Jump to content

Nintendo Switch


Gnrfan2001

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

I would argue that the N64 wasn't really that great a success either. I think it's remembered more fondly than it was thought of at the time. Nintendo basically shot itself in the foot with the N64 and gave Sony a blank check to take over the industry. The insistence on cartridge media vs CDs cost them big time. Nintendo always had a stranglehold over software production on their consoles. They not only produced the console hardware but 3rd party developers were also required to buy the actual cartridges off of them.

If you were making a game for the NES, SNES or N64 then you had to commit to a specific number of cartridges and buy them from Nintendo in advance. Basically you had to predict your sales up front and get it right or you'd be out of pocket. Now think about paying a few $ per cartridge vs pennies for a PS1 CD and you can see why 3rd party developers deserted Nintendo en masse back in the late 90's.

I suppose it's how you look at the N64.  If you compare it to SNES sales, it wasn't far off.  Comparing it to PS1 tells a different story.  Nintendo failed to understand that many of those who played NES and later SNES wanted a more mature/adult gaming experience that wasn't being provided by the N64.  

Costs definitely played a key role, but I think Sony also fostered better relationships with third-party publishers because they had to as a new player to the market.  They didn't have a history of game production and needed other companies to help fill the void.  They also did a great job promoting more adult oriented games with Nintendo still laser focused on making the same games geared towards younger players.  

But you're right, with the exception of the Wii, which did a great job at capturing casual gamers and non-gamers, Nintendo really hasn't dominated in the console sphere for twenty five years.  It's reigned supreme in the mobile-gaming market, and hence the move to the Switch is a smart move to provide an experience not replicated on a smartphone (though not for long, as Smartphones will be able to offer 4K gaming by next year).  Early sales of the Switch look good, but it remains to be seen if they'll generate additional interest once the Zelda/Mario sheen wears off.  They'll need support of EA, Activision, Blizzard, and Take-Two if they want to sell more than 20-30 million units over the next five years.  Otherwise, while they'll be able to keep the lights on, I don't see how they'll grow as a company from a revenue/profit standpoint.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, L'HopitalsRule said:

Working with Japanese companies in the past, they have an odd habit of taking the last product model and only improving on it a tiny little bit (think DSi to 3DS) Americans, however, like scratching everything out and coming up with a radically different product idea. Keep in mind this is only a generalization and that there are upsides and downsides to each type of product development method. I am not quite sure if this is cultural or not but I am pretty confidant about it being a pattern. 

Anyone remotely familiar with higher-end cameras will concur with your assessment.  Nikon, Canon and Sony have been making the same user interface for 15+ years on digital cameras (multi-menus, clunky controls, etc.).  It's only been in the last couple of years touch screens are starting to be phased into new camera models with little to no consideration to UI.  Almost all innovation in cameras and image processing is credited to smartphone makers.  The biggest failure by the camera companies was not to design their products to allow for instant image transfer to the web/social networks.  If you want to share a picture you take with your DSLR or point and shoot, it's a very cumbersome process compared to the two button action of a smartphone.  

Sony and Microsoft win market share because understand the market and generally execute well.  The winner of each generation is largely determined by who executes better.  Sony benefited from having the PS2 be the lowest cost option to play DVDs, but it was also a very successfully launched system with great third-party support.  Microsoft won the next round by providing a better online experience and initially a much lower console price.  It would appear Sony has retaken the crown for giving customers the machine they want (compared to competition) and Microsoft's extremely terrible launch.  I suppose it's important to note that market share isn't everything, but it certainly helps and creates momentum when dealing with third-party publishers who have increasingly played a large role in determining a system's success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, downzy said:

Anyone remotely familiar with higher-end cameras will concur with your assessment.  Nikon, Canon and Sony have been making the same user interface for 15+ years on digital cameras (multi-menus, clunky controls, etc.).  It's only been in the last couple of years touch screens are starting to be phased into new camera models with little to no consideration to UI.  Almost all innovation in cameras and image processing is credited to smartphone makers.  The biggest failure by the camera companies was not to design their products to allow for instant image transfer to the web/social networks.  If you want to share a picture you take with your DSLR or point and shoot, it's a very cumbersome process compared to the two button action of a smartphone.  

