Who will be the next hardware maker to exit the market?

[Tanooki]

I'd think the Switch is even more ideal for it. As Nvidia increases the potential of their Tegra series of chips that go into micro consoles they (if the contract continues) could just keep making a beefier Switch successor that can run the old still (which is mostly nintendo standard for handhelds) while doing far better with the new. Those little cards they have are large, eat up very little space themselves or in the shell with their slot, and as time continues the price will further drop on the storage inside them.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

Perhaps, but it's not like Sony isn't doing the exact same thing. And we know that Sony's end-game with the PS4 is not to make it a PC. Also, if it happens to succeed, I have no doubt Nintendo won't follow the exact same path with the Switch. Its hardware platform is ideal for the same type of iterative upgrades on the PS4 and Xbox One sides.

Agreed. PC hardware development has stalled in the CPU department in terms of raw performance (still no 12- and 16- core desktop CPUs...) and one could argue that while the latest x86 CPUs have gotten a bit leaner in the wattage department by shrinking the die process, they are not much better compared to their equivalents from four years prior, in terms of raw horsepower per die, at least on the desktop front. And desktop PCs are all but dead except for custom builders and the enthusiast market. When was the last time you walked into Best Buy or Office Depot and saw row after row of beige boxes? A skimpy selection of laptops which are becoming more and more like tablets and less like serious work machines.

 

ARM devices on the other hand, has been following regular 18-month to 2-year iteration upgrade cycles that seem to follow the traditional 2-year contract period, and still kick x86's ass when it comes to performance per watt. I could see servers and supercomputer applications moving to ARM in a few years time. Imagine a 32-core ARM CPU with massive caches and a large RAM bank pulling half the juice of a traditional x86 desktop CPU? I could see them eventually supplanting x86 for server use.

 

What does this mean for Switch? In a few more years, a second iteration of Switch hardware could very well be caught up performance wise with the flailing MS/Sony x86 boxes. Perhaps when Xbone, PS4 v2 and v3 have finished their iterative cycles, PS5 and XB5 (yeah Microsoft will skip Xbox 4 just like they skipped Windows 9 and will be in sync with Playstation numbering) may in fact use ARM and once more be forced to ditch backwards compatibility.

 

Maybe they copy Nintendo and do hybrid mobile platforms, because it is obvious neither company has innovated much since they released their debut consoles. Playstation copied the SNES controller and later the N64 analog stick; both companies copied motion controls, and should the Switch be a smashing success, perhaps both companies will try to bank on hybrid portable/console hardware next.

 

I'd think the Switch is even more ideal for it. As Nvidia increases the potential of their Tegra series of chips that go into micro consoles they (if the contract continues) could just keep making a beefier Switch successor that can run the old still (which is mostly nintendo standard for handhelds) while doing far better with the new. Those little cards they have are large, eat up very little space themselves or in the shell with their slot, and as time continues the price will further drop on the storage inside them.

Yes, and the 2 year upgrade cycle of mobile versus the traditional 5-6 year upgrade cycle of consoles will put Nintendo on the fast track to catching up to PS/Sony. See my above reply to Bill. Moore's Law is officially dead for x86 but still has a bit of headroom yet for ARM.

[Schizophretard]

I never quite understood that line that's been thrown out of late. The 3DS has been out 6 years already, and it hasn't and won't sell more than the Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii. As it's tracking now, the PS4 is on pace to blow past 3DS sales in less time. So, comparing it to the two console generations it sold in, while doing enviably well, it was never the best selling system.

 

It doesn't have to sell more than the Xbox 360, PS3, or Wii. The handheld for that generation was the DS which ultimately did outsell all of those. I'm not comparing it to two generations. The 3DS is 8th gen like the PS4, XBOX ONE, Wii U, and PS VITA. I never said the PS4 wouldn't blow past 3DS sales. I wasn't making a statement of pace or which would have the most sales when the 8th gen is said and done. It was a statement about the present which is why I used the word "currently". Currently there are more 3DS's in the wild than any other 8th gen console. Simple as that. For the record.

