Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[Sheikah]

Yeah I don't reckon they will abandon buttons. There's just no way you can play most of their games properly without them. To do that would be utterly insane.

[Kav]

Yeah I don't reckon they will abandon buttons. There's just no way you can play most of their games properly without them. To do that would be utterly insane.

 

I'm not too sure, the majority of me agrees with you, but there's a part of me that thinks it's quite fitting...

 

Miyamoto said that with the Wii remote they wanted to reduce the number of buttons on the game controller because they felt it intimidated people from gaming. The Wii then sold like hot-cakes.

 

Move on to the WiiU and the controller is again full of buttons and is (in Nintendo's mindset) intimidating again. It then sells like shite.

 

So then they think this: "Mobile/tablet gaming is thriving. They're a touch interface. It's not intimidating because it's a clean surface free of buttons and the touch-buttons are only there when needed... let's do that."

 

It just fits Nintendo and their way of thinking as of late.

 

 

The more I look at the patent and the more I think about it, the more I think it's going to be a hybrid.

That it'll have a console but you will take the controller with you as a handheld too, it adds up... I can't see why they'd do basically the WiiU all over again just with a smaller more sleek looking controller.

That you can take it anywhere will be it's hook. Otherwise, what's the point?!

Edited December 11, 2015 by Kav

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

I'm not too sure, the majority of me agrees with you, but there's a part of me that thinks it's quite fitting...

 

Miyamoto said that with the Wii remote they wanted to reduce the number of buttons on the game controller because they felt it intimidated people from gaming. The Wii then sold like hot-cakes.

 

Move on to the WiiU and the controller is again full of buttons and is (in Nintendo's mindset) intimidating again. It then sells like shite.

 

So then they think this: "Mobile/tablet gaming is thriving. They're a touch interface. It's not intimidating because it's a clean surface free of buttons and the touch-buttons are only there when needed... let's do that."

 

It just fits Nintendo and their way of thinking as of late.

 

 

The more I look at the patent and the more I think about it, the more I think it's going to be a hybrid.

That it'll have a console but you will take the controller with you as a handheld too, it adds up... I can't see why they'd do basically the WiiU all over again just with a smaller more sleek looking controller.

That you can take it anywhere will be it's hook. Otherwise, what's the point?!

 

Yeah, I'm quite tempted to agree with this as well.

 

If it is the hybrid, then they'll want something you can take with you on the go that's similar to your smartphone...

 

In fact, what's to say they wouldn't do a smart glass style app that lets you download the game into your iPhone, take it on the toad with you, then upload it onto a console that has the same input method.

 

Well, money probably says they might not do that, but I reckon with this new mobile partnership they'll be looking to give you the chance to play the games at as many opportunities as you can.

 

I always liked Charlie Brooker's analogy that mobile gaming was like putting your thumb on a fish tank. I'm not a fan, so if this is right I'll need persuading this still as accurate as a controller/some sort of actual button configuration.

 

However, I still believe if any one can, it'll be Nintendo

[Serebii]

Yeah I don't reckon they will abandon buttons. There's just no way you can play most of their games properly without them. To do that would be utterly insane.

Insane sounds like Nintendo to me :p

[Ronnie]

As Brian Altano puts it... Nintendo, insanely Japanese, insane.

[Hero-of-Time]

There's an interesting topic just cropped up on Gaf this afternoon about how Nintendo should reveal the NX. The question was raised whether Nintendo would have the big reveal of the NX via a Nintendo Direct.

 

What do you think, N-E? Do you think using a Nintendo Direct is a viable way to first introduce your new hardware or would a normal press conference be a more suitable place to do it?

[Serebii]

There's an interesting topic just cropped up on Gaf this afternoon about how Nintendo should reveal the NX. The question was raised whether Nintendo would have the big reveal of the NX via a Nintendo Direct.

 

What do you think, N-E? Do you think using a Nintendo Direct is a viable way to first introduce your new hardware or would a normal press conference be a more suitable place to do it?