Sony and Microsoft win market share because understand the market and generally execute well.  The winner of each generation is largely determined by who executes better.  Sony benefited from having the PS2 be the lowest cost option to play DVDs, but it was also a very successfully launched system with great third-party support.  Microsoft won the next round by providing a better online experience and initially a much lower console price.  It would appear Sony has retaken the crown for giving customers the machine they want (compared to competition) and Microsoft's extremely terrible launch.  I suppose it's important to note that market share isn't everything, but it certainly helps and creates momentum when dealing with third-party publishers who have increasingly played a large role in determining a system's success.

Microsoft has been frustrating me with user interface for a loong time. Too many technology companies design interface that makes sense to us nerds but not anyone else who uses a device for work or leisure. I think they should hire a psychologist to design the interface and then us engineer-types will just make it happen ;) 

I am personally a fan of multi-use devices, and that is really the brilliance of a smartphone. Imagine a camera system that could connect directly to a smartphone for editing or posting to social media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Wagszilla said:

We're in agreement that Nintendo needs to make some strides as a company but switching to a streaming model is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A lot of people buy Nintendo consoles purely for Mario or Zelda. We're looking at a base of $330 entry fee right there. 

As far as the music industry example, I'm not intimately familiar but I can grant your premise that some return is preferable to piracy. That said, no band makes money off music, and even less than they did in the day of CDs and records.

In both cases, it's a race to the bottom.

Nintendo isn't actually making $300-$400 per unit.  It's still unknown how much Nintendo makes from each Switch sold, but it can't be any more than $20-$50 (though, based on the components, it's likely on the low side).  There's a reason why there are no Switch game bundles, because it would result in a net loss per unit.  They might make a few extra bucks off accessories, but once you factor in those plus a couple of games you're looking at an experience that will run $500-$700.  That's an awful lot of money to play Mario and Zelda.  I'm certainly not going to pay that price and I imagine many other older Nintendo fans or casual fans aren't either.  But I would pay $10-$20 a month if I could play all of Nintendo's back catalogue plus new games through a streaming service.  The high costs of system design and product could be directed into streaming infrastructure.  They'd then be making money off people like myself who pass on such a heavy start-up cost plus others who would pay for a Switch (at $15 a month, consumers would have essentially paid the same for a Switch, but a got a whole lot more value).  

As for the music industry, many artists still make money of music sales, it's just fewer do.  The old model of selling CDs wasn't sustainable and provided space for piracy.  The only solution to the problem was getting everyone to pay a little for a convenient music experience.  Console gaming doesn't have the same problem with piracy music does, but Nintendo still suffers from the fact that the price for admission to play Zelda or Mario is akin to the price for a CD that only has one or two hits.  Twenty years ago you couldn't avoid paying the steep price of a CD to get the one or two songs you wanted.  Similarly, twenty years ago there were fewer opportunities to play games outside of Nintendo or Sony.  Nintendo must now compete with not only Sony and Microsoft, but PC gaming has grown exponentially and smartphones have challenged them in the mobile market.  Unless Nintendo can offer a system that doesn't live or die off of nostalgia, it's going to need to do something.  In my opinion, and I could definitely be wrong on this, changing to a streaming model might be it's only option eventually.  There are a lot of pitfalls to be sure, particularly ensuring that people aren't playing off of other people's accounts.  They'd have to do a much better job of enforcing violations pertaining to account sharing than what Netflix currently does.  There are plenty of up sides as well.  Think of how much they could cut down on piracy if a game is only released through a streaming subscription.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/spotify-apple-drive-u-s-music-industry-s-8-first-half-growth

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Since Nintendo will never get all 3rd party games on their system they should selectively choose the creme of the 3rd party crop that compliment their console and are able to run on it.

Which 3rd party games or resurrected IP's would you guys like?

