Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[dazzybee]

The idea that Nintendo hardware is just fine as long as it plays Nintendo software is ridiculous.

 

That kinda of thought allows Nintendo off the hook.

 

That's not what's being discussed.

 

But as a different discussion, I wouldn't say ridiculous, I mean it'll never ever happen, even Wii u got 3rd party support and Indies. But should they create a system so 3rd parties will make all their games for it?! Not entirely convinced it would be good for Nintendo, but almost pointless discussing because they haven't done it. And it's been discussed so many times.

[Ashley]

Because it's logical and what people on these very boards have said, you can play all third parties on your PS4; why would those very same 3rd parties you can already play be a deal breaker on the Switch? Surely for PS4/Xbox owners, the ultimate pull is the exclusives no?!

 

I understand people being annoyed for the fear it could damage Nintendo, or for Nintendo only gamers etc. But people who can already play those games, why would they care?

 

Only dipped in to this discussion during the day, but he did say because they may want Nintendo to do well even if they themselves own another console. I think that's reasonable.

[Clownferret]

Well I definitely want 3rd party support for Switch in particular EA. Give me FIFA & PGA + Nintendo's games and I'll take that. I'll be very unhappy if EA don't support Switch but will have to settle for only being able to plays these games at home on my PS4.

The amazing thing about the Switch is a HD console that you can carry around with you and play your favourite games anywhere. It will almost be a mute point if that tagline becomes "play your favourite Nintendo games anywhere". I am in no doubt that a major contributing factor to the Wii U's poor sales was the lack of 3rd party support.

 

The idea that Nintendo hardware is just fine as long as it plays Nintendo software is ridiculous.

 

That kind of thought allows Nintendo off the hook.

 

what does that mean? It's not Nintendo's choice if 3rd party publishers don't release games on their system.

Nintendo build the console and publishers decide whether to support it or not.

The reasons why publishers pull support are varied and yes some of these reasons lay with Nintendo but you can't just blame Nintendo lock, stock and barrel every time a publisher doesn't release a game on a Nintendo console.

[Sheikah]

what does that mean? It's not Nintendo's choice if 3rd party publishers don't release games on their system.

Nintendo build the console and publishers decide whether to support it or not.

 

Not Nintendo's choice, more Nintendo's fault. Do you really think the PS4 ticked many boxes for developers through chance?

 

When developing a console you've got to talk to the developers to make sure it has the features they want. We can only hope Nintendo did a lot of that for the Switch.

[dazzybee]

Only dipped in to this discussion during the day, but he did say because they may want Nintendo to do well even if they themselves own another console. I think that's reasonable.

 

Yep, a few people said it, I agreed with it; I'm not saying people shouldn't want Nintendo to have the 3rd parties, I want them to. My point was I didn't understand why it was a potential reason to not get a switch if you have a ps4.

[liger05]

Not Nintendo's choice, more Nintendo's fault. Do you really think the PS4 ticked many boxes for developers through chance?

 

When developing a console you've got to talk to the developers to make sure it has the features they want. We can only hope Nintendo did a lot of that for the Switch.

 

 

We haven't heard any bad news from developers yet. Pretty sure before the wii u launched there was early developer leaks criticizing the system and how much hard work it was.

[Clownferret]

Not Nintendo's choice, more Nintendo's fault. Do you really think the PS4 ticked many boxes for developers through chance?

 

When developing a console you've got to talk to the developers to make sure it has the features they want. We can only hope Nintendo did a lot of that for the Switch.

 

Nintendo build a console with ways to change/improve the ways you can play games and then give dev kits to the games companies to create games. It doesn't work the other way round otherwise EA might as well just make their own console. So you could say it's Nintendo's "fault" for not building a console that people want to make games for, but it's the games companies "choice" not to support it.

What are the main reasons we hear for this?

1: They can't compete with Nintendo's in-house software.

2: Their games don't sell well on Nintendo consoles.

3: It's too much work to convert from one graphics engine to another.

4: ??????

It's being implied on here that 4: is The graphics are not as good on Nintendo's console, but I'm not sure I've ever heard that and it makes little sense. If the game sells then graphics won't be an issue and if these developers are so concerned about their artistic integrity that their game might not look as good then why would this integrity not make them want to create something new using the tools that Nintendo have given them rather than just change the kits and players roster, slap on a 17 badge and throw it out for sale.

[Mr-Paul]

Yep, a few people said it, I agreed with it; I'm not saying people shouldn't want Nintendo to have the 3rd parties, I want them to. My point was I didn't understand why it was a potential reason to not get a switch if you have a ps4.