For people at home, it doesn't matter if it's a Direct or a live conference. I'd say it's better for the former for higher production values, no waits for applause etc. There is no reason why it should be a live conference, the differences are purely psychological.

 

That doesn't mean they can't do a media event at the same time though. Wouldn't be the first time they've done that. Press will get the information either way.

[Sheikah]

They should do a press conference. Making a Direct is a bit like a home video - it might be more fun but it's just not appropriate.

[Kav]

I think a Press Conference is needed.

 

Nintendo needs to garner not just attention toward the NX, but hype towards it.

They need the Press to be excited about it and a PC will give this much more than a Direct will... as @Serebii states, it's pretty much only a psychological difference but Nintendo are out of favour with too many people psychologically, so they need to generate hype for the Press for them to then spread.

 

A PC followed by a Direct would be best.

[Serebii]

I think a Press Conference is needed.

 

Nintendo needs to garner not just attention toward the NX, but hype towards it.

They need the Press to be excited about it and a PC will give this much more than a Direct will... as @Serebii states, it's pretty much only a psychological difference but Nintendo are out of favour with too many people psychologically, so they need to generate hype for the Press for them to then spread.

 

A PC followed by a Direct would be best.

Why would they follow a press conference with a Direct if it's giving the same information though?

[Kav]

Why would they follow a press conference with a Direct if it's giving the same information though?

 

Because they can approach the delivery of the information in a different way, one that may be more focused on a fun level to appeal to other people, for example... and let's face it, the more they distribute the info the better, so long as it's a clear message they're putting out.

 

They simply have to garner hype for thing or it will flop just as badly, if not moreso, than the WiiU has!

Edited January 5, 2016 by Kav

[Sheikah]

Why would they follow a press conference with a Direct if it's giving the same information though?

I dunno, to say the same thing again but wearing a Mario hat and some visual FX? The usual really.

 

You'd be amazed at how Nintendo can spin out of a pretty small deal over many directs.

[dazzybee]

Tricky one, however they do it, a bit of me feels announcing the name, launch and concept before E3; then showing the games and concretes at E3 seems like the best way to go.

 

As for which... Maybe a video for the first one, then a conference for the big unveiling.

[Serebii]

Because they can approach the delivery of the information in a different way, one that may be more focused on a fun level to appeal to other people, for example... and let's face it, the more they distribute the info the better, so long as it's a clear message they're putting out.

 

They simply have to garner hype for thing or it will flop just as badly, if not moreso, than the WiiU has!

 

Then they can do it as I suggested. Direct for everyone who isn't media, and a media event that essentially is a press conference without ego stroking and fake applause for the media, running at the same time.

[Sheikah]

Then they can do it as I suggested. Direct for everyone who isn't media, and a media event that essentially is a press conference without ego stroking and fake applause for the media, running at the same time.

 

As Nintendo have shown before they have the potential to make a press conference several times more epic than a Direct. Just because you don't like some of what goes on in them, doesn't mean it isn't the best thing for this kind of announcement.

 

Directs always feel to me like a very niche thing that only the dedicated core can be bothered checking out. I hardly ever watch them.

[Kav]

Then they can do it as I suggested. Direct for everyone who isn't media, and a media event that essentially is a press conference without ego stroking and fake applause for the media, running at the same time.

 

They can but it wouldn't be to their best interest as there are people who would want to watch both live.

 

So do the Conference first for the hype and then the Direct for the follow-up. They can be close together, but shouldn't be at the same time.

 

Also, doing two things at the same time will lead to confusion for some people again. The press will want to cover both, so if the way the messages are delivered are different then differing stories from the press will cause confusion to the public.

 

Whereas if you do the conference first, let the press do their thing to push hype on the public and then do a Direct, the press will report on the Direct with knowledge and an idea of what the system is already, so they can contextualise it based on what they saw in the conference... the press would therefore convey it better to the public.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Kav

[Serebii]

As Nintendo have shown before they have the potential to make a press conference several times more epic than a Direct. Just because you don't like some of what goes on in them, doesn't mean it isn't the best thing for this kind of announcement.

