Can Nintendo's $299 Switch Stand Against The PS4 And XB1?

[Martell1977]

"Custon nVidia Tegra processor"...that was part of the problem with the WiiU, the PS4 and XBone changed over to X86 APU's so game developers could easier port the games to PC and expand demand, while the WiiU stuck with ARM and game devs pretty much abandoned them. If they can't get major devs on board with this, it will suffer a similar fate.

Besides, I thought nVidia said that there was no profit in consoles...at least that's what they said after AMD won both PS4 and XBone contracts...

As for price, I think $299 is decent. You don't need a lot of storage as games will be on "gamecards" (not sure how well that will work), but it is doing double duty. Think about how much it would cost to buy a PS4, PSVita and games for both. Compare that to the Switch that is both and you buy 1 set of games to work as console and portable.

That being said, it would be nice that since it's portable, they should include a car charger, but I'm sure that will be for sale as an accessory for like $30.

 

[joshyboy82]

The first thought is that no, this console is not trying to compete with the PS4 or X-Bone. They are targeting a very different demographic of gamer. As a PC gamer, I'm much more interested in the Switch than the PS4/Bone, because Nintendo has always had the best exclusives. But that being said, $300 is still just a bit steep. $250, I could've understood. But... the value proposition is just a bit lacking right now. I may just wait until next Christmas instead of getting it on launch.

please tell us about these "best exclusives" you talk about, because we have no idea what you are talking about, or are you refering to 15 years ago and more?

Zelda? Mario kart? Super Mario...anything except Party? Maybe a new Pikman? If these games aren't your taste, that's fine, but ignoring the fact that they exist, are exclusive, and world-wide popular is just forced ignorance.

 

[joshyboy82]

BTW, Game Informer has the first 20 minutes of new Zelda, and that doesn't look like any handheld game I've seen.

 

[eriko]

Some interesting comments here, but all are asked / posited with the learning of a Toms / Anand reader.

Many parents have no clue on tech stuff, (how many Toms readers have you met in the street? Me? One.), and know Nintendo as a good brand to buy for their children, when out buying toys. So yes, I think this will sell.

I think Nintendo, as far back as 94' said they were making TOYS, for CHILDREN, so let 'em be, and let 'em get on with it.

Either way, I loved the SNES days too, but we have PCs now, great massive GPUs, and I'm happier that way.

This is just a TOY to me.

 

[Scooter 30]

They probably missed out on a lot of money by not having a decent supply of NES Classics. It's after Christmas and I still haven't seen any for sale except for the ones people sell on Ebay/Craigslist at an inflated price.

 

[Martell1977]

They probably missed out on a lot of money by not having a decent supply of NES Classics. It's after Christmas and I still haven't seen any for sale except for the ones people sell on Ebay/Craigslist at an inflated price.

I read a report that Walmart is getting small supplies and are not advertising when they get them. If you find out when your local Walmart gets electronics shipments, you might be able to grab one.

But, totally agree, they really screwed that one up.

 

[filippi]

I understand the comparison of the Switch to Xbox and PS4, but Nintendo is targeting a different market. Sure Nintendo could beef up its hardware, but why should they? So they can be like the Xbox, PS4, PCs? Nintendo wants to be different and frankly they don't want their console running the same games as their competitors because that would make them the same. If you want an awesome top of the line gaming machine get a PC.

As for the other main argument against Nintendo... that they should license their IP on other platforms. They are. Pokemon go was a license deal with Niantic. I don't know enough about Mario Run but they are clearly testing the waters. Despite this I'm not sure I agree that Nintendo should stop producing hardware. I love my 3DS and I love Nintendo games. I have no desire to buy an Xbox or PS4 and would be disappointed if I had to in order to play Nintendo games.

This. I like Xbox and PS4 but even more my PC so i don't need them.
My wife don't care about them. But loves nintendo.
She strongly feels nintendo is totally different. So it is Nintendo and PC here. Different market. Complementary even.

 

[gggplaya]

It needed to be $200.

