with no game or £780 on all three. With money being tight, I decide that my mobile is fine for gaming on the bus/train and that I can only justify one console. The Xbone/PS4 have all of the big 3rd party games plus their own exclusives, the Switch has the Nintendo franchises and bugger all third party support (at least well known support).

Which of the three consoles represents the best option to most people?

Right, so what should the Switch have been instead? Maybe you just don't see anyway that Nintendo can make a success of it (this is a prediction thread, that's a fair prediction), but if you're saying it's the price specifically that is the issue, how should Nintendo have changed their approach? Either what should Nintendo have sacrificed to get the price down, or how much would have been acceptable in the other direction to get the Switch on a comparable level to the other consoles with respect to performance and power?

I dunno.. I wasn't focusing on the "upgraded console" aspect, more the newer machines. New machines cost more; always have done. New games nearly always cost more. It's expensive to jump on board at the launch of a new console.

The accessories are slightly more for the Switch than for other consoles. The games are, too. But did anyone think they were going to be cheap? If someone doesn't want to pay that and decides to hang on for a while, more power to them. I may not jump in myself... I keep changing my mind.

But let's not go overboard on "Nintendo have screwed up and they're dead". The PS3 didn't exactly enjoy a great launch period (nor first couple of years*) but - as some folk are eager to point out! - it ended up doing great. I think Nintendo has definitely cocked some Switch aspects up but I also think they will work to improve on those areas.

* Please, no-one now post PS3 sales graphs to "prove" it was amazingly stunning etc .

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Moggy wrote:It just sounds like you haven't read any of my posts in here. The only Nintendo consoles I have never owned are the NES and the Wii U. I am a long way from being anti-Nintendo.

What people don't have is an endless wallet of money. Look at it this way, I have to decide whether to spend £250 on an Xbone with a big game, £250 on a PS4 with a big game, £280 on a Switch with no game or £780 on all three. With money being tight, I decide that my mobile is fine for gaming on the bus/train and that I can only justify one console. The Xbone/PS4 have all of the big 3rd party games plus their own exclusives, the Switch has the Nintendo franchises and bugger all third party support (at least well known support).

Which of the three consoles represents the best option to most people?

Right, so what should the Switch have been instead? Maybe you just don't see anyway that Nintendo can make a success of it (this is a prediction thread, that's a fair prediction), but if you're saying it's the price specifically that is the issue, how should Nintendo have changed their approach? Either what should Nintendo have sacrificed to get the price down, or how much would have been acceptable in the other direction to get the Switch on a comparable level to the other consoles with respect to performance and power?

Nintendo need to either compete with Sony/MS or price themselves well below them.

It's fine to offer something different to the others, indeed it might be the only way Nintendo can survive, but not when you price it directly in line with the others, only you offer less power and less games.

At £280 it would have to be a powerhouse that properly competes and has a good third party support.

At £150-£199 (that £1 really does make a difference) they can offer different control schemes and base it as mainly a Nintendo franchise console.

Nintendo are offering a sub-par home machine that's also offering handheld gaming in a market where everyone has a phone that plays games. Phone games that now also include Pokémon and Mario...

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Trelliz wrote:

Moggy wrote:They are strawberry floating crazy if they think people are going to pay £280 for a less powerful console with no game thrown in.

The hardcore nintendo fan crowd will buy it regardless but I can kind of see Karl's point, however self-defeating it is for Nintendo. Nobody buying a Switch will want it for CoD or FIFA, however that's where the real big mass market money is, as the short-lived smattering of third party Wii U games found out. I feel like they've written themselves into a corner with all this impressive tech that is completely incongruous with the other platforms, so why should third parties spend lots of time and money trying to use all this motion control and HD haptic stuff to make a game that probably won't sell as well?

Absolutely.

Nintendo consoles will always appeal to the Nintendo fans but they are a diminishing number. They can also appeal to other gamers if they release a great product at a price that encourages a punt. That's why the Wii was so successful, it was a new concept in console gaming all for a price that didn't make it feel a big risk and encouraged multiple console ownership.