 

Because they don't want to buy it for it to just be a Nintendo box. It's not as much of a good investment. The console doing well and having 3rd party games/exclusives is good for anyone who buys the console, whether they have a PS4 too or not. If the Switch is unique and good, it should give them reasons to buy multiplat games on it over PS4/XBO.

 

You can argue that if the games aren't coming to Switch, they'll go to PS4/Xbox One anyway, but surely part of the point is that Nintendo should be encouraging other developers to be creating games that wouldn't exist without Nintendo's platform.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue with Sheikah - you both essentially want there to be 3rd party games on Switch.

[Grazza]

Mhz isn't everything though.

That's how many times the processor works a second, but if the switch does 1.5* as much per cycle as the Wii U processor, the difference in cycle speeds is quickly accounted for.

 

1.24*1 = 1.24

1.02*1.5 =1.53

 

Out of interest, how might the Switch's CPU achieve more per cycle than the Wii U's? (Genuine question - I only have a vague understanding of CPU, GPU and RAM.)

[Clownferret]

Because they don't want to buy it for it to just be a Nintendo box. It's not as much of a good investment. The console doing well and having 3rd party games/exclusives is good for anyone who buys the console, whether they have a PS4 too or not. If the Switch is unique and good, it should give them reasons to buy multiplat games on it over PS4/XBO.

 

You can argue that if the games aren't coming to Switch, they'll go to PS4/Xbox One anyway, but surely part of the point is that Nintendo should be encouraging other developers to be creating games that wouldn't exist without Nintendo's platform.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue with Sheikah - you both essentially want there to be 3rd party games on Switch.

 

Not really. @dazzybee has said he want's 3rd party support so he can ditch his PS4. @Sheikah has said he wouldn't buy 3rd party games on a Nintendo console because he'll buy the "superior" version on PS4. They are both coming from very different places.

[Mr-Paul]

Not really. @dazzybee has said he want's 3rd party support so he can ditch his PS4. @Sheikah has said he wouldn't buy 3rd party games on a Nintendo console because he'll buy the "superior" version on PS4. They are both coming from very different places.

 

Except where in this current discussion did sheikah say that? All this started from the great third party titles available on the gamecube...

[Pestneb]

Out of interest, how might the Switch's CPU achieve more per cycle than the Wii U's? (Genuine question - I only have a vague understanding of CPU, GPU and RAM.)

 

I've not been into PC architecture for quite a while now. But then tech jargon isn't necessarily useful.

Ok imagine a room with 5 chairs, 5 canvases and a variety of paints, brushes etc.

Pop five 3yr old kids in there. the children are told to paint a tree within the hour.

Now put 10 yr old children in there, same brief.

Now put 20 year old's who have chosen to pursue art as a career in the future, again same brief

 

Not to put down young'uns, you do get very talented individuals, but I would expect the 20 year olds to have been able to refine skill sets and be more able to put what is in their head onto that canvas. so I would imagine the 5 canvases in the room with 20 year olds would, on the whole at the very least, be far more impressive than the 3 yr olds and 10 year olds attempts.

 

5 seats, 1 room, 1 hour, but the output per room is markedly different.

 

The whole binary processing that goes on inside processors is pretty impressive, but I'll try and simplify it to show how a CPU can be more powerful per cycle.

 

Let's say a particular operations takes an integer, +3, then stores the result in memory. Next cycle that integer is taken, and is multiplied by 5.

 

If that was a common instruction, a chip maker could make their chip so the number goes in, has 3 added AND is multiplied by 5 in a single cycle.

 

That is super dumbed down, but it's the principle. I imagine there will be people on this forum more knowledgable than me who can break it down better.

 

All this started from the great third party titles available on the gamecube...

 

You what? :P I recall back then everyone was crying about how bad the 3rd party situation was, how it was good Nintendo had started courting EA with mario in one of their games, how they had worked with capcom, sega and namco and things might be better for what turned out to be the Wii.

 

I imagine the same conversations goes on each gen, but with increasing amount of justification.

 

On the Wii U we have splinter cell, assassins creed (back in the GC days we'd have died for that game) NFS (burnout), lego city, in fact a lot of lego games...

 

We need to be thankful for that. As for the switch.. I'm not too invested in this conversation because I will see, in a years time, what games are available. When/If it has those I'm in. If not I am happy with my Wii U.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Pestneb
Automerged Doublepost

[Blade]

For people that can only afford 1 console then the choice between a potential Nintendo only box and a PS4 with the majority of games bar Nintendo ones could be a simple one to make.

 

For me, I don't care as I can afford and support both but for those that can't surely its better that Nintendo have both 3rd parties and their own games so that these people will buy their console instead of the competition.