 

[Pito__64]

$300 does sound pricey for what it has to offer, hardware wise, but Nintendo isn't known for baffling graphics or performance. Nintendo focuses on gameplay, great sound tracks, visual art style and game changing functions. I've had more fun playing Mario games then virtually any other game on any other console, even with it coming in short woth it's low specs. I'm sure Nintendo will bring things to the table other consoles will take and make their own because, they're simply great ideas. Nintendo, regardless of the hardware specs, is good competition for PlayStation and Xbox. Though, I do believe Nintendo's new console's greatness will be overshadowed by its steep price and discouraging, small library of games.

 

[BadBoyGreek]

$300 does sound pricey for what it has to offer, hardware wise, but Nintendo isn't known for baffling graphics or performance. Nintendo focuses on gameplay, great sound tracks, visual art style and game changing functions. I've had more fun playing Mario games then virtually any other game on any other console, even with it coming in short woth it's low specs. I'm sure Nintendo will bring things to the table other consoles will take and make their own because, they're simply great ideas. Nintendo, regardless of the hardware specs, is good competition for PlayStation and Xbox. Though, I do believe Nintendo's new console's greatness will be overshadowed by its steep price and discouraging, small library of games.

The problem with Nintendo is that they've tried "different" twice so far, with arguably unfavorable results, and to try to do so again is a huge gamble. The idea of a home / portable console is certainly a great one, but potentially as low as 2 hours of game time on battery power, in 2017, is unacceptable. Portability for the Switch is the main selling point, and if they can't deliver a smooth on the go experience with decent battery life, then it's going to tank.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Nintendo is really offering up "competition" to Sony and Microsoft anymore, so much as an "alternative". Yes, obviously the exclusive franchises Nintendo has like Mario, Zelda etc. are the main reason to go with them, but how viable will the long term survival of those franchises be if they can't move enough consoles? Why bother putting out hardware that doesn't sell and that you'll take a loss on, just to get your exclusive titles out? If you can't move consoles, you can't move the games either, it's that simple.

Make no mistake, the Switch will be the make or break product for Nintendo. And if it fails as badly as the Wii U did, then Nintendo really needs to stick a fork in their console plans and start developing for other platforms. They could at least focus their efforts and dollars on making exceptional games on superior platforms, rather than keep dumping money into losing consoles just for the sake of being "different".

 

[tacgnol06]

Emperor of the PC Master Race TotalBiscuit said it best. The console's price is reasonable if a full-featured console capable of going mobile appeals to you. If you value it as just a handheld gaming device, or just a console, then yes, it is a tad overpriced.

Now the accessories are another matter. Not since Vita memory cards have I seen such a blatant attempt to milk consumers for all their worth, the $90 extra charge stands being the most obvious example.

 

[cryoburner]

The problem with Nintendo is that they've tried "different" twice so far, with arguably unfavorable results, and to try to do so again is a huge gamble. The idea of a home / portable console is certainly a great one, but potentially as low as 2 hours of game time on battery power, in 2017, is unacceptable. Portability for the Switch is the main selling point, and if they can't deliver a smooth on the go experience with decent battery life, then it's going to tank.

What are you talking about? Nintendo has tried "different" a number of times to great success. The Wii was "different", and sold over 100 million consoles, making it the third-best selling console of all time. The DS was also "different", and sold over 150 million units, making it the best selling portable gaming device of all time. The 3DS was relatively similar to the DS, but with a unique screen technology that you still don't see on other devices, allowing it to also sell quite well at over 60 million units so far, despite increased competition from smartphones and tablets. Meanwhile, the Playstation Vita, a much more traditional portable gaming device, has only moved around 14 million units, about the same number as the Wii U. And if we consider the Wii U a "failed" platform, we might as well also consider the same for the GameCube and original Xbox, which only sold 21 and 24 million units, respectively. The under-performance of the largely-traditional GameCube was what showed Nintendo that it might be beneficial to provide something "different" to gamers, and the hugely successful Wii and DS showed them that they were right.

Make no mistake, the Switch will be the make or break product for Nintendo. And if it fails as badly as the Wii U did, then Nintendo really needs to stick a fork in their console plans and start developing for other platforms. They could at least focus their efforts and dollars on making exceptional games on superior platforms, rather than keep dumping money into losing consoles just for the sake of being "different".

Nintendo is still reasonably well-off financially, so I doubt that an underperforming Switch would "break" them. And no, I'd hardly say that having them make games for the other consoles would be an improvement. Just look at SEGA after they went that route. How many games developed by SEGA can you think of that have managed a 90+ Metascore in the last 10 years? Any? Nintendo has had at least a dozen during that time frame.

