Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[dazzybee]

Could do, just don't fancy the hassle of having to get up, get the tram into Manchester to get the Switch and then come back home. I used to live about 100 metres from a Grainger Games so I would've, but now I live a good few miles from any store so it's a bit of a ball-ache.

 

I might well do yet though.

 

Surely if you're doing it anyway do it now? For a better version of the game, a portable version of the game, plus you me tempted by some other titles like arms, bomberman, snipperlcips etc any other vc/eshop games...

[Grazza]

Regarding trade-ins, I wonder if we'll need to keep Wii U/3DS for any kind of system transfer? I know it's different architecture this time, but I can't help but wonder.

[Josh64]

I'm coming round to the fact that the launch up isn't horrific; most people will be getting it for Zelda, if you don't want it for Zelda than waiting isn't a huge problem, but in under 2 months there'll be Zelda, Mario Kart and Arms, that's not bad for first part games, plus a batch if Indies and such. I think a steady stream of games is infinitely more important that a 30 game launch for example. My only concern is what is there for May/June/July? They need games here - August Splatoon, then Hyrule Warriors, Mario, Xenoblade 2 (yeah right) likely Pokemon, Smash and surely another surprise (though already looks a bit congested).

 

It's this steady flow of first party games which it needs, a few months of no big game and the sales will drop, the bad news will start and people will be thinking - here we go again!!

 

They should quote this in the advert!

 

But seriously, I think the fact we're all having this discussion and trying to justify why the launch isn't terrible says it all. They really need to go all out at e3. Then again, I thought the same about the Switch event and look what happened there.

 

I've been wanting to post in this thread all week but every time I go to post I realise there's another 3 pages I haven't read. But here we are, I've finally caught up :p (sorry for the ensuing rant)

 

The problem for me is originality, something the games seem to be lacking. ARMS looks ok but we haven't seen enough to know if it really has depth, aside from that what do we have? I'm not impressed by what I've seen of 1-2 switch at all, it looks so short lived and low on content.

 

Splatoon clearly uses the same engine so whilst it's great we're getting new levels it's not going to feel particularly fresh and could have easily been DLC while Mario Kart has battle mode and well... Dry Bones.

 

The third party support is also pretty terrible, we have Just Dance which was on pretty much every current and last gen system in October so not really a must have, that 4 year old 'Wii U exclusive' Rayman Legends and Skyrim is the 360 version of the game that won't even be out at launch lol.

 

No twitch streaming, video recording or even the most basic of apps such as Netflix. For a device that can easily double as a tablet, that's more than missing a trick. The fact we know nothing about online when it releases in less than 2 months also makes me think they're once again woefully unprepared like with the Wii U day one download. But hey this is Nintendo, I should accept at this point that learning from mistakes is not in their blood.

 

The only big game at launch is Zelda, a game we were promised in 2015 on the Wii U. So the only reason we have a decent launch title is because Nintendo messed up the Wii U so spectacularly and didn't manage to provide a main entry Zelda game within the first 4 years of the consoles life. And we're meant to be happy about this and buy a Switch in anticipation for this broken promise because, my god, it will be 900p instead of 720.

 

This is the first time I won't be getting a Nintendo console at launch and I struggle to see reasons to get it near the end of the year. And I'm not being this harsh to purposely wind people up, it's because I'm genuinely annoyed/disappointed. I've been so excited for the release of every Nintendo console so it's a shame that a company I used to adore so much seems to be doing so little for me now.

[markderoos]

Only 2 of the 9 first party games being released this year on Switch are also on Wii U. I don't understand the sentiment that the window is enticing to people who missed Wii U

 

I think you took my message far too literal, but I'll try to explain why I feel this way.

These 9 first party games you mentioned are?

 

1. 1, 2, Switch (Feels Wii-ish, not something spectaculair system selling)

2. Zelda (Sorry, great looking game but it's still a Wii U port)

3. Splatoon 2 (Have yet to find out if there are game changers in it? Feels like the FIFA 16 - FIFA 17, etc. route. Other argument: feels too soon after the original Splatoon)

4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (Mario Kart 8.1.1 sounds more appropriate)

5. Mario Odyssey (definitely day one, but not a launch game)

6. Arms (have to wait and see, didn't click with me)

7. Snipper clips (yep, my cup of tea, but not a new console seller)

8. Fire Emblem Warriors (big chance it will be Hyrule Warriors with Fire Emblem characters. Neither is it a launch game)

9. I think you meant Smash 4.1.1 as the ninth first party game? (In that case: thanks for paying full price for all our Wii U DLC markderoos, now pay full price again for 2% more! Exactly my Mario Kart sentiment again)

 

Then when looking at third party launch offerings: Just Dance, Skylanders, Bomberman...