The Switch is crazily priced for a machine that will rely almost solely on 1st party games. Those games might be good, but (other than Nintendo fans) nobody is really going to want to shell out £240+ for a Xbone/PS4 to play the big 3rd party games and then another £280 for a machine to play Mario and Zelda on.

For what it's worth I think this too -- £249 should have been the absolute maximum they charged for this, and I think a handheld-only SKU for £199 would have been a smart move too. They're going to have to cut the price and put out some better bundles by Christmas to make this a better value proposition for people who aren't hardcore Nintendo fans.

£199 is "Christmas present for little Johnny" territory, £279 is a very premium product.

Even £249 puts it in the Xbone and PS4 territory. Sure it might be a combined home and handheld console, but how many people are even aware of that?

Next Christmas when little Johnny wants a games machine, parents will be looking at three similarly priced consoles. It's a toss up between Xbone and PS4 but who would buy a Switch when they realise that it will not play the big well known games and it has no brand recognition ("I have heard of Nintendo but what the strawberry float is a Switch?")?

These parents really shouldn't be buying CoD and GTA for little Johnny

Hyperion wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Trelliz wrote:

Moggy wrote:They are strawberry floating crazy if they think people are going to pay £280 for a less powerful console with no game thrown in.

The hardcore nintendo fan crowd will buy it regardless but I can kind of see Karl's point, however self-defeating it is for Nintendo. Nobody buying a Switch will want it for CoD or FIFA, however that's where the real big mass market money is, as the short-lived smattering of third party Wii U games found out. I feel like they've written themselves into a corner with all this impressive tech that is completely incongruous with the other platforms, so why should third parties spend lots of time and money trying to use all this motion control and HD haptic stuff to make a game that probably won't sell as well?

Absolutely.

Nintendo consoles will always appeal to the Nintendo fans but they are a diminishing number. They can also appeal to other gamers if they release a great product at a price that encourages a punt. That's why the Wii was so successful, it was a new concept in console gaming all for a price that didn't make it feel a big risk and encouraged multiple console ownership.

The Switch is crazily priced for a machine that will rely almost solely on 1st party games. Those games might be good, but (other than Nintendo fans) nobody is really going to want to shell out £240+ for a Xbone/PS4 to play the big 3rd party games and then another £280 for a machine to play Mario and Zelda on.

For what it's worth I think this too -- £249 should have been the absolute maximum they charged for this, and I think a handheld-only SKU for £199 would have been a smart move too. They're going to have to cut the price and put out some better bundles by Christmas to make this a better value proposition for people who aren't hardcore Nintendo fans.

£199 is "Christmas present for little Johnny" territory, £279 is a very premium product.

Even £249 puts it in the Xbone and PS4 territory. Sure it might be a combined home and handheld console, but how many people are even aware of that?

Next Christmas when little Johnny wants a games machine, parents will be looking at three similarly priced consoles. It's a toss up between Xbone and PS4 but who would buy a Switch when they realise that it will not play the big well known games and it has no brand recognition ("I have heard of Nintendo but what the strawberry float is a Switch?")?

These parents really shouldn't be buying CoD and GTA for little Johnny

And since when has that stopped parents?

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Trelliz wrote:

Moggy wrote:They are strawberry floating crazy if they think people are going to pay £280 for a less powerful console with no game thrown in.

The hardcore nintendo fan crowd will buy it regardless but I can kind of see Karl's point, however self-defeating it is for Nintendo. Nobody buying a Switch will want it for CoD or FIFA, however that's where the real big mass market money is, as the short-lived smattering of third party Wii U games found out. I feel like they've written themselves into a corner with all this impressive tech that is completely incongruous with the other platforms, so why should third parties spend lots of time and money trying to use all this motion control and HD haptic stuff to make a game that probably won't sell as well?

Absolutely.

Nintendo consoles will always appeal to the Nintendo fans but they are a diminishing number. They can also appeal to other gamers if they release a great product at a price that encourages a punt. That's why the Wii was so successful, it was a new concept in console gaming all for a price that didn't make it feel a big risk and encouraged multiple console ownership.