Off the top of my head:
Dark Souls HD collection
Kingdom Hearts 3
BioShock The Collection
Alien Isolation
Binary Domain(& Binary Domain 2 if Sega ever makes it.)
We Happy Few(will probably become multi-platform anyway.)
Dead Space Remastered
Enslaved Odyssey to the West Remastered(& its sequel if it was ever made. Actually, Nintendo should just buy the rights to Enslaved and Binary Domain or better yet buy Sega.)
GTA San Andreas HD Remake

They should also put games like CounterStrike GO and League of Legends on the Switch strategically imo.

good picks

personally, i'm dying for a MGSV port. even though i own it on PS3, having it portable means more time to play this (wife takes a lot of tv time). that's the ONE game i desperately want. dat gameplay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometimes, it can be good to take a deep breath, relax, and rethink what a games console "needs" to be.

I grew up on snes and N64. you put a brick in your console, hit the power switch and within seconds you're playing the game. great games at that. no skype, no netflix, no music player, no news section...

games on the N64 ran like ASS. i fondly remember the days of perfect dark and banjo tooie, with framerates like a slideshow. framerate? what's a framerate? i didnt even know what it was. all i knew is i had the time of my life playing these games. ah... bless ignorant times

times have changed, yes... but I haven't. i'm still the same guy playing perfect dark. hell, I regularily have matches with my brother and sister, to this day. online MP doenst interest me. pizza and beer, with friends, that's where the fun is. composite image through a big ass 1080 HD screen baby. pixels the size of paintings. and what fun we have

what i like about the switch, is it has many nods to that great time in gaming. local multiplayer, a barebones console, fast launching a game, .... CARTRIDGES!!! it's all there.

switch isn't for everyone, that's true. but it sure is for me. switch is like a HD N64, and its all i could ever hope. bring on banjo threeie.. i mean yooka laylee and perfect dark 2,.. i mean splatoon 2

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
19 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Was able to get one delivered to my home a couple days ago.. Should have my hands on it tomorrow. Anyone play SnipperClips? Is it worth picking up? 

Yeah, it's a really cool game. Especially for playing with friends. Highly entertaining and creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2017 at 11:52 AM, downzy said:

Nintendo isn't actually making $300-$400 per unit.  It's still unknown how much Nintendo makes from each Switch sold, but it can't be any more than $20-$50 (though, based on the components, it's likely on the low side).  There's a reason why there are no Switch game bundles, because it would result in a net loss per unit.  They might make a few extra bucks off accessories, but once you factor in those plus a couple of games you're looking at an experience that will run $500-$700.  That's an awful lot of money to play Mario and Zelda.  I'm certainly not going to pay that price and I imagine many other older Nintendo fans or casual fans aren't either.  But I would pay $10-$20 a month if I could play all of Nintendo's back catalogue plus new games through a streaming service.  The high costs of system design and product could be directed into streaming infrastructure.  They'd then be making money off people like myself who pass on such a heavy start-up cost plus others who would pay for a Switch (at $15 a month, consumers would have essentially paid the same for a Switch, but a got a whole lot more value).  

As for the music industry, many artists still make money of music sales, it's just fewer do.  The old model of selling CDs wasn't sustainable and provided space for piracy.  The only solution to the problem was getting everyone to pay a little for a convenient music experience.  Console gaming doesn't have the same problem with piracy music does, but Nintendo still suffers from the fact that the price for admission to play Zelda or Mario is akin to the price for a CD that only has one or two hits.  Twenty years ago you couldn't avoid paying the steep price of a CD to get the one or two songs you wanted.  Similarly, twenty years ago there were fewer opportunities to play games outside of Nintendo or Sony.  Nintendo must now compete with not only Sony and Microsoft, but PC gaming has grown exponentially and smartphones have challenged them in the mobile market.  Unless Nintendo can offer a system that doesn't live or die off of nostalgia, it's going to need to do something.  In my opinion, and I could definitely be wrong on this, changing to a streaming model might be it's only option eventually.  There are a lot of pitfalls to be sure, particularly ensuring that people aren't playing off of other people's accounts.  They'd have to do a much better job of enforcing violations pertaining to account sharing than what Netflix currently does.  There are plenty of up sides as well.  Think of how much they could cut down on piracy if a game is only released through a streaming subscription.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/spotify-apple-drive-u-s-music-industry-s-8-first-half-growth