 

Directs always feel to me like a very niche thing that only the dedicated core can be bothered checking out. I hardly ever watch them.

 

What's the benefit of conferences over Directs for people who aren't attending? What's actually different?

 

Conference: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

Direct: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

 

Same information would be given, one just more efficiently than before. It's all in your head. If rather than the Direct format, Nintendo had every one of their Directs as a conference, same content, would you have watched that?

 

The Directs also get a lot more reach than you give them credit for.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Serebii

[Kounan]

What ever brings more media attention.

[Kav]

What's the benefit of conferences over Directs for people who aren't attending? What's actually different?

 

Conference: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

Direct: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

 

Same information would be given, one just more efficiently than before. It's all in your head.

 

It's the feeling each give you. Don't underestimate it's importance.

 

With a conference, even though you're not there, you have the feeling you're sharing in the experience because of the crowd reaction.

In a Direct you don't have that. You lose that feeling of sharing the experience and that's a problem.

[Sheikah]

What's the benefit of conferences over Directs for people who aren't attending? What's actually different?

 

Conference: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

Direct: You go online, you open twitch, you go to Nintendo, you watch.

 

Same information would be given, one just more efficiently than before. It's all in your head.

 

Because lots of people like tuning into big conferences like E3 where lots of information is disseminated in a very short time. All the attention is on that event because of the prestige and expectation, far more than on any small directs where people like myself will never be bothered to check it out. I strongly doubt many people bother watching those Directs. It's also in one place, which is nice.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

Because lots of people like tuning into big conferences like E3 where lots of information is disseminated in a very short time. All the attention is on that event because of the prestige and expectation, far more than on any small directs where people like myself will never be bothered to check it out. I strongly doubt many people bother watching those Directs.

 

It's also in one place, which is nice.

 

Nintendo's Directs are in one place and it gives lots of information in a very short time, all without conference. There's also a lot of expectations with Directs.

 

It's all psychological. Prestige is irrelevant. I watch the things for information and details, not for prestige

[somme]

For people at home, it doesn't matter if it's a Direct or a live conference.

 

It does to me. I much prefer a conference, as do most (if not all) the people who posted above me.

 

I don't need to physically be there to soak up the ambience. Directs always feel a little, clinical.

[Sheikah]

Nintendo's Directs are in one place and it gives lots of information in a very short time, all without conference. There's also a lot of expectations with Directs.

 

It's all psychological. Prestige is irrelevant. I watch the things for information and details, not for prestige

Maybe this will make more sense to you - if all methods of information communication were ultimately the same as it 'all gets on the internet anyway' then that would mean TV advertising during a Downtown Abbey ad break would be as important as TV advertising at 2AM, or radio advertising. You and I both know that is true - thus, the time and place for communicating your product is very important. Saying that two entirely different ways of breaking your new product to the masses are the same would be more hilarious if I thought you were joking.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

It does to me. I much prefer a conference, as do most (if not all) the people who posted above me.

 

I don't need to physically be there to soak up the ambience. Directs always feel a little, clinical.

But the majority of the ambience, the cheering and whatnot, is piped through the sound. Every time there's a conference, you hear roaring applause and it cuts to the audience and there's one person clapping, barring huge announcements. It's false ambience.

 

Maybe this will make more sense to you - if all methods of information communication were ultimately the same as it 'all gets on the internet anyway' then that would mean TV advertising during a Downtown Abbey ad break would be as important as TV advertising at 2AM, or radio advertising. You and I both know that is true - thus, the time and place for communicating your product is very important. Saying that two entirely different ways of breaking your new product to the masses are the same would be more hilarious if I knew you weren't actually joking.

Except the fact that everything in Nintendo's Directs spreads around as much as everything in an E3 conference. They set worldwide Twitter trends, they get people talking, press cover it all. You're acting like Directs have no reach, no impact and that only conferences do when that's far from the truth.

 

Maybe in yesteryear, sure, but this is 2016.

[Kav]

@Serebii, it basically boils down to this: delivering the info twice is better than delivering it once.

 

Even if only for it being just in case someone misses it the first time.