The Switch is crazily priced for a machine that will rely almost solely on 1st party games. Those games might be good, but (other than Nintendo fans) nobody is really going to want to shell out £240+ for a Xbone/PS4 to play the big 3rd party games and then another £280 for a machine to play Mario and Zelda on.

For what it's worth I think this too -- £249 should have been the absolute maximum they charged for this, and I think a handheld-only SKU for £199 would have been a smart move too. They're going to have to cut the price and put out some better bundles by Christmas to make this a better value proposition for people who aren't hardcore Nintendo fans.

£199 is "Christmas present for little Johnny" territory, £279 is a very premium product.

Even £249 puts it in the Xbone and PS4 territory. Sure it might be a combined home and handheld console, but how many people are even aware of that?

Next Christmas when little Johnny wants a games machine, parents will be looking at three similarly priced consoles. It's a toss up between Xbone and PS4 but who would buy a Switch when they realise that it will not play the big well known games and it has no brand recognition ("I have heard of Nintendo but what the strawberry float is a Switch?")?

These parents really shouldn't be buying CoD and GTA for little Johnny

And since when has that stopped parents?

Indeed. Mario needs more guns.

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:These parents really shouldn't be buying CoD and GTA for little Johnny

And since when has that stopped parents?

I worked in GAME once, I think we had a bet going as to how much detail about the game you'd have to give to stop some ignorant parent/grandparent buying GTA or its ilk for their little darling. Most times you could describe the violence in exhaustive detail and they wouldn't even listen but mention sex and they GTFO like they'd stolen something.

Moggy wrote:At £280 it would have to be a powerhouse that properly competes and has a good third party support.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be a home console, not portable at all, and probably have severely dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

I think it would have been a big mistake for Nintendo to try to directly compete with the PS4 and xbone - other than offering Nintendo games, they would have had little to differentiate themselves, and I think they would fail to convert that established market away from their current PS4 or xbone.

Moggy wrote:At £150-£199 (that £1 really does make a difference) they can offer different control schemes and base it as mainly a Nintendo franchise console.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be less powerful still, perhaps no more so than the wiiu, and probably also have dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

The Switch is already criticised for being underpowered, and I think it would have hurt them a lot more to be further down that scale. Without the performance boost it would have been brushed off as a portable wiiu and would have inherited the wiiu's fortunes.

As I said before (and others have said), the only way the Switch could be easily driven down in price without sacrificing tech innovation or power would be for it to lose portability and be a home console only. I think Nintendo are right to not do this straight away at launch by offering a console version as it would severely hamper the marketing and vision of the Switch, and the concept would not be as easy to sell.

So we are all agreed that GTA: Marioland would make the Switch the biggest selling console of all time?

In my opinion, there's one major problem and I'm sick of people dancing around the subject... People need to be aware of this whole thing flopping man. I mean, motion controls?
God this console is going to fail. Completely. I mean, what the strawberry float Nintendo, your only game is Zelda at launch and you're relying on other companies to make ANYTHING for this strawberry floating machine. And your first year looks terrible. I mean, who's gonna buy a game that is LITERALLY just the previous gen version of Zelda but with stupid gimmicks?
Maybe they should have released it on the last console sooner. It has no power to compare to Sony, who, btw, is not a stranger to strawberry floating OVER Nintendo... And then them basically going "Oh hey look we have motion controls in a game that looks like it's more suited for an arcade cabinet than a real console". And look at their first year. Basically nothing but gooseberry fool games until Holiday with Mario. Think they can save the entire console with MARIO? Ugh. Anyway, that's my rant on the launch of the Nintendo Wii. Switch looks dope tho, preordered it and will be playing BOTW day one.
Shamelessly stolen from Reddit

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Moggy wrote:At £280 it would have to be a powerhouse that properly competes and has a good third party support.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be a home console, not portable at all, and probably have severely dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

I think it would have been a big mistake for Nintendo to try to directly compete with the PS4 and xbone - other than offering Nintendo games, they would have had little to differentiate themselves, and I think they would fail to convert that established market away from their current PS4 or xbone.

