Rummy

Neither of those are a discussion. They're just baseless statements of opinion with nothing to back them. Still, my logical scenarios and points seemingly are going ignored. If you can tell me why they're wrong, or present some alternative to count them, I'm happy to hear it! Not sure what the point of a thread is if not to actually discuss the systems potential implications! It's ok though, I can see all the people buying the Switch are doing so because they blindly love and follow Nintendo and all they do, and similarly so with the love for the online app. So much so they can't bring themselves to criticise it, because they aren't then allowed to buy it * I argue against the battery life argument suggesting the Switch is poorly designed in that regards if they're having to depend on the users to have a 3rd party device to deal with their own shortcoming in the system's battery life. What about when my 3 hour remaining Switch is useless next to my friend's half-hour remaining in the pub, because whilst his Switch is going to die soon his phone is fine and mine has died because I was busy using it for neccessary things before I got there? EDIT: *Putting a note in here as I was apparently too subtle despite the winkyface - the bolded paragraph is not actually a view I hold or believe in as I find it far too simplistic. I used it as an example of flipping the point to show that such an approach is no good regardless of which side of the coin it comes from(blindly for/blindly against).

Because when you generalise people dismissing the service as being a poor idea, it includes me, because I'm dismissing it! However I am NOT dimissing it for the generalised reason? Again - you say for 'portable online gaming' and 'Switch battery life' but neither of those are saying anything. Neither of those are 'logical scenarios' which you suggest exist. I'm just asking for those. I didn't want to start addressing an aspect of either of those that you haven't considered in response to you, just for us to discuss whether or not it's what you were suggesting. What's your point for 'portable online gaming' - is it addressed by my point above about WiFi hotspots? Is the issue of 'Switch battery life' also addressed by the concurrent issue of the associated secondary smart device's battery life? Basically because Nintendo have made a system that can't handle everything it wants to do I have to have a secondary smart device to do it for them, and use that at my own cost? I.E cost of the battery, issues when it breaks/stops working(as my phone did last week), having to have both devices at the same time etc? Do you have any rebuttals for my points/scenarios offered in my earlier post? Or is the way forward to just keep saying 'but it COULD be good' whilst I say 'but it COULD be bad'? *I call it a terrible online approach going by the limited information we've had from Nintendo so far suggesting both Matchmaking and Voice Chat are to be done through the app; with little suggestion of them being done elsewhere.

Ahhhhh! Where did you manage to find that picture?! That's the sort of thing I've been trying my hardest to find! Ended up in just a lot of internet conversations speculating a lot of what we already had - or blurry pics where you couldn't see anything! Interesting it's taking such a large input, though a bit of a shame it's going to affect your ability to charge from your devices. What happens in the case of charging a phone from a pc/laptop usb port compared to a mains adaptor though? Both charge, but I'm sure at different rates/inputs to the phone, no? Would that mean that maybe a mains supply charge for the Switch does it faster, but it could still be done via anything else USB-C that can supply?

I think you're thinking too black and whitely about black and white! If this was in reference to the RFN podcast - well, I should admit that my context for it was not on that podcast alone - but having listened to a few and concluding from there that they probably weren't making the podcast with the sole intention of only just being negative about the console. Sure; a lot of 'negative' points were made but their discussion from what I call still felt balanced - and I imagine it was from pointing out potentially good things too. What conclusive opinions, though? I've already said we barely know anything! What are we supposed to do in the interim - suspend all our thought processes until someone else does it for us? Well, I put to you a very obvious question...HOW could it be a better solution, if you're suggesting that possibility? Why, despite my previous post, are you still generalising people's responses to it? Who's shooting it 'dead upon mention' 'as its of Nintendo origin'? It's like you didn't even read my post. I've given realistic scenarios that could occur, based off the little we know - and yet am offered no rebuttal and indirectly accused of shooting the thing down simply because it's Nintendo! Absolute bullshit! Alternative facts!! And again - why not offer them? I can't see much over a smart device app that couldn't have been done on the Switch - and before you talk about internet connections whilst out and about I believe you'd be hard pressed to find many people with a 3G+ device that doesn't offer them a WiFi tethering option. Add on top of that the local WiFi people might find whilst out and about as a counterpoint too.

