The next Nintendo system after The Switch...

[Total Immortal]

I'm just thinking ahead bro.

Nintendo has shown a willingness to change...and change again.

On a relevant corollary, the future of computing can change...FAST.

https://futurism.com/the-first-quantum-computer-you-own-could-be-powered-by-a-time-crystal/

I get what you're saying, I just personally don't think Nintendo will ever prioritize graphics on their systems. I can see them making one with top notch framerates, but their games never depend on graphical output. It would definitely help 3rd party developers though.

 

[The Big Bang]

I get what you're saying, I just personally don't think Nintendo will ever prioritize graphics on their systems. I can see them making one with top notch framerates, but their games never depend on graphical output. It would definitely help 3rd party developers though.

Thanks for your cogent response, however...

A lot of people forget that Nintendo systems used to be competitive from a hardware standpoint.

Mind you, I don't think they need to be on par with current gen systems, but if they are at least somewhat close...

 

[AronaBeatsJones]

I don't think hardware advancements beyond normal (or multiplication of performance, ala SLI) is going to make that much of a difference. People just want fun games with modern graphics which aren't going to cost an arm and a leg beyond buying the base game.

I think the more EA, WB, Take Two, and these big gaming conglomerates continue to push the microtransaction model with a focus on online gameplay, the more room there will be for platforms focusing in on the single-player experience.

The industry is indeed exploding, and corporate greed will no doubt be off-putting to a lot of gamers, who will still be prime consumers for companies like Nintendo—who themselves would do well to win favour by not going the microtransaction route.

 

[Madmick]

I appreciate your insight, but...The Switch certainly doesn't not exist in a "niche playground".

Yes, it does. It's a secondary market: a perfect storm of niches off gaming's main river of revenue. I described this in my first post.

If that isn't true maybe you can explain the gaping revenue differences, or additional basic and immediate facts such as those I cited about game sales.

Again, see me in 2018 when a huge influx of games come out.

All I'm saying in terms of a traditional console is that...it would be insane for Nintendo to relatively compete in that graphical department.

...whereas Microsoft is half-assing it with their systems, but that's another subject altogether.

Lastly, imagine if you had a Switch...and then docked it to the aforementioned traditional console for exponentially HOLY FUCK graphics... Does that concept not appeal?

No, that does not appeal to Nintendo gamers. They have stated that in the Nintendo threads in this subforum, among a million others, over and over and over and over.

What is this "huge influx" of multiplat games slated to come out? What are we talking about, here?

Microsoft isn't "half-assing" it. They're fighting against the grain of PS4 dominance ever since they blew the launch. They invested $1bn in exclusives in 2014, and the result was a shitty catalog. Money can't straightforwardly purchase quality, but you're talking about multiplats, and they're doing spectacularly there in relation to Nintendo. The XBX itself offers ~$1200 of PC power with a $500 price tag. It's the software taking advantage of this that is slow to come: the same software that also doesn't exist yet for Nintendo, but certainly will (for Microsoft) by late 2018. Nintendo isn't even out the gate. If they build a new box in late 2018, then it won't be until late 2019 that you'll see a decent library taking advantage of it.

Nintendo abandoned this competition completely, this market, and it appears to be one of the smartest things they ever did. Microtransactions are not popular right now. It's going to drive more buyers away from the traditional PS/Xbox consoles of their choice out of disenfranchised anger alone. Why jump into that market as the underdog rather than be the alpha dog alternative outside it?

 

[Mazdarati]

Why on earth would they do that? Why on earth would you abandon a winning focus?

The Switch is an unexpected runaway success; nay, rather, it's not just unexpected, it's defying virtually all industry projections and predictions. Splitting their focus to compete with the PS4P/XBX in a venue where they are vastly inferior and inexperienced just sounds retarded. I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems apparent to me, finally, that the reason the Switch is succeeding precisely because it is refusing to compete in that space. Sony and Microsoft have gone all-in on the eSport trend of the future. That's proven far more lucrative, but the Switch has proven a punchy underdog despite adopting the identical hardware strategy to the disastrous Wii U.