 

 

 

Do they make much? Who knows. But Nintendo has a habit of making it a point to make profit on their systems, which is less than you can say for Microsoft or Sony, often losing hundreds per console and relying on licensing to recoup losses. Nintendo, meanwhile, makes profit on consoles and is largely 1st party dependent. They have a completely different model than other companies. Call the Gamecube a failure, but I guarantee you they made money on it. Same with the Wii U, I bet their "failure" still netted them a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

Do they make much? Who knows. But Nintendo has a habit of making it a point to make profit on their systems, which is less than you can say for Microsoft or Sony, often losing hundreds per console and relying on licensing to recoup losses. Nintendo, meanwhile, makes profit on consoles and is largely 1st party dependent. They have a completely different model than other companies. Call the Gamecube a failure, but I guarantee you they made money on it. Same with the Wii U, I bet their "failure" still netted them a profit.

When you say profit, are you talking about the cost of the components alone or does the profit margin include design, marketing, and overhead costs?  From the breakdown of console units I've seen, I think when Nintendo says they make a profit off every system, they're not including these extra costs.  

Nintendo did make money through the Gamecube years, but it's impossible to determine based on the information available whether most revenue came from its handheld business and console market.  My guess is that Nintendo survived largely on its hand-held business, which was incredibly successful and faced very little competition for two decades. 

Point is, even if Nintendo scrapes a little bit of profit of each system, it still won't survive once it factors in design, marketing, and administrative costs.  Nintendo needed people to buy one game to turn a profit on each Wii U sold (which I assume most Wii U owners did).  But the big N lost a lot of money from the Wii U.  

What will determine the success of the Switch is consoles sold and attach rate.  Nintendo can do well even if they don't see a lot of Switches so long as it hits a targeted game attach rate.  But the fewer consoles sold, the higher the attach rate needs to be.  Time will tell if that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2017 at 9:02 AM, downzy said:

When you say profit, are you talking about the cost of the components alone or does the profit margin include design, marketing, and overhead costs?  From the breakdown of console units I've seen, I think when Nintendo says they make a profit off every system, they're not including these extra costs.  

Nintendo did make money through the Gamecube years, but it's impossible to determine based on the information available whether most revenue came from its handheld business and console market.  My guess is that Nintendo survived largely on its hand-held business, which was incredibly successful and faced very little competition for two decades. 

Point is, even if Nintendo scrapes a little bit of profit of each system, it still won't survive once it factors in design, marketing, and administrative costs.  Nintendo needed people to buy one game to turn a profit on each Wii U sold (which I assume most Wii U owners did).  But the big N lost a lot of money from the Wii U.  

What will determine the success of the Switch is consoles sold and attach rate.  Nintendo can do well even if they don't see a lot of Switches so long as it hits a targeted game attach rate.  But the fewer consoles sold, the higher the attach rate needs to be.  Time will tell if that happens.

The thing is, Nintendo is loaded with cash. They have billions of dollars and can afford to sit through 5-6 more Wii U's (not that they would), especially since their essentially monopolized handheld industry puts them in the green. Nintendo was incredibly foolish not to include 1-2 Switch with the console at launch. Yes it would have been at a loss, but considering they have the money and got absolutely fucking swamped last generation, they need to start taking losses to bolster sales if they ever want a chance of being near their competitors. Or hell, spend a few million to ensure I don't know, the next GTA or COD is on their console. Their money-stingy ways right now are ensuring another home console failure.

Edited by AxlRoseCDII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-03-27 at 5:28 PM, AxlRoseCDII said:

The thing is, Nintendo is loaded with cash. They have billions of dollars and can afford to sit through 5-6 more Wii U's (not that they would), especially since their essentially monopolized handheld industry puts them in the green. Nintendo was incredibly foolish not to include 1-2 Switch with the console at launch. Yes it would have been at a loss, but considering they have the money and got absolutely fucking swamped last generation, they need to start taking losses to bolster sales if they ever want a chance of being near their competitors. Or hell, spend a few million to ensure I don't know, the next GTA or COD is on their console. Their money-stingy ways right now are ensuring another home console failure.