Moggy wrote:At £150-£199 (that £1 really does make a difference) they can offer different control schemes and base it as mainly a Nintendo franchise console.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be less powerful still, perhaps no more so than the wiiu, and probably also have dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

The Switch is already criticised for being underpowered, and I think it would have hurt them a lot more to be further down that scale. Without the performance boost it would have been brushed off as a portable wiiu and would have inherited the wiiu's fortunes.

As I said before (and others have said), the only way the Switch could be easily driven down in price without sacrificing tech innovation or power would be for it to lose portability and be a home console only. I think Nintendo are right to not do this straight away at launch by offering a console version as it would severely hamper the marketing and vision of the Switch, and the concept would not be as easy to sell.

I am simply telling you why the mass market is not going to go for this machine. You can keep asking me "would this be better" but it doesn't change the fact that my prediction is that the Switch will fail because the massmarket will not be interested in a £280 underpowered console-handheld hybrid with no third party games.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Moggy wrote:At £280 it would have to be a powerhouse that properly competes and has a good third party support.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be a home console, not portable at all, and probably have severely dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

Dear sweet baby raptor Jesus yes. I don't give a shrivelled monkey dick about motion controls, IR cameras, Amiibos or anything like that that. If I had a Switch I'd never take it outside or to parties or whatever; for that you can play stuff like Spaceteam which is free and uses devices people already have. If it was just a box with a controller that played good-looking and fun games I'd be all over it; think how much of the cost goes into the screen, accelerometers and all the other gubbins crammed into the controllers and what they could have done with that instead. Actually, you don't need to imagine, just look at the progress emulators like CemU are making in getting Wii U games to run at 4k already. From the Wii onwards my experience was trying to enjoy the games despite the hardware rather than because of it.

I think some folk just want the Switch to be a PS4 that can also play Nintendo games. Which is fair enough.

Personally I love the fact that Nintendo is different. I really like playing on my PS4 - it's a great machine! - but I don't really want a Nintendo machine to be the same as that. I like the quirks and, well, to get the quirks you often have to put up with a few foibles.

Trelliz wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Moggy wrote:At £280 it would have to be a powerhouse that properly competes and has a good third party support.

To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be a home console, not portable at all, and probably have severely dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

Dear sweet baby raptor Jesus yes. I don't give a shrivelled monkey dick about motion controls, IR cameras, Amiibos or anything like that that. If I had a Switch I'd never take it outside or to parties or whatever; for that you can play stuff like Spaceteam which is free and uses devices people already have. If it was just a box with a controller that played good-looking and fun games I'd be all over it; think how much of the cost goes into the screen, accelerometers and all the other gubbins crammed into the controllers and what they could have done with that instead. Actually, you don't need to imagine, just look at the progress emulators like CemU are making in getting Wii U games to run at 4k already. From the Wii onwards my experience was trying to enjoy the games despite the hardware rather than because of it.

I agree with you to a point then you've practically just described a Gamecube and I don't think that is enough.

The selling point to me was a hybrid console, that alone should have been the gimmick. Instead it's bloated with gyroscopes, joycons and IR.

I have no problem with the joycons per se but I do have a problem that they've bumped the cost to a stupid level. Have joy cons but a very simplified version would have been ideal. Box HD rumble cons with the new Switch Sports but they shouldn't expect everyone wants motion gaming.

I'm afraid that price point means it is competing with the PS4 and Xbox One.

jawafour wrote:I think some folk just want the Switch to be a PS4 that can also play Nintendo games. Which is fair enough.

I don't think we are saying that though.

At the price the Switch has been set at, it is going to receive comparisons to the PS4 because it is more expensive than the PS4. Nintendo themselves are directly forcing people to compare the two (three if we include the PhotekMachine) by placing it into the same price bracket.

I don't think that is a battle Nintendo will win. It's too expensive for the casual gamer. It's too expensive and lacks the games for the thrifty/hard up gamer.

Under £200 and it would have fitted into a nice little niche of its own. Over £200 and it competes with the big boys and their vast library of games.