 

After that:

 

FIFA (rumours go this is built on the 360/ps3 engine)

Streetfighter 2 (as cool as street fighter 2 is, you can't call this unique and system selling, right?)

Skyrim (how old is that game?)

 

I know I sound extremely sour, and I absolutely don't want to be a killjoy to anybody looking forward to it, but especially launch day feels very uninspiring to me. And the most annoying part about that is that I really am very impressed with the hardware. I just feel like the software line up is very lacking in a lot of ways. Especially for Wii U owners/diehard supporters.

 

So I'll probably get:

- Zelda (I can't skip a Zelda)

- 1, 2, Switch (just hoping it will really be a unique and fun experience with legs)

- Snipper Clips. I love games like Boxboy, but let's be honest, a eShop title that looks like it might as well have been launched for 3DS generating my most hype, that shouldn't be possible with the launch of a spectacular new home console.

 

@Serebii Please understand

[Serebii]

I think you took my message far too literal, but I'll try to explain why I feel this way.

These 9 first party games you mentioned are?

 

1. 1, 2, Switch (Feels Wii-ish, not something spectaculair system selling)

2. Zelda (Sorry, great looking game but it's still a Wii U port)

3. Splatoon 2 (Have yet to find out if there are game changers in it? Feels like the FIFA 16 - FIFA 17, etc. route. Other argument: feels too soon after the original Splatoon)

4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (Mario Kart 8.1.1 sounds more appropriate)

5. Mario Odyssey (definitely day one, but not a launch game)

6. Arms (have to wait and see, didn't click with me)

7. Snipper clips (yep, my cup of tea, but not a new console seller)

8. Fire Emblem Warriors (big chance it will be Hyrule Warriors with Fire Emblem characters. Neither is it a launch game)

9. I think you meant Smash 4.1.1 as the ninth first party game? (In that case: thanks for paying full price for all our Wii U DLC markderoos, now pay full price again for 2% more! Exactly my Mario Kart sentiment again)

 

Then when looking at third party launch offerings: Just Dance, Skylanders, Bomberman...

 

After that:

 

FIFA (rumours go this is built on the 360/ps3 engine)

Streetfighter 2 (as cool as street fighter 2 is, you can't call this unique and system selling, right?)

Skyrim (how old is that game?)

 

I know I sound extremely sour, and I absolutely don't want to be a killjoy to anybody looking forward to it, but especially launch day feels very uninspiring to me. And the most annoying part about that is that I really am very impressed with the hardware. I just feel like the software line up is very lacking in a lot of ways. Especially for Wii U owners/diehard supporters.

 

So I'll probably get:

- Zelda (I can't skip a Zelda)

- 1, 2, Switch (just hoping it will really be a unique and fun experience with legs)

- Snipper Clips. I love games like Boxboy, but let's be honest, a eShop title that looks like it might as well have been launched for 3DS generating my most hype, that shouldn't be possible with the launch of a spectacular new home console.

 

@Serebii Please understand

I was counting Xenoblade 2 as #9 since that is set for 2017

 

I do agree that third party could do with shoring up. I'm getting fed up of seeing developers say how great the Switch is, and that it's a great concept, and then say they have no plans. Put stuff out or shut the hell up, third parties.

[Ronnie]

The only big game at launch is Zelda, a game we were promised in 2015 on the Wii U. So the only reason we have a decent launch title is because Nintendo messed up the Wii U so spectacularly and didn't manage to provide a main entry Zelda game within the first 4 years of the consoles life. And we're meant to be happy about this and buy a Switch in anticipation for this broken promise because, my god, it will be 900p instead of 720.

 

Every big game gets delayed, whether Nintendo or otherwise. Welcome to 2016/2017.

 

If BOTW were a Wii U only game, Mario Odyssey would be a launch title on Switch.

[ArtMediocre]

I might well do yet though.

And better yet, you get to keep your copy of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. I bet it will have loads of replayability.

[Shorty]

Could do, just don't fancy the hassle of having to get up, get the tram into Manchester to get the Switch and then come back home. I used to live about 100 metres from a Grainger Games so I would've, but now I live a good few miles from any store so it's a bit of a ball-ache.

 

I might well do yet though.