That being said, it would be nice that since it's portable, they should include a car charger, but I'm sure that will be for sale as an accessory for like $30.

Actually, the Switch is supposed to use a standard USB Type-C charging port, so it's likely that any commonly available charger or cable with the newer USB-C plug should work with it.

You forget about the launch of the 2DS and the New 3DS and New 3DS XL (Those last 2 have newer hardware)?

I didn't forget about them. They are all in the same generation of hardware. The 2DS is pretty much just a lower-cost 3DS with a different shape and no 3D screen, while the XL models are just bigger versions of the same device. The New 3DS is, as it's name suggests, just an updated version of the 3DS with some relatively minor new features and hardware improvements, a bit like what the DSi was for the Nintendo DS generation. The only 3DS game that I can think of that requires the New 3DS is Xenoblade Chronicles, although there are other games that perform better or offer some additional features on the newer hardware.

I do think there's going to be at least some overlap between the generations of the 3DS and the Switch though, since the switch is somewhat less portable. I wouldn't doubt if we'll see a "Switch Pocket" come out in a couple years though, with a smaller screen and more compact dimensions, yet able to run the same games.

 

[danlw]

I see a lot of FUD regarding the Switch using Maxwell and Pascal. Has this been confirmed anywhere, or is this simply the preveiling rumor? My Google search just turned up speculation and conjecture, but nothing solid on Maxwell or Pascal.

 

[Decends]

It uses the Tegra X1. That is Maxwell based Tegra processor. The X2 is Pascal which for some stupid reason they decided not to use.

 

[Martell1977]

It uses the Tegra X1. That is Maxwell based Tegra processor. The X2 is Pascal which for some stupid reason they decided not to use.

As I understand it, console development takes well over a year(if not years) and I doubt the X2 existed except on paper at the time the final decision was made. Just the way of things.

 

[BadBoyGreek]

The problem with Nintendo is that they've tried "different" twice so far, with arguably unfavorable results, and to try to do so again is a huge gamble. The idea of a home / portable console is certainly a great one, but potentially as low as 2 hours of game time on battery power, in 2017, is unacceptable. Portability for the Switch is the main selling point, and if they can't deliver a smooth on the go experience with decent battery life, then it's going to tank.

What are you talking about? Nintendo has tried "different" a number of times to great success. The Wii was "different", and sold over 100 million consoles, making it the third-best selling console of all time. The DS was also "different", and sold over 150 million units, making it the best selling portable gaming device of all time. The 3DS was relatively similar to the DS, but with a unique screen technology that you still don't see on other devices, allowing it to also sell quite well at over 60 million units so far, despite increased competition from smartphones and tablets. Meanwhile, the Playstation Vita, a much more traditional portable gaming device, has only moved around 14 million units, about the same number as the Wii U. And if we consider the Wii U a "failed" platform, we might as well also consider the same for the GameCube and original Xbox, which only sold 21 and 24 million units, respectively. The under-performance of the largely-traditional GameCube was what showed Nintendo that it might be beneficial to provide something "different" to gamers, and the hugely successful Wii and DS showed them that they were right.

Make no mistake, the Switch will be the make or break product for Nintendo. And if it fails as badly as the Wii U did, then Nintendo really needs to stick a fork in their console plans and start developing for other platforms. They could at least focus their efforts and dollars on making exceptional games on superior platforms, rather than keep dumping money into losing consoles just for the sake of being "different".

Nintendo is still reasonably well-off financially, so I doubt that an underperforming Switch would "break" them. And no, I'd hardly say that having them make games for the other consoles would be an improvement. Just look at SEGA after they went that route. How many games developed by SEGA can you think of that have managed a 90+ Metascore in the last 10 years? Any? Nintendo has had at least a dozen during that time frame.
.

I'm referring strictly to home consoles here, so your points about the 3DS and other Nintendo portables are moot. It's pretty well known that Nintendo has dominated the portables market for pretty much ever.

And yes, while the original Wii was a gamble that largely paid off, its hardware limitations held it back from being so much more, and the "different" approach didn't pay off a second time with the Wii U. Wii did well based on Nintendo's proprietary franchises, but the same success didn't translate to the Wii U. So either somehow, people were no longer interested in Nintendo's franchises, or the console itself was poop. And we know it's obviously not the former.