Now admittedly I've watched none of the videos so maybe I'm commenting out of context; though I do agree with some of H-o-T's points regarding trying to be not too biased. Iirc I listened to and quite enjoyed the RFN episode he mentioned - and it was a great listen because it felt realistic. We all have to be realistic I think, despite what side of the fence we sit, I think. Speaking of which... Who's automatically doing that though? I've posted across a few different threads and indeed even here just a few posts up with potential scenarios where having the online run through a smartphone app will not be particularly suitable. Yet I see few people offer a decent rebuttal or explain how it might not work like that. If Nintendo aren't giving us lots of information, and we can logically imagine realistic scenarios in which the app would be less suitable - what else are we to work with and why was the conclusion 'automatic'? It almost takes an attitude of sticking one's head in the sand regarding the conversation! One thing I was thinking with the recent information regarding the Switch's 3.5mm port being able to take headsets/microphones - they COULD(and hopefully will) use the online app for matchmaking/initiating voice chat but the actual voice chat side itself running through the console once everything's matchmade. Keeps power consumtion on the secondary smart device down. I still stand by the belief they've gone down the App route because of their still ridiculous concerns around people ending up in voice chat with randoms - and that's a conversation that's been done to death - but it is also that basis upon which I hope for the above. Back to the earlier point though... I wanted to quote this because I think it's kinda of relevant to the generalisations made about the varying sides or 'fans'. I think a number of us here have probably been fanboys at some point in their lives(I certainly was as a young'un) as well as critics too. Why is it always put across that we have to apparently be one or the other? That we can't critically look at the system but still want it? It seems to too often come down to the idea that if you criticise it you hate it, and if you praise it you love it; when surely nothing is so black and white as to that? I mean sure, I do fall on the more critical side of Nintendo at the moment - but it's because I used to love so much of what they did and feel they've lost that. Despite being on the critical side of them - me, and many others, still had a WiiU and supported that. It gets tiresome to be told that because you're critical you have no place in talking about them, or that you don't like them etc. It's one of the big reasons a thread like this came about. So...yeah. I lost myself in this post a bit but just kinda wanted to make those loose points. I think.

Erm...ok not sure how that related to my quote but also what newness is that adding to the conversation? We've already been over the battery's capacity(unless you weren't reading the thread, but you'll see it was me that actually stated it) and it was more about V. Amoleo's question about the power supply itself rather than the battery capacity. Assuming the accuracy of reports saying the battery only gives around 3 hours of play time on a full charge - let's estimate 4310/3=1.44A. Call it 1.5A to be generous - you'd surely have to have quite a high voltage output to have a high power consumption there? How or why does it show the 'power'(presuming you didn't mean literal power) of the console? It merely shows how much capacity the battery has. Without the accompanying currents and voltages which we were discussing - we don't ACTUALLY know the full power(literal power, in Watts etc) consumption of the console. Information that is proving tricky for me to nail down at the moment too. Possibly worth noting here that according to a quick wikipedia check the Shield's battery is 7,350mAh with a reported power output of 28.8W. One can only wonder where the hyperbole-hating Serebii would put that on his scale holding 4,310mAh at 'ridiculously high' already Also as far as I'm aware - the Wii U never ran off a battery; so not sure why that comparison's being made unless you're drawing it in towards the Gamepad - again silly and irrelevant as the Wii U Gamepad was never a console 'Shocking news - Nintendo's latest console MORE powerful than last console's main controller!' - sadly a headline some might not struggle to find plausible given Nintendo's approaches at the moment

Oh of course it is - but it's all linked together is it not? V=IR, P=IV, P=I^2R etc. For the charging time though - if we know capacity/charge in mAh - and we know charge time, we should be able to get the general rough input/charging ampage without the voltage? On top of which anyway we have some windows to guess at the voltage if it's meeting USB standards? Maybe it's so you can have TWO headsets on the go - one ear for the voice chat side and the other ear for the game sounds side

Now you just look like a weirdo talking to yourself

I didn't think you'd need the voltage so much - besides which wouldn't we assume it around 5V if it's all using USB-C? Weirdly I do find this all interesting, but I can't help feel we're all missing some obvious piece of the puzzle...

In theory possibly, but it isn't usually a chance I like to take. Whilst I believe if you both use the same firm they should have different people attached to each case to avoid any conflicts of interest, I just don't have the confidence in every single firm out there to be assiduous enough about that. Besides which as Raining mentioned some delays will just be outside of their hands.