[Grazza]

That is super dumbed down, but it's the principle. I imagine there will be people on this forum more knowledgable than me who can break it down better.

 

OK, thanks for that.

 

You what? :P I recall back then everyone was crying about how bad the 3rd party situation was, how it was good Nintendo had started courting EA with mario in one of their games, how they had worked with capcom, sega and namco and things might be better for what turned out to be the Wii.

 

Just to interject, I do think the GameCube was the closest we got to having the multiplatform games of the time. Yes, we certainly missed out on some big ones, but I feel a lot of those were due to the publishers not deeming the GC a "mature" console (I'm not interested in GTA or its like, personally; I'm just acknowledging its place in the market). GameCube had the Prince of Persia games, which were some of the more highly-regarded platformers of the time. Games like Spider-Man 2 and Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction showed it could run the "sandbox" titles of the day.

 

I did like Wii U more than the Wii, but couldn't get around the fact the 3rd-party games were generally ports of the last-gen iterations. Not wanting to start a definitions argument again, but I do think the only chance of getting multiplatform games is to have a similarly-powerful console to the others at the same time as them.

[Clownferret]

I think we should all cool our heels with the sudden alarm at the possible lack of power at least until the reveal. Nvidia are just about the top boys when it comes to graphics chips for pc and some unexpected 3rd parties have declared support for Switch and they will have developed kits so for them to be on board you have to assume power and porting games is not a hinderence.

[Nicktendo]

The Gamecube was pretty good for 3rd Party games, after the DIRE situation on the N64 and then later on the Wii U. I know Eternal Darkness and Baiten Kaitos were mentioned earlier... Not strictly 3rd party as Nintendo bought the games and published them exclusively on the GC. The same may have been true with Tales of Symphonia, but I honestly can't remember.

 

That gen was effectively the last time all 3 consoles had a large number of "exclusives" to attract the consumer to their brand. Xbox had Halo, Sony had Metal Gear and Nintendo had Mario / Zelda just as an example, there were others. GTA was still a Sony exclusive in the middle of that gen, only coming out on Xbox towards the end of the gen cycle. Exclusives aside, most major 3rd party games were released on all 3 consoles, your Prince of Persias, Tony Hawks, FIFAs, Timesplitters, True Crimes etc. etc. The GC versions were generally better from a technical standpoint than the PS2 releases but weaker than the Xbox ones, thanks to the HDD and more grunt in the Xbox, but as we know the PS2 had a DVD player and a larger install base as an advantage. This was the last time Nintendo "competed" with Sony and MS and they didn't exactly set the world on fire, despite the "games only" machine initially being cheaper than its rivals and arguably having a better line-up of exclusives in the first 18 months, the GC was largely a failure from a financial standpoint. Nintendo had "competed" for 2 generations and come off worse both times.

 

The Wii, while it continued to split the audience between "casual and hardcore" that had begun to emerge with the GameCube (totally unjustifiably where the GC is concerned in my opinion), allowed Nintendo to develop games cheaply and quickly instead of throwing more and more money at building a powerhouse. This strategy had already worked with the Game Boy and was proving successful with the DS. The Wii U was a continuation of that, but done in the worst possible way, with a laughable marketing strategy and the idea that 18-month-old full-price ports constituted 3rd party games.

 

So what I would argue Nintendo needs to do moving forward is completely ignore what is happening on Xbox One and PS4. This machine was never going to be in the same league power wise, and trying to attract developers to port their games onto this console is going to result in either failure, disappointment or both in terms of sales and in comparison to their counterparts on the other machines. Nintendo needs to remember what made DS and Gameboy so successful as handheld devices and develop games which take advantage of the "older" hardware, but still offer innovative, interesting and substantial (this is critical) experiences that ALL gamers are interested in. Skyrim is a great game to have on Switch, but let's not forget, it's a 5 year old game already.

 

Of course Nintendo are to blame, just as much as the 3rd parties for their failure in the past 10 years but it's up to them to win them back. Nintendo need to take a more pro-active approach. Encourage innovation and original ideas, support 3rd parties financially if necessary, invest in ideas and teams as they did with Silicon Knights, Monolith Soft etc. Push the system out to indies and emphasize how easy the system is to develop for, maybe even offer deals to devs wanting to appear on the e-shop exclusively (take less of a cut) or put some kind of My Nintendo discount at the game's release.

 

Fast Racing Neo was a great, if not spectacular game, what's to stop Nintendo, for example, sending a few people down and helping out with the development, offering Shin'en the F-Zero name and spending a little extra time polishing the game up? Certainly much cheaper than developing F-Zero from the ground up? Everyone wins. It's about seeing potential and developing it, instead of just letting it out on the e-shop front page for a week and then forgetting about it.