Even though Nintendo may be well off financially, they can't afford another misstep like the Wii U, whether you believe it or not. If the Switch can't achieve good performance compared to PS4 / XBox, decent battery life and a competitive price, then it may not do so well. The fact that Nintendo says battery life will be 2.5 - 6 hours "depending on the game" isn't very promising, and batteries lose their ability to retain a charge over time. Eventually, that 2.5 hours will be a best case scenario, and the non-user replaceable battery will come back to bite Nintendo in the arse.

As for Sega, while they may not have put out stellar games since they exited the console business, at least they went out while they were still on top. Dreamcast was the best console of its time, even so during the initial release of the PS2, but they saw the writing on the wall and knew they couldn't compete anymore.

I'm not trying to argue that Nintendo shouldn't do their own thing. What I'm trying to argue is that if the Switch fails the way the Wii U did, they need to re-evaluate their strategy. Different for the sake of being different is useless if it doesn't translate into sales. And with Sony releasing the PSVR, and Microsoft no doubt not far behind with their own plans for VR, Nintendo needs to catch up or be left in the dust.

 

[Decends]

It uses the Tegra X1. That is Maxwell based Tegra processor. The X2 is Pascal which for some stupid reason they decided not to use.

As I understand it, console development takes well over a year(if not years) and I doubt the X1 existed except on paper at the time the final decision was made. Just the way of things.

I assume you meant X2 or what ever nvidia calls the pascal tegra. And you literally could put the x2 in same place as X1. All those Tegra's consume nearly the same amount of power! Its always been about double the performance per same watt. Hence why the X1 is so much faster than the K1 for nearly same amount of power.

 

[Martell1977]

I assume you meant X2 or what ever nvidia calls the pascal tegra. And you literally could put the x2 in same place as X1. All those Tegra's consume nearly the same amount of power! Its always been about double the performance per same watt. Hence why the X1 is so much faster than the K1 for nearly same amount of power.

Correct, it was a typo. But when they decided to use the X1, nVidia probably helped design the motherboard and then ramped up production of the chips for them. We really don't know the whole timeline, but it could also be that the X2 costs more and they wanted to keep production costs as low as possible.

Whatever the motivation, Nintendo might be in a bad spot here. They are still running ARM chips and developers moved away from that when XBone and PS4 went X86. If they can't get many 3rd party games, they will be stuck with only what they produce and as we saw with the WiiU, it hampered sales significantly.

 

[cryoburner]

I'm referring strictly to home consoles here, so your points about the 3DS and other Nintendo portables are moot.
...

And yes, while the original Wii was a gamble that largely paid off, its hardware limitations held it back from being so much more, and the "different" approach didn't pay off a second time with the Wii U.

The Switch is pretty much both a portable and a console though, and the DS / 3DS line has shown that offering something different can help your product stand out above heavy competition, so it makes for a good comparison. And I definitely wouldn't consider the Wii a failure, by any means. Even though third-party support dropped off toward the end, the Wii had a pretty good library of games, and its alternative controls offered up fresh experiences we wouldn't have seen otherwise. Would the Wii have been better had it focused on higher-end graphics hardware instead, like the arguably-underperforming GameCube before it? At the very least, it would have increased the cost of entry, making it less attractive to the more-casual audiences, and those willing to grab it as a secondary console for its unique features and exclusive games.

The Wii U had a number of issues, mostly not related to it being "different". To start, it was not targeted well toward the large casual audience the Wii had built up. It's name and logo were too similar to the Wii's, undoubtedly giving many not following gaming news the impression that it was just some pricey add-on for the Wii with vague, tablet-like features. Except cheap tablets had already become common before the Wii U made it to market, making the touchscreen on its controller not appear nearly as unique as the Wii's motion controls. And of course, being wirelessly tethered to the main console prevented the gamepad from being truly portable. And for having such a similar name, it didn't put much focus on the motion controls that made the Wii so popular. They could have at least included a MotionPlus remote in the box, and had a Wii Sports game available near the system's launch. And of course, it's core feature, the dual-screen experience, was a bit awkward to work with when it requires players to look away from their television and refocus on a controller in their hands continuously. It simply wasn't a system-selling feature.