If only there was some service that brings things right to your house! :p

 

Sell the Wii U on ebay, buy the Switch online.... Get a much better deal than the shafting you get from trading with high street gaming retailers.

[liger05]

I was counting Xenoblade 2 as #9 since that is set for 2017

 

I do agree that third party could do with shoring up. I'm getting fed up of seeing developers say how great the Switch is, and that it's a great concept, and then say they have no plans. Put stuff out or shut the hell up, third parties.

 

 

Do you blame them after the wii u debacle?

 

They need to see the platform sell after the Wii U didn't.

 

They go where the money is. If the switch sells enough third parties will develop games for it.

[Rummy]

Put stuff out or shut the hell up

 

I'll refer you back to these words next time you decide to hint at supposedly privileged information...

 

The problem for me is originality, something the games seem to be lacking. ARMS looks ok but we haven't seen enough to know if it really has depth, aside from that what do we have? I'm not impressed by what I've seen of 1-2 switch at all, it looks so short lived and low on content.

 

Splatoon clearly uses the same engine so whilst it's great we're getting new levels it's not going to feel particularly fresh and could have easily been DLC while Mario Kart has battle mode and well... Dry Bones.

 

The third party support is also pretty terrible, we have Just Dance which was on pretty much every current and last gen system in October so not really a must have, that 4 year old 'Wii U exclusive' Rayman Legends and Skyrim is the 360 version of the game that won't even be out at launch lol.

 

No twitch streaming, video recording or even the most basic of apps such as Netflix. For a device that can easily double as a tablet, that's more than missing a trick. The fact we know nothing about online when it releases in less than 2 months also makes me think they're once again woefully unprepared like with the Wii U day one download. But hey this is Nintendo, I should accept at this point that learning from mistakes is not in their blood.

 

The only big game at launch is Zelda, a game we were promised in 2015 on the Wii U. So the only reason we have a decent launch title is because Nintendo messed up the Wii U so spectacularly and didn't manage to provide a main entry Zelda game within the first 4 years of the consoles life. And we're meant to be happy about this and buy a Switch in anticipation for this broken promise because, my god, it will be 900p instead of 720.

 

This is the first time I won't be getting a Nintendo console at launch and I struggle to see reasons to get it near the end of the year. And I'm not being this harsh to purposely wind people up, it's because I'm genuinely annoyed/disappointed. I've been so excited for the release of every Nintendo console so it's a shame that a company I used to adore so much seems to be doing so little for me now.

 

I think you've articulated my general feelings on Nintendo and feelings I've had since the Wii U much better than I ever could have. I feel quite sad when I think about it, sometimes.

[dazzybee]

Zelda will mean the Switch sells well at launch, I'm just presuming Nintendo know this and will set up a more wide-appealing proposition at e3 ready for the autumn. It makes a lot of business sense to do that. If 5m peopel wanted the switch at launch that'll piss a lot of people off; but if Zelda will shift the launch allotment and others wait for Splatoon/mario/More games then it could all be timed quite well.

 

A little more transparency on VC/accounts, online and concrete third party games would help though! But it'll come.

[Nicktendo]

Really gutted about Switch not being able to stream Netflix. I mean I really could have done with that seventh device from which to stream House of Cards.

[Ronnie]

Really gutted about Switch not being able to stream Netflix. I mean I really could have done with that seventh device from which to stream House of Cards.

 

Ditto. I also needed a ninth web browser to browse the internet on. Stupid Nintendo

[Josh64]

Every big game gets delayed, whether Nintendo or otherwise. Welcome to 2016/2017.

 

If BOTW were a Wii U only game, Mario Odyssey would be a launch title on Switch.

 

In which case I may have actually bought a Switch because Mario Odyssey is the only game that looks ambitious/fresh right now. So yes, they could have made their Wii U buyers happy and actually given the Switch a new title at launch that wasn't artifically delayed.

 

Ditto. I also needed a ninth web browser to browse the internet on. Stupid Nintendo

Every modern device has a web browser. Welcome to 2016/2017. I see nothing good about leaving out a basic standard feature.

[Dcubed]

Ditto. I also needed a ninth web browser to browse the internet on. Stupid Nintendo

 

To be fair, the Wii U's web browser was pretty damn fantastic. It was my method of choice for Youtube and livestreams on the TV for a long time (until I got my Alienware Alpha to sit by my TV and handle all my media needs/PC games). If the Switch had a web browser of similar quality and interface of its own (but with better performance), I'd probably switch (HUHHUHHUH!) to using it.