Why? The best answer is that it's because Sony and Microsoft have alienated and abandoned so many of the single-player experience gamer base. Thinking that Nintendo could be competitive in shooters misreads all the most cogent possible explanations for why the Switch has succeeded so wildly. The very first response from @method115 hit it on the head: graphics/netcode aren't what Nintendo gamers want. The social dimension of the Switch lies in games like 1-2-Switch, Mario Kart, or Arms. It's couch co-op stuff and IRL social gaming; not virtual social gaming like on the PSN/XBL. Nintendo has no presence in that dimension.

In other words, Nintendo had a good idea, but they timed it poorly the first time around. They just needed to wait a little longer for the microtransactions and e-bro world of competitive online gaming to disenfranchise that many more among an old school world of gaming that is still obviously quite relevant; coupled with ten million moms dragging a bundle of munchkins hanging off their sleeves screaming about how the Wii is so old, they want the new one, and the moms not being able to fight them off by declaring they just bought the new console 2 years ago.

Finally, MS/Sony aren't picking up as many sales due to the tangential appeal of their own consoles as media centers; the market is saturated with households-- unlike in 2013-- that already have added some contemporary HTPC device (replacing their former system that tended to be a discrete Blu-Ray player) that handles all the streaming and apps of the world. Sprinkle in the fact that Sony decided the Vita wasn't profitable enough to pursue, while Google/Apple have made no real effort to compete outside an exclusive touchscreen format, and you get the perfect storm of niches coming together to form a powerful secondary market.

You are very insightful on a broad range of topics.

 

[The Big Bang]

Why on earth would they do that? Why on earth would you abandon a winning focus?

The Switch is an unexpected runaway success; nay, rather, it's not just unexpected, it's defying virtually all industry projections and predictions. Splitting their focus to compete with the PS4P/XBX in a venue where they are vastly inferior and inexperienced just sounds retarded. I've thought about this quite a bit, and it seems apparent to me, finally, that the reason the Switch is succeeding precisely because it is refusing to compete in that space. Sony and Microsoft have gone all-in on the eSport trend of the future. That's proven far more lucrative, but the Switch has proven a punchy underdog despite adopting the identical hardware strategy to the disastrous Wii U.

Why? The best answer is that it's because Sony and Microsoft have alienated and abandoned so many of the single-player experience gamer base. Thinking that Nintendo could be competitive in shooters misreads all the most cogent possible explanations for why the Switch has succeeded so wildly. The very first response from @method115 hit it on the head: graphics/netcode aren't what Nintendo gamers want. The social dimension of the Switch lies in games like 1-2-Switch, Mario Kart, or Arms. It's couch co-op stuff and IRL social gaming; not virtual social gaming like on the PSN/XBL. Nintendo has no presence in that dimension.

In other words, Nintendo had a good idea, but they timed it poorly the first time around. They just needed to wait a little longer for the microtransactions and e-bro world of competitive online gaming to disenfranchise that many more among an old school world of gaming that is still obviously quite relevant; coupled with ten million moms dragging a bundle of munchkins hanging off their sleeves screaming about how the Wii is so old, they want the new one, and the moms not being able to fight them off by declaring they just bought the new console 2 years ago.

Finally, MS/Sony aren't picking up as many sales due to the tangential appeal of their own consoles as media centers; the market is saturated with households-- unlike in 2013-- that already have added some contemporary HTPC device (replacing their former system that tended to be a discrete Blu-Ray player) that handles all the streaming and apps of the world. Sprinkle in the fact that Sony decided the Vita wasn't profitable enough to pursue, while Google/Apple have made no real effort to compete outside an exclusive touchscreen format, and you get the perfect storm of niches coming together to form a powerful secondary market.

1. LOL at you saying that The Switch success is SO unexpected.

2. LOL at you portraying that it took "the perfect storm of niches" for The Switch to succeed. It is logical contention to say that GOOD games are GOOD games.