Ahhh! Hadn't realised they both were but that makes good sense. Do agree it seems a bit weird charging a console off USB - but will it somehow use both the battery's power in addition to the 'mains' power supplied to the dock? I don't even know the logistics of that if particularly possible. Can you figure out from the battery/charge time? I can't find very much info with a little look around - tho tbh terms like 'power' and 'switch' aren't the best unique search terms and ESPECIALLY not so in context of each other Apparently the battery is like 4310mAh capacity, and takes around 3 hours to charge supposedly. Can you just divide the capacity by charge time to get an output current? Obvs need to consider inefficiencies in the transformations too but still those numbers don't feel quite right to me; so I'm sure I've made a poor leap in my logic somewhere. What's supposed to be the max output of USB according to the standard? I understand there's the 'power only' output that's higher too, but again my knowledge of the subject on the whole is still lacking!

Should have gone for the 8/10 Why were you asking @V\. Amoleo and whilst I don't have the answer are you talking about a mains charger for the switch or the power supply to the dock? I imagine there will be a difference between the two - Switch is supposedly USB-C iirc though so I imagine any charger there would be similar to other USB devices?

Would it be fair to call GTA one of the biggest gaming brands/series out there? It's big business - if you looked at the Switch would you want to run the risk of bringing your product to it to fail, or possibly not perform as well as you'd like it to? The parallel I'd consider drawing is that of the PS3/360/WiiU WatchDogs compared to the PS4/XBone/PC ones? I only ever played the PS4 version but I heard the latter collection were superior in a couple of ways to the former. Orrrr....something simple like this instead maybe :p

Just thinking on the mention of more flavours - I wonder if they might do some Splatoon-esque coloured ones later on down the line...

Not that it'd even be likely to occur but I cannot imagine attempting Destiny online through the Switch's terrible online approach. I played for the best part of 10-12 hours one Sunday - having jumped in after TTK expansion - how is a phone or smart device even going to handle all that time of being on and communicating data with yet another thing to charge it? Imagine taking on a raid for the first time blind - how long will you be playing through that and how much charge is everyone gonna have on their smart device? Also not Destiny related but what if I've been out all day and come home to play a quick bit of Splatwoon - but it's incredibly hard for me to voice chat because my phone battery is running down on 1-15%? I certainly do like the idea of its portability - but it's absolutely games dependant as you say. One killer app for me may well be a Monster Hunter game - having the potential for both local and online hunts would be pretty grand in a game like that. Interestingly I was very against MM when it came to 3DS. I didn't like that new people potentially experiencing it for the first time will no fully/truly experience the time pressures forced upon the player with a console compared to a sleepable portable. Having said that - I did bloody love the convenience of it as a portable and being able to sleep it at almost any time; but then again I in some ways minded less as I'd already had the experience of the time pressures in the original play through. I think there are some potential pluses to console games on handheld - but I do think certain things can certainly be lost in what seems such a subtle transition.

Oh, not entirely surprising considering that - but I do wonder how much extra work it would have taken and expected otherwise. I'd wonder if maybe BotW was an easy but late port rather than being built too custom to the Switch - as if it was the latter surely they could have put in the HD rumble cues etc? Other barrier I can imagine as I mentioned is just the sheer scope and potential variety to code for - if that was a huge task then regular rumble is surely worth more than half HD rumble in places. Still having said that I don't see why they can't have done a bit and mixed the two - as the base rumble code will still be there so it doesn't have to be either/or on an all or nothing sort of thing?

Old news anyway, as Ronnie's already told us the same! Also I realise this will probably overlap both threads but to move the conversation on a bit - Retro's posted in the Zelda thread reporting that BotW won't have HD rumble on the Switch. Personally think that's quite a huge gap given the HD rumble is something they've touted for the system. EDIT: Didn't actually finish this post before posting - for those who are intending to get a Switch on launch - how does this, if at all, affect any decisions/thoughts you have on it?

Kinda missing a trick not putting HD rumble into what appears to be one of the flagship Switch launch titles - especially after pushing it as a notable thing for the system. If I were someone more vested in the Switch or with a pre-order it'd probably be another thing that puts me off - kind of strange to wonder why it wasn't done though. Surely no big extras to have to add in for the Switch version, unless the scope of the game and possibility made it difficult? Still think it should be in there to differentiate the versions more though.