 

Third parties have to play ball as well though, if EA comes up and wants to release FIFA '17 at the Switch launch and a port of sequel to a 3 year old game, Nintendo should turn around and say no, because really that helps nobody. Nobody wants to pay full price for an old game, and all EA will do is turn around and say "nobody is buying our games". No, they wait and release the NEXT installment, alongside the big brother versions, without all the "play as Mario" or "cool new Switch exclusive mini-game, but secretly at the expense of a massive feature" bullshit. Build the game to Switch's strengths, it's never going to be the same, but please, without all the kiddie nonsense, then and only then could your game have a good chance of selling at least something. Because 12 year old little Tommy Jr. is probably already getting the Xbox One version for his birthday and no amount of "ha ha look at this" child-friendly modes will ever appeal to him. He has to want the game on merit because a) it's actually good and up-to-date and b) he can play it on the bus on the way to school.

 

I find it highly unlikely that we are ever going to get the latest blockbuster or AAA releases, your Titanfalls or Witchers etc, simply because they are pushing the boundaries of technology. The Switch will not be so close to those boundaries, and no Nintendo console has been since the N64 and the GC, both of which failed, so what Nintendo and the 3rd parties need to do is have a strategy that works, low-cost but potentially higher return. If that's in the form of a "companion" release (I'm thinking Dead Space Wii here), or something more original but with the same care, foresight and respect to development as a AAA title then so be it. However, the 3rd parties also need to make the effort, they need to understand that Nintendo's audience is used to polished, high-quality experiences and fobbing them off with untested, unremarkable shovel-ware is not going to cut it, now or ever.

 

Personally, I expect we'll be bemoaning the lack of 3rd parties on Switch by early 2018. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but I need to see more of a will to make it work from both sides before I believe anything more substantial will happen. I expect on January the 12th we'll get some answers and the future of 3rd parties and Nintendo will become a little clearer.

[liger05]

Some discussion about the recently released rumoured specs.

 

 

Thanks.

 

The guy makes some very good points and I do agree that there is missing pieces of the puzzle we don't know about.

 

Only problem is Nintendo won't release a spec sheet in January. They never do.

[killthenet]

The Gamexplain discussion about the rumours is quite interesting, they do point out that with the Wii & Wii U developers had to find ways to shoehorn the consoles gimmicks in which made porting more complicated. That particular issue won't crop up on the Switch, but Nintendo obviously complicate things by pulling back on power when the Switch is in portable mode so third parties won't have to do as much work as they did for the Wii & Wii U but they will still have to do some work to port their games over.

 

One thing it reminded me is that From Software have already got Dark Souls III running on it, so we know that it must be a pretty capable machine. Hopefully the drop in GPU output for portable mode will just affect the resolution.

 

And I don't think there is anything to worry about in terms of Gamecube VC, the portable will still be well above Wii U performance if these rumours are legitimate so there should be no issues with Gamecube emulation - especially with the terrific NERD working on it.

Edited December 21, 2016 by killthenet

[sumo73]

This is a few months old video from Adam Koralik but the views from the 9~10 minute mark I think are the worry for me plus the fact that Nintendo have issues with marketing.

 

 

Yes I'm sure Nintendo will say "lessons have been learnt" from the Wii U and they have got a lot of free advertising on the back of the rumours of the NX in the past. I just wonder if they can really deliver.

[Pestneb]

That particular issue won't crop up on the Switch, but Nintendo obviously complicate things by pulling back on power when the Switch is in portable mode so third parties won't have to do as much work as they did for the Wii & Wii U but they will still have to do some work to port their games over.

 

It's just the GPU. and it is possible that the tools provided by Nvidia can do any associated work natively to downscale 1080p to 720p etc.

 

In terms of the CPU the console stays the same and memory controller dip will quite likely simply reflect reduced usage due to the GPU drop.

[Dcubed]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1327010

 

Bit of info regarding UE4 on Switch.

 

It's the "full fat" version and not the mobile one supposedly. Also, there are different rendering modes for handheld and console (with the handheld mode running at 66% the resolution of console mode - which lines up with having 1080p in console mode and 720p in handheld mode)

 

Also it seems that Switch's codename was "Wolf". Interesting to know

[Ronnie]

I didn't think any codename could sound cooler than NX, but Wolf definitely is.

 

A far cry from Project Cafe.

[Goafer]

[liger05]

Pachter saying devs have told him switch easiest platform to develop for. That's a good sign.

[Serebii]

Pachter saying devs have told him switch easiest platform to develop for. That's a good sign.

Fuck, so it's horrifically difficult to develop for, then.