Moggy wrote:It just sounds like you haven't read any of my posts in here

OrangeRakoon wrote:Maybe you just don't see anyway that Nintendo can make a success of it (this is a prediction thread, that's a fair prediction), but if you're saying it's the price specifically that is the issue, how should Nintendo have changed their approach?

Moggy wrote:I am simply telling you why the mass market is not going to go for this machine. You can keep asking me "would this be better" but it doesn't change the fact that my prediction is that the Switch will fail because the massmarket will not be interested in a £280 underpowered console-handheld hybrid with no third party games.

I'm not objecting to your prediction (despite disagreeing with the severity of predicted failure), I'm questioning your repeated assertions that the price point is the major issue by trying to find out how you think Nintendo should have altered their approach/console design to hit a more agreeable price point while still offering something that a market will be interested in. My argument is that in hitting a lower price point as you've suggested would be better, too much of the performance and/or unique innovation of the console would be lost for it to be an attractive/interesting product.

Trelliz wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:To realistically hit this target the Switch would have to be a home console, not portable at all, and probably have severely dialed back tech innovation. Would this have been better?

Dear sweet baby raptor Jesus yes. I don't give a shrivelled monkey dick about motion controls, IR cameras, Amiibos or anything like that that. If I had a Switch I'd never take it outside or to parties or whatever; for that you can play stuff like Spaceteam which is free and uses devices people already have. If it was just a box with a controller that played good-looking and fun games I'd be all over it; think how much of the cost goes into the screen, accelerometers and all the other gubbins crammed into the controllers and what they could have done with that instead. Actually, you don't need to imagine, just look at the progress emulators like CemU are making in getting Wii U games to run at 4k already. From the Wii onwards my experience was trying to enjoy the games despite the hardware rather than because of it.

I'm sure this would be a much more attractive proposal to both you and others like you, but I think that chasing that goal would be a big mistake for Nintendo because this market just isn't going to sustain them. If anything it would push them into a continually diminishing hardcore niche, because their console would offer nothing different or any alternate experiences to the already established and popular consoles, and the only USP would be that it played Nintendo games. That's a great USP and definitely enough to get the hardcore on board, but that's essentially what the WiiU is/was and that was considered a failure.

jawafour wrote:I think some folk just want the Switch to be a PS4 that can also play Nintendo games. Which is fair enough.

Personally I love the fact that Nintendo is different. I really like playing on my PS4 - it's a great machine! - but I don't really want a Nintendo machine to be the same as that. I like the quirks and, well, to get the quirks you often have to put up with a few foibles.

As I said in the other topic, why do we have to choose between Nintendo games and 3rd party games? Nintendo should be developing a console that caters for all. Given the choice no one is going to say "I wish my Nintendo console with a whole load of Nintendo and 3rd party games had just Nintendo games!"

People need to get out of the mind set that it is one or the other, it doesn't have to be this way.

OrangeRakoon wrote:I'm not objecting to your prediction (despite disagreeing with the severity of predicted failure), I'm questioning your repeated assertions that the price point is the major issue by trying to find out how you think Nintendo should have altered their approach/console design to hit a more agreeable price point while still offering something that a market will be interested in. My argument is that in hitting a lower price point as you've suggested would be better, too much of the performance and/or unique innovation of the console would be lost for it to be an attractive/interesting product.

I wonder what sort of research lead Nintendo to conclude that there is a big market for what they are offering and the proposed price. Who exactly is the target market and how big do they think it is?

Death's Head wrote:As I said in the other topic, why do we have to choose between Nintendo games and 3rd party games? Nintendo should be developing a console that caters for all. Given the choice no one is going to say "I wish my Nintendo console with a whole load of Nintendo and 3rd party games had just Nintendo games!"

People need to get out of the mind set that it is one or the other, it doesn't have to be this way.

Nintendo can't do anything to get EA-alikes on-board. Their hardware could be a cheaper, more powerful, easier-to-develop-for PS4 and it would still have no traditional Western third-party content. This is because no-one is ever ever going to buy FIFA on a Nintendo console, because the primary target demographic for those games - teenage boys - thinks Nintendo is 'gay' (their word, not mine) and has done since the PS1 won the coolness battle against the N64.