3. Sony and the Vita... Oh my. That topic is both horrifying and hilarious. Just like MS is half-assing it (and they ARE) with their consoles, the way Sony handled the Vita was straight up pathetic.

 

[The Big Bang]

Yes, it does. It's a secondary market: a perfect storm of niches off gaming's main river of revenue. I described this in my first post.

If that isn't true maybe you can explain the gaping revenue differences, or additional basic and immediate facts such as those I cited about game sales.

No, that does not appeal to Nintendo gamers. They have stated that in the Nintendo threads in this subforum, among a million others, over and over and over and over.

What is this "huge influx" of multiplat games slated to come out? What are we talking about, here?

Microsoft isn't "half-assing" it. They're fighting against the grain of PS4 dominance ever since they blew the launch. They invested $1bn in exclusives in 2014, and the result was a shitty catalog. Money can't straightforwardly purchase quality, but you're talking about multiplats, and they're doing spectacularly there in relation to Nintendo. The XBX itself offers ~$1200 of PC power with a $500 price tag. It's the software taking advantage of this that is slow to come: the same software that also doesn't exist yet for Nintendo, but certainly will (for Microsoft) by late 2018. Nintendo isn't even out the gate. If they build a new box in late 2018, then it won't be until late 2019 that you'll see a decent library taking advantage of it.

Nintendo abandoned this competition completely, this market, and it appears to be one of the smartest things they ever did. Microtransactions are not popular right now. It's going to drive more buyers away from the traditional PS/Xbox consoles of their choice out of disenfranchised anger alone. Why jump into that market as the underdog rather than be the alpha dog alternative outside it?

1. The huge influx is obvious. The success of The Switch is causing MANY companies to jump onto the bandwagon...

2. MS has a SHIT presence is Japan for example...which one would think they'd at least TRY to address... Oh, and their new system is a BEEEAST...but guess what, the public at large knows not of said HOLY FUCK POWER... What's worse, MS has the $$$$$$ to bully their way into prominence...but they refuse to do so. They SHOULD have a SLEW of exclusive games at the fore...etc, etc..................................

3. For you to say that Nintendo has "abandoned" competing with Sony and MS... Huh!? That makes zero sense. As I said, MANY companies are jumping onto the bandwagon...

 

[The Big Bang]

Yes, it does. It's a secondary market: a perfect storm of niches off gaming's main river of revenue. I described this in my first post.

If that isn't true maybe you can explain the gaping revenue differences, or additional basic and immediate facts such as those I cited about game sales.

No, that does not appeal to Nintendo gamers. They have stated that in the Nintendo threads in this subforum, among a million others, over and over and over and over.

What is this "huge influx" of multiplat games slated to come out? What are we talking about, here?

Microsoft isn't "half-assing" it. They're fighting against the grain of PS4 dominance ever since they blew the launch. They invested $1bn in exclusives in 2014, and the result was a shitty catalog. Money can't straightforwardly purchase quality, but you're talking about multiplats, and they're doing spectacularly there in relation to Nintendo. The XBX itself offers ~$1200 of PC power with a $500 price tag. It's the software taking advantage of this that is slow to come: the same software that also doesn't exist yet for Nintendo, but certainly will (for Microsoft) by late 2018. Nintendo isn't even out the gate. If they build a new box in late 2018, then it won't be until late 2019 that you'll see a decent library taking advantage of it.

Nintendo abandoned this competition completely, this market, and it appears to be one of the smartest things they ever did. Microtransactions are not popular right now. It's going to drive more buyers away from the traditional PS/Xbox consoles of their choice out of disenfranchised anger alone. Why jump into that market as the underdog rather than be the alpha dog alternative outside it?

 

[Abortedone]

Here is the thing sweet tits Nintendo should just make goddamn all in one nes snes 64 and cube console instead of these classic shit they are putting

Hell even an additional amount of money get a device for all the old game boys too

 

[GhostZ06]

https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...g-on-a-4k-ready-gtx1060-addon-for-the-switch/

 

[BjPenn2017]

I would be down for a powerful nintendo system, but honestly don't really see a point. Unless they do away with friend codes and get the hell out of 2006, which isn't gonna happen ever.. I doubt any person with half a brain would prefer to play multiplayer games over ps4, xb1 or PC.