I think the Switch does a fair amount better on a number of these points. We once again get some motion controllers as a standard feature in-box, encouraging developers to make use of them, and allowing for more experiences with casual appeal. It's also now truly portable, so people can easily take the device to gatherings to help show off what it can do to a wider audience. The product's name and logo are also decidedly different from the Wii, which should make it clear that this is something new. It is still kind of tablet-like in its portable form, but there's less of a focus on that as a feature, and more of a focus on the device's versatility. About the only real questionable thing I see is that at least at launch, the system seems like it may lack a pack-in game to show off its capabilities.

The fact that Nintendo says battery life will be 2.5 - 6 hours "depending on the game" isn't very promising, and batteries lose their ability to retain a charge over time. Eventually, that 2.5 hours will be a best case scenario, and the non-user replaceable battery will come back to bite Nintendo in the arse.

Again, it's worth keeping in mind that the system charges via USB Type-C, and it should be a relatively simple matter to plug it into a USB power bank, perhaps one you might already have for a phone or other device. I'm sure we'll also see third-party cases and ergonomic grips for it with built-in extended battery packs as well. It would certainly be better if it had longer battery life (I also found the 3DS battery life a bit disappointing compared to the DS Lite), but I don't think that will be nearly as much of a problem as some are making it out to be. The run-time should only be relevant when you're using it in portable mode, and away from a power source. In your home, it shouldn't be a problem. Outside your home, you probably won't be playing it for hours on end anyway.

And with Sony releasing the PSVR, and Microsoft no doubt not far behind with their own plans for VR, Nintendo needs to catch up or be left in the dust.

I get the impression that Nintendo likely has a VR plan as well. Just look at the format of the switch. The console is built into a portable screen, with detachable motion controllers. It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch for Nintendo to have plans for a GearVR-style headset peripheral in the works. I do think that it might not come to this version of the Switch though, since the device would probably be a bit bulky for that. However, as I mentioned before, I could see them releasing a smaller version of the Switch in a couple years as a more portable successor to the 3DS. If they did, being able to pop the thing into a relatively low-cost headset peripheral could be a good way to offer portable VR.

They are still running ARM chips and developers moved away from that when XBone and PS4 went X86. If they can't get many 3rd party games, they will be stuck with only what they produce and as we saw with the WiiU, it hampered sales significantly.

There's plenty of game development being done on ARM chips. Practically all smartphones and tablets run on ARM, as do both the 3DS and Vita. As a result, a number of big game engines support ARM, and have already announced support for the Switch, including Unreal Engine and Unity. It's possible that some multiplatform releases may be better optimized for the other platforms, and there will likely be others that don't come to the platform at all, but multiplatform titles tend to not be what people buy Nintendo devices for anyway. And realistically, there are no comparable X86 systems on a chip that Nintendo could have used in a device like this.

 

[bloodroses]

From what I read regarding the Tegra X1 in the Switch, I guess the one inside the Switch is a highly customized chip. There are supposed to be a bunch of optimizations in it, taken from the X2. They said the manufacturing process will probably be at 20mm still (pascal uses 16mm).

The biggest concern I read about regards the clock speed of the GPU. When docked the GPU will run at 768mhz (shield TV runs at 1ghz for comparison), and clocks itself down to 307mhz when undocked (which is 40% of the speed). From what I was reading, games will need to be developed so that they handle two different settings (kind of like games enhanced for the PS4 pro but still work on PS4).

Again, it all depends on what Nintendo is able to push out of the system in regards to game quality and 3rd party support as to whether the system will do well or not.

 

[g-unit1111]

I think the time has come for Nintendo to throw in the towel on the console wars and just focus on being a developer and start leasing out their IPs to third parties. Their market share has taken a beating since the Wii and they clearly can't compete with Sony and Microsoft anymore in the console space.

Sega at least got smart and knew to quit while they were ahead. Time for Nintendo to follow suit.

Yeah I agree. Nintendo could make boatloads of cash licensing their legacy titles to Android and iOS the way SquareEnix did with the Final Fantasy series, or the way Sega is doing it. The Switch is an interesting idea but I just don't think there's a market for it the way there was with the Wii.