 

Wow. Very first time I've ever heard about this - very interesting! Classic Nintendo statement on it too

 

It's a tad sensationalist. The VC release of SMB1 on the Wii VC just so happens to use the same iNES header format as found in SMB1 ROMs online, but that doesn't prove that the ROM came from the internet. All it means is that the ROM header (which they would have to place on their own ROM that they would dig out from the archives/rip from a cart etc anyway) just uses the same format as iNES. They could've (and probably did) just placed an iNES header on a clean ROM file.

 

Nintendo are actually really good about archiving their stuff and have re-released the game multiple times before (even before the VC was a thing - hell as far back as the SNES era even), so they almost certainly still have the game's ROMs and source code. Sure, you do have some incidents like with Link's Awakening; where upon disassembling the game's code, people found signs that the GBC game was actually a ROM hack/disassembly of the original B&W version, implying that Nintendo had lost the game's source code. But then again, they still have the physical paper maps that they used while making the bloody game, so.... yeah. As far as archival goes, Nintendo probably does it better than anyone else (Which is especially noteworthy as Japanese developers in general are notorious for being really bad at archival...).

Edited January 23, 2017 by Dcubed

[Nicktendo]

Every modern device has a web browser. Welcome to 2016/2017. I see nothing good about leaving out a basic standard feature.

 

A feature that likely a very few number of people will use. Plus when the console is docked it will be cumbersome without the touchscreen. It's just another expense, along with video streaming services that Nintendo clearly feel isn't justified, especially considering they have access to all kinds of data regarding Wii U and 3DS usage.

 

I appreciate some people may be miffed or unimpressed but it's not the end of the world, is it? 99% of people have a portable device which can access the web and is just as featured packed / easy to use as a console web browser.

 

Yes, a minority may take a hit in QoL, but Nintendo obviously feels the gains outweigh the drawbacks. They have said it's something they'll consider for the future, so it can always be added later should enough people complain about it. If it means a more streamlined gaming service, I'm all for it personally. Never used the Wii U or 3DS for any web browsing or streaming.

[Josh64]

A feature that likely a very few number of people will use. Plus when the console is docked it will be cumbersome without the touchscreen. It's just another expense, along with video streaming services that Nintendo clearly feel isn't justified, especially considering they have access to all kinds of data regarding Wii U and 3DS usage.

 

I appreciate some people may be miffed or unimpressed but it's not the end of the world, is it? 99% of people have a portable device which can access the web and is just as featured packed / easy to use as a console web browser.

 

Yes, a minority may take a hit in QoL, but Nintendo obviously feels the gains outweigh the drawbacks. They have said it's something they'll consider for the future, so it can always be added later should enough people complain about it. If it means a more streamlined gaming service, I'm all for it personally. Never used the Wii U or 3DS for any web browsing or streaming.

 

I guess this is why I feel burnt out on Nintendo right now. I could accept we didn't get industry standard features with 3DS or Wii U but thought with the Switch we may finally be able to enjoy Nintendo games on a device as capable as other next gen devices. Instead, it seems they're even taking a backstep from the Wii U in terms of what is on offer.

 

I don't think it's the minority that will miss these features but the majority. Sure, you can do these things on other devices, but couldn't you say that for a lot of things? Why have music on your phone if you have an iPod? By not providing these things Nintendo are making sure that the Switch is a secondary device as oppose to a primary one.

 

A streamlined gaming service should have been possible with a decent OS and online features, not one or the other. These extra services are another selling point, something it desperately needs with their lack of launch games and third-party support.

[Ashley]

A feature that likely a very few number of people will use. Plus when the console is docked it will be cumbersome without the touchscreen.

 

Actually the use of motion control for keyboards in the Dual Shock 4 is quite good. Could easily work with the Pro Controller/Dog Face controller too.

[Serebii]

A feature that likely a very few number of people will use. Plus when the console is docked it will be cumbersome without the touchscreen. It's just another expense, along with video streaming services that Nintendo clearly feel isn't justified, especially considering they have access to all kinds of data regarding Wii U and 3DS usage.

 

I appreciate some people may be miffed or unimpressed but it's not the end of the world, is it? 99% of people have a portable device which can access the web and is just as featured packed / easy to use as a console web browser.

 

Yes, a minority may take a hit in QoL, but Nintendo obviously feels the gains outweigh the drawbacks. They have said it's something they'll consider for the future, so it can always be added later should enough people complain about it. If it means a more streamlined gaming service, I'm all for it personally. Never used the Wii U or 3DS for any web browsing or streaming.