 

[Madmick]

1. LOL at you saying that The Switch success is SO unexpected.

2. LOL at you portraying that it took "the perfect storm of niches" for The Switch to succeed. It is logical contention to say that GOOD games are GOOD games.

3. Sony and the Vita... Oh my. That topic is both horrifying and hilarious. Just like MS is half-assing it (and they ARE) with their consoles, the way Sony handled the Vita was straight up pathetic.

Using the most optimistic sales forecast at each time point to convey to you how this works:

January 2017 (via FDC):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...l-40-million-units-through-2020/#1ee7f6c46145
September 2018 (via Credit Suisse):
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...sts_130_million_nintendo_switch_sales_by_2022
That's nearly a 200% uptick in projections since before it launched versus today (on the 2020 scale). No, even allowing for the most optimistic projections, the Switch was unexpectedly far more successful than projections.
http://www.food4brains.com/nintendo...ese-companys-fastest-selling-console-history/
" The Switch unit sales figure came in higher than most analysts had expected and represents a brisker initial sales pace even than Nintendo’s Wii — a machine launched in 2006 that went on to become one of the best-selling consoles of all time…"
I can't even make a boring, uncontroversial statement without you getting butthurt.

1. The huge influx is obvious. The success of The Switch is causing MANY companies to jump onto the bandwagon...

2. MS has a SHIT presence is Japan for example...which one would think they'd at least TRY to address... Oh, and their new system is a BEEEAST...but guess what, the public at large knows not of said HOLY FUCK POWER... What's worse, MS has the $$$$$$ to bully their way into prominence...but they refuse to do so. They SHOULD have a SLEW of exclusive games at the fore...etc, etc..................................

3. For you to say that Nintendo has "abandoned" competing with Sony and MS... Huh!? That makes zero sense. As I said, MANY companies are jumping onto the bandwagon...

Which companies? Name these bandwagon jumpers. Be exhaustive. Microsoft has taken measures to ensure that it has the entire PC development world behind it-- if not exclusive to it.

Prior to its launch via Game's Industry:
Switch's challenge is unique software, not PS4 competition

First, I already cited that Switch sold the most hardware units during BF/CM. That's hardware sales. That's great for Nintendo, but this is just one season after 3 years of being irrelevant with a dead console.

Ergo, second, no, it isn't "king". The PS4 is king among consoles. That's incontrovertible. Nintendo is just selling a new console while the current dominant consoles are selling upgrades (such as the unit being proposed for the Switch in this thread). That's because software tie-ins are the prime metric for profit. The Switch has 7.9m units sold, globally. The PS4 has 66.0m units sold*.
*Edit* Correction: the PS4 has sold over 70m units and 2m VR headsets

This is its competition (if you choose to see the PS4 as competition). This is the scoreboard for the most recent generations of consoles for each company. This is why on that same BF/CM its bestselling game barely cracked the Top 10 in physical sales, and certainly wouldn't once you've accounted for digital sales.


You really are the worst kind of fanboy.

 

[The Big Bang]

Using the most optimistic sales forecast at each time point to convey to you how this works:

January 2017 (via FDC):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...l-40-million-units-through-2020/#1ee7f6c46145
September 2018 (via Credit Suisse):
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20...sts_130_million_nintendo_switch_sales_by_2022
That's nearly a 200% uptick in projections since before it launched versus today (on the 2020 scale). No, even allowing for the most optimistic projections, the Switch was unexpectedly far more successful than projections.

Which companies? Name these bandwagon jumpers. Be exhaustive. I barely understand what your'e trying to talk about.

Prior to its launch via Game's Industry:
Switch's challenge is unique software, not PS4 competition

First, I already cited that Switch sold the most hardware units during BF/CM. That's hardware sales. That's great for Nintendo, but this is just one season after 3 years of being irrelevant with a dead console.