The problem is the mobile-gaming business isn't the cash cow it once was.  I definitely think the Switch fills a need that people can't get from their smartphones, but Nintendo is no longer the only legitimate player in the mobile-gaming market.  Where they could afford to lose on the console market for a generation or two, that luxury is one they're losing.  

And yes they have a good size cash reserve, but at $4.6 billion USD as of a year ago, it's less than half what it was 10 years ago.  They can certainly afford to lose hundreds of millions for two decades and still remain viable, but that's not something shareholders are likely willing to accept.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 5:21 PM, KeyserSoze said:

I recommend Shovel Knight to any one who hasn't played it yet 

I played the first two and downloaded this one but haven't even booted it up yet. I'm traveling all week and I left my Switch at home like an idiot, so I won't be able to get to it til next week which sucks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I played the first two and downloaded this one but haven't even booted it up yet. I'm traveling all week and I left my Switch at home like an idiot, so I won't be able to get to it til next week which sucks.

damn. would have been perfect on your travels. I love the classic feel of this game and the music is so damn good and I don't find it annoying as in most other games of this caliber. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shovel Knight is a lot of fun, but I couldn't get into Plague Knight. Controls were really weird to me.

 

There's a Nintendo Direct tomorrow focusing on ARMS and Splatoon 2. ARMS looked like a throwaway at first to me but the game actually looks like a lot of fun. Could be a game with a surprising amount of gameplay depth. Splatoon 2 should also be fun. First Splatoon was a lot of fun and one of the few success stories of the Wii U. There's supposed to be some other stuff talked about, but I'm not expecting any major announcements until E3 in 2 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/04/2017 at 7:06 PM, action said:


you have awesome taste in video games! :headbang:

 

Thank you… it it was his choice. He was begging for it, and I said "umm… we might be saving up for two months for that". But my business took enough to cover it last month, so he got it. The plan is that I get a holiday on my own as my treat. We'll see if that ever materialises! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Splatoon 2 is releasing July 21 and ARMS is releasing June 16, as announced at today's Nintendo Direct. Along with Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, they pretty much round out Nintendo's release window first party titles.

 

A few smaller titles and ports were also announced, which was pretty much in line with what I was expecting (saving bigger announcements for the upcoming E3). Minecraft is coming on May 11th with a few Nintendo tie-ins. The trailer seemed to show some Nintendo character models and environments. Rayman Legends: Definitive Edition was announced for a 2017 release. Payday 2 was also announced for 2017, which was a port I definitely wasn't expecting. Dragon Quest X's Switch version is coming out in Fall 2017 in Japan, but idk if it'll come here (it's an MMO version of Dragon Quest and isn't really a mainline title, and XI is coming out before too long, anyway). Then there was a game called Namco Museum announced as a Switch exclusive, which was advertised as the "ultimate collection" of Namco arcade games (Pac-Man, Galaga, Splatterhouse, etc). Nothing there I'm super excited for, personally. Might pick up the Rayman Legends release whenever it comes out since I never played it when it originally came out.

Edited by LightningBolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14.4.2017 at 1:00 PM, Oldest Goat said:

Splatoon 2 and ARMS look fucking amazing. Sold.

Also interested in Rayman Legends and Dragon Quest XI from the ones mentioned above. Any arcade games I get when I actually get my Switch will be digital so its like an awesome little portable arcade machine!

I was watching the direct again and the thing about Arms, it looks really cool, there's a strong idea there. But character movement while decent, is not quick and twitchy but overall fluid, it's just enough to make it half stationary. You move to a spot and camp there.

What I love about it is that it's like a Windjammers game, and there is another one for VR. Arms is building on that old concept, but when you're far as fuck from your opponent or in close combat it should feel seamless.

Still looks like a ton of fun and good enough to buy. Splatoon 2 looks great.

Edited by Rovim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm going to pass on arms, but splatoon gives me a huge goldeneye multiplayer vibe so that's a day one purchase

not a big fan of motion controls and arms seems to be built around it. but there's enough other great games around the corner:

yooka laylee

mario kart

mario odyssey

skyrim

street fighter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...