 

Not to mention the browsers have kept acting as a springboard for people to break into the system structure for homebrew

[Hero-of-Time]

Really gutted about Switch not being able to stream Netflix. I mean I really could have done with that seventh device from which to stream House of Cards.

 

Not sure if you visit the Other Switch Thread but I posted this the other day. It was from a member of Neogaf and they were discussing the lack of streaming services.

 

I'll be honest here, the likelyhood that I'd use Netflix on the Switch is extremely low. However, that's because I'm going to use it on my PS4 that also has Crunchyroll, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Crackle and it's own Sony media store. It's just easier.

 

That said, it never had to be that way. For a long time I was running Windows Media Center to my TV, with launchers for Hulu, XBMC and a host of others for all my media needs. The DRM race began, plugins started getting broken for weeks at a time as Hulu and others tried to stay ahead of the people making the plugins, Microsoft abandoned Windows Media Center and now none of it ever worked as well as it did. So XBMC on my TV has all my media and all my streaming media's done through my PS4.

 

Which brings me to the PS4, which also never had to be that way. Microsoft was well ahead of them in that space and Sony could have looked at Microsoft and said "we'll never match what Microsoft's doing, lets not bother," but they did and because they did I use the console almost every day. More than my PC and infinitely more than my Wii U.

 

Now to why that matters. First, psychologically, to me, using something every day imbues it with a sense of value. I'm much more likely to stay current on my PS Plus subscription for a device I use all the time versus something I sporadically use. Even if my online gaming was non-existent that month. Second, I know what was released and what was on sale because, well, why not check while before I log off for the night after watching Hulu? I can not tell you the amount of money I've spent buying a game I want that happened to be on sale that I didn't have time to play just because I saw it up there.

 

I know not everyone's like me. But everyone's also not like you. To me, there's not a chance in hell a Nintendo system could be my primary device. I mean, there is, but Nintendo's shown they have no desire to make a device that'd fill that role. But to someone else maybe these stupid media apps are what would decide whether it gets used every day or once every couple of months when the next Nintendo game is released. And that's huge because that incentivizes that person to stay current on their Nintendo Network payment, it means they have a higher chance to make impulse purchases on the eShop. It'd color their decision to pick up a multiplatform game on their Switch over another platform they may own because they use it often and like the convenience. All of these things impact one another. And the fact Nintendo's basically forfeiting that audience, not trying and failing to meet their expectations but flat out not bothering is telling.

 

As far as competition goes, you can't be number one by gunning for last. While the chances of them beating Microsoft and Sony in the console space are slim I think anyone will tell you that they have no chance to do so if they don't try, and, even if the goal is lofty the more effort put in should generally lead to greater success even if they don't come out number one. Right now I think Nintendo's mindset is downright toxic to their longevity and they should be called out on this shit.

 

And lastly, no, doing more doesn't take away from what it does. Nintendo allowing a media app isn't taking someone away from Fire Emblem or some shit.

[Rummy]

It's a tad sensationalist. The VC release of SMB1 on the Wii VC just so happens to use the same iNES header format as found in SMB1 ROMs online, but that doesn't prove that the ROM came from the internet. All it means is that the ROM header (which they would have to place on their own ROM that they would dig out from the archives/rip from a cart etc anyway) just uses the same format as iNES. They could've (and probably did) just placed an iNES header on a clean ROM file.

 

Is it though? To my layman's mind I find myself asking a simple question - if developed entirely in-house and from scratch why would one(or more, as it seems you suggest) of Nintendo's official released VC games contain an iNES header in it? Why even use an emulator dev/hackers header/file format if you're supposedly so against emulation and everything it brings and developing from scratch in-house? Again, maybe I'm just not educated enough on the matter, but as far as I'm concerned there should be no such trace of an iNES header if Nintendo did it all in-house as claimed. It certainly still appears as if they're using the work of someone who they condemn heavily.

 

I'd address the second half of the post but all of this moves further from the Switch and a lot of it makes too many assumptions - if you have some solid evidence to back it I'll happily take it, but otherwise it's almost nothing more than anybody else's equally valid and unbacked speculations(though for yourself personally I give a little more credit than that, so please don't take any offence by it as I don't think you'd assert that view lightly).

Edited January 23, 2017 by Rummy

[Nicktendo]

I guess this is why I feel burnt out on Nintendo right now. I could accept we didn't get industry standard features with 3DS or Wii U but thought with the Switch we may finally be able to enjoy Nintendo games on a device as capable as other next gen devices. Instead, it seems they're even taking a backstep from the Wii U in terms of what is on offer.