Ergo, second, no, it isn't "king". The PS4 is king among consoles. That's incontrovertible. Nintendo is just selling a new console while the current dominant consoles are selling upgrades (such as the unit being proposed for the Switch in this thread). That's because software tie-ins are the prime metric for profit. The Switch has 7.9m units sold, globally. The PS4 has 66.0m units. This is its competition (if you see the PS4 as competition). This is the scoreboard for the most recent generations of consoles for each company. This is why on that same BF/CM its bestselling game barely cracked the Top 10 in physical sales, and certainly wouldn't once you've accounted for digital sales.


You really are the worst kind of fanboy.

I have way more systems than you do bro.

And TONS of games to match.

 

[Madmick]

I have way more systems than you do bro.

And TONS of games to match.

You're a fanboy. That's why you're ranting about Microsoft's lack of presence in Japan (as if that matters on the global stage).

 

[The Big Bang]

You're a fanboy. That's why you're ranting about Microsoft's lack of presence in Japan (as if that matters on the global stage).

I am fond of good games...no matter where they come from.

Also, I'm not the only one who realizes that Microsoft is declining.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

This is one of the dumbest threads I’ve read in the video game sub forum.

Just because Nintendo has a hit on its hand doesn’t mean it should jump back into the fray with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo wisely decided to get the fuck out of dodge after the 6th generation which also took out Sega.

They definitely should not try to jump back in. Keep doing cool, unique things like the Wii and the Switch, but stay out of the war between MS and Sony. It’s not worth it.

 

[The Big Bang]

This is one of the dumbest threads I’ve read in the video game sub forum.

Just because Nintendo has a hit on its hand doesn’t mean it should jump back into the fray with Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo wisely decided to get the fuck out of dodge after the 6th generation which also took out Sega.

They definitely should not try to jump back in. Keep doing cool, unique things like the Wii and the Switch, but stay out of the war between MS and Sony. It’s not worth it.

Yeah...

I never said they should be a clone of the other systems.

I merely said that MORE power would be amazing for games going forward.

And again, Nintendo weren't always hardware deficient.

The GC and N64 were competitive against the their rivals in terms of graphics, but not in terms of storage.

Oh, and the NES and SNES were very strong in their time.

 

[tehJameson]

I could give a shit about graphics and if i did I wouldn't be going for a console. Nintendo needs to keep doing their thing with their games and innovations as it's a breathe of fresh air compared to the PS and Xbox.

It's honestly more fun getting drunk and playing nintendo games than most console games.

 

[Da_Rev_Ong]

Yeah...

I never said they should be a clone of the other systems.

I merely said that MORE power would be amazing for games going forward.

And again, Nintendo weren't always hardware deficient.

The GC and N64 were competitive against the their rivals in terms of graphics, but not in terms of storage.

Oh, and the NES and SNES were very strong in their time.

True on those last two lines. However:

Stepping back into that space of competitive hardware tends to bring the cost of hardware up. With the execs at Nintendo flirting with the possibility of multiple family members owning a Switch (just as they would other dedicated mobile devices) because the cost of hardware allows it, I have a real hard time seeing them being willing to trade the prospect of multiple Switches in each household for the prospect of one expensive home console. With the success of the Switch, Nintendo has successfully carved out their own space (read: "niche") that is worth billions of dollars and isn't rife with the directly competing against Sony or Microsoft. That is a lot to give up on a theoretical powerhouse console that isn't guaranteed to compete well. Heck, given the history of the last few times they did attempt to compete, it would be a safer bet not to even enter that fight.

Nintendo is probably my favorite gaming company in existence right now (you can find me on video stating that). However, I think they know where their best chance of success is. Regardless of how tantalizing the aspect of a high spec Nintendo console may be, that isn't the likeliest place where their success will lie. They are much better served ruling the dedicated portable gaming space that they've created and established.

 

[blaseblah]

The core games people know Nintendo for (Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc) don't really benefit from super high res graphics). All they need is cartoony graphics. They would be blowing away all that goodwill if they dropped an overpriced console that focused on power.

Games are what sell consoles. Not specs.