IF you're already having doubts now then you'll be having them later too. I'd dare say he isn't the sort that's going to change if that's his general approach - and for me, personally, I'd like to hope I'd avoid having that person in my life for too long. Ofc I realise it's easy to point out a person's flaws, especially in a relationship, without conveying all the good bits which can sometimes be quite simple or subtle. I had the same thing with my ex a bit tho - her attitude sometimes bugged me, and everyone told me to give up, but I couldn't. So I don't know. I'm in a better place now though I think.

I'd maybe say about three grandish on top of the stamp duty. Should cover solicitors, reports, searches etc well enough. Depends what quotes you're getting form the solicitors though - I went with a licensed conveyancer who were at a distance and whilst cheaper than a local solicitors were a bit of a hassle in getting documents done/approved, and added some extras for basic shit, but yeah. I'd say get your quotes for the conveyancing side, then add stamp duty, then maybe a grand for the extras such as searches etc.

What if you love the idea of the hardware but not the software, is it still so simple? What if you DO want the system but can't commit to an unknown online fee on top of the £280 you're going to invest in the system alone? Is it still so simple? It's still Switch relevant - and the fault lies with the vagueness. I and maybe others can't really say whether we're happy or not 'with how Nintendo are approaching certainly online services' - because we don't bloody know! What makes all of this worse is it seems people such as Ronnie(direct in a few weeks) and Clownferret(games last longer than a month) are offering answers to the conversations that are simply incorrect and otherwise contradictory to what Nintendo themselves have officially been saying. If anything's going to help derail a thread it's continually injecting falsehoods into it as facts - as most will come out to point out the incorrectness.

It isn't the same though. For starters - it's not even through the system. Why does an app have to be 'probably the only way to go about it considering the console is also portable'? Why not, oh I dunno, have it work directly through the console considering it's being marketed as a home console. For seconds - why go through the hassle of a custom app, rather than the path of least resistance by making it all console based and just using whatever device you were going to put the app on as a wifi hotspot instead? That's pretty common/standard now tbh. Thirdly it's very different in that the 'monthly game' appears to be a sole single monthly NES or SNES game, compared to more on the other services(not to mention more recent, too), and also that I'm sure it was confirmed the 'monthly game' was actually only playable for that month alone - whereas I understand with at least PS+ you keep everything playable whilst still subscribed; and I'm not 100% on whether it's the same on Xbox Live. A single NES or SNES game, for a month. The only difference I can see in its favour is added online to the old games - something which whilst it sounds nice, is still surrounded in the vagueness of the online setup's details. Seems a few people are throwing round speculative promises today! I'd say it's a bit huge - if it's going to be a yearly subscription at £40 a year and the console lasts 4 years and someone buys and uses it for that - it's a whole extra £160 you're putting out. Buying the console almost half commits you to an unknown online service if you want to utilise the thing fully.

Time for a re-surgence in excellent British development talent? It'll hurt everyone as it hurts the whole industry - though it's possible he may make exceptions for companies he finds more 'american'. Tbh when it comes to Trump and the USA right now I'm honestly worried that almost anything is possible, regardless of if it makes sense! As for Bluetooth...I'd like to say I hope so but thinking about Nintendo I wouldn't expect it! It's a bit niche anyway, surely? Unless you're talking about for voice chat - I think that will solidly be limited to going through the phone app. I think it's that we all want to know more things, on a variety of fronts, and with just barely over 5 weeks to go the fact we're not getting answers - or indeed that we're specifically getting an answer AFTER launch - is what's bugging people. Considering the thread - a number of people actually seem to like the Switch from a hardware PoV - just not so much from a software one. All these questions, whilst some may be able to get over the launch software, add into a vague and hazy mess of lack of information. It's not that we can al say we definitely will or will not get the Switch - it's that we honestly can't really make such a judgement without the information! That's my take on it, at least. Remember we're all here essentially because of Nintendo - we still want them and their products to do well, and do well for us - but it's difficult when you just don't know enough!

Tbh you are being kind of blind if you want to totally discount the official line from the company on their official page on their official website and suggest they'll u-turn on it with a Direct in a couple of weeks.

Suggesting someone not buy the console at launch, or complaining about people complaining, is definitely very much NOT the same as directly asking/telling someone to be quiet on a discussion forum. I'm going to say it once more, a last time - avoid doing it.