 

I don't think it's the minority that will miss these features but the majority. Sure, you can do these things on other devices, but couldn't you say that for a lot of things? Why have music on your phone if you have an iPod? By not providing these things Nintendo are making sure that the Switch is a secondary device as oppose to a primary one.

 

A streamlined gaming service should have been possible with a decent OS and online features, not one or the other. These extra services are another selling point, something it desperately needs with their lack of launch games and third-party support.

I dunno, when I'm buying a games console I usually want to know if it will play games and if they will be decent. I'm not sure many people picked up a PS4 or 3DS based on whether they could surf the web on it.

 

Like I said, I'm sure it's important to x amount of people, but I'm pretty sure these people are in the minority. It seems to be important to a few people on this forum, but I really do wonder how representative we really are of the Switch's potential audience. Mostly people who grew up with Nintendo but do most of our gaming on other devices.

 

Like you said, every device has basic web browsing features in 2017. Soon you will be probably be able to stream from your dog. Is it REALLY necessary? Is it really going to be the thing that forces a huge number of people to not buy a Switch? Time will tell.

 

I still have an iPod by the way, because my phone only has 16gb and I prefer the simplicity of iTunes over anything Android offers. I can browse the web and stream Netflix on it too. Not that I really use it for that, because I need WiFi, so out of the house or in the car it's almost useless except as a decent music player

[Sheikah]

Like you said, every device has basic web browsing features in 2017. Soon you will be probably be able to stream from your dog. Is it REALLY necessary? Is it really going to be the thing that forces a huge number of people to not buy a Switch? Time will tell.

 

No time required on that one. Quite simply, no.

[Nicktendo]

Not sure if you visit the Other Switch Thread but I posted this the other day. It was from a member of Neogaf and they were discussing the lack of streaming services.

I saw the post as well too, and while I agree to some extent, I do think this is focused on gamers who post in online forums and not the vast majority of people. I still think there is a lot to be said for the Switch being exclusively a gaming device.

 

The Switch will be my primary gaming device. I have no desire to purchase an Xbox or PlayStation for gaming. Having a decent tablet and a internet enabled TV means I can stream what I want, where I want or browse the web as I choose. Like this guy, I know this doesn't work for everyone. Some people use a PS4 as their main streaming device, some people a TV, a set-top-box or an Xbox. How many people can afford to be subscribed to a multitude of streaming services, or some of the lesser known ones? How many teenage girls own a 3DS? There are so many potential owners for the Switch and so many variations in how people use media services or the web.

 

Once again I'll state that Nintendo have access to all kinds of data regarding usage of their Wii U and 3DS systems and have obviously come to an informed decision regarding certain features' inclusion. They may have it completely wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but again, I think too many people are focusing on what isn't there rather than what is.

 

In Summer, once the online features start rolling out, we'll have a clearer sense of Nintendo's direction. They will then have some actual feedback regarding Switch and its features and functions as opposed to speculation and will be able to reach a decision as to whether make strides to include these features.

 

There isn't a right or a wrong answer in this debate. Nintendo have made a decision which may be correct or may be catastrophic. Let the sales numbers do the talking and then let's see how Nintendo address issues the wider gaming community has if it doesn't take off. I think it's the correct decision, others disagree, if Nintendo go back and add support for a web browser then obviously enough people found it to be a big omission and I'll happily state I was wrong about this.

[Hero-of-Time]

@Nicktendo I just thought it was a good bit of writing from that guy and worth a post.

 

We live in a time when people expect their devices to do more than one thing. It's fine that Nintendo seem to want to make a pure gaming machine but it's a decision that could come and bite them in the backside.

 

My two oldest nieces are gamers, one has a Xbox One and the other a PS4. They both use them for watching things like, Sky, YouTube and Crunchyroll, despite both having tablets. Why? It's simply convenient. They will be playing a game and then may want to just kick back and watch a show on their TVs, all done with a simple click to the dashboard. They both sit in party chat as well and watch the same shows at the same time with their friends. Granted, there will be many who don't do stuff like this but this is an example of those who do.

 

Myself and a few on here have done similar things when gaming conference have been on. We fire up party chat, load up YouTube or the web browser and sit and watch Directs or E3 conferences at the same time.

 

Stuff like this can make or break a product, especially when its seen as a negative and word spreads about it.