 

Anyway, within the context of what I was responding to:

 

Nintendo might resign themselves to portables, but even that is small compared to phone and mobile gaming.

 

Is that even if no more 3DS's sell and it loses its current position as the top-selling console of this generation to the PS4 its sales are at a level that should be considered big and successful within the console market instead of small and unsuccessful within the mobile gaming market. In other words, I'm saying something similar to your,"I never quite understood that line that's been thrown out of late." in that I don't understand this double standard going around where somehow a home console's sales would be considered good but if you change the monitor from your TV to the console itself to make it a handheld console then sales within the same range switch to being considered bad because phones. I'll reverse it to show why it seems ridiculous to me:

 

Let's assume the PS VITA is Sony's last handheld console and they will just sell home consoles. If that is the case this type of doom and gloom wouldn't make sense to me:

 

"Sony might resign themselves to home consoles, but even that is small compared to phone and mobile gaming."

 

If that is too apples and oranges because unlike handheld consoles and phones home consoles are stationary then it can be changed to:

 

"Sony might resign themselves to home consoles, but even that is small compared to computers and PC gaming."

 

This type of doom and gloom wouldn't make sense to me because Sony can do fine with selling home consoles only because those are the kinds of consoles they do well at selling and whatever kind of competition they are in against mobile and PC gaming that danger of competition is the same regardless of if a console's form factor is home or handheld.

 

Another reason I'm bringing up the 3DS's sales compared to other modern consoles is because these kind of points and points like them gives me the impression that many people believe that Nintendo has been just like Sony, Microsoft, and other console manufacturers from the past in that their home consoles have been their bigger sellers that they can't survive without while their handheld consoles have been kind of like smaller side projects that they can survive without. A belief something like Nintendo dropping home consoles would be equivalent to SEGA dropping the Genesis to focus entirely on the Game Gear when in reality Nintendo dropping home consoles is closer to Sony dropping the PS Vita to focus entirely on the PS4 because with Nintendo it is reversed because, most of the time, it has been their handheld consoles that have been their bigger sellers that they can't survive without.

 

Sony is better at selling home consoles and struggles with handheld consoles. Nintendo is better at selling handheld consoles and struggles with home consoles. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for them to do something like the Switch that is a handheld console that also still keeps one foot in the door of home consoles with its docking ability because they have a better chance at getting more sales with the handheld form factor over the home one.

 

To make my point more clear this is how Nintendo handheld consoles have compared to other million-selling consoles in each generation:

 

4th Gen:

 

Game Boy: 64.42 million

Super NES: 49.10 million

SEGA Genesis: 30.75 million

SEGA Game Gear: 10.62 million

TurboGrafx-16: 10 million

SEGA Pico: > 3.4 million

Atari Lynx: > 1 million

Philips CD-i: > 1 million

 

5th Gen:

 

PlayStation: 102.49 million

Game Boy Color: 54.27 million

Nintendo 64: 32.93 million

SEGA Saturn: 9.26 million

WonderSwan: 3.5 million

 

6th Gen:

 

PlayStation 2: >155 million

Game Boy Advance: 81.51 million

XBOX: 24 million

GameCube: 21.74 million

Dreamcast: 9.13 million

N-Gage: 3 million

 

7th Gen:

 

Nintendo DS: 154.02 million

Wii: 101.63 million

Xbox 360: 84 million

PlayStation 3: >83.8 million

PlayStation Portable: 82 million

 

8th Gen"Currently":

 

Nintendo 3DS: 65.30 million

PlayStation 4: 53.4 million

Wii U: 13.56 million

XBOX One: >10 million(as of 2014)

PlayStation Vita: >4 million(as of 2013)

 

So, since the launch of the Game Boy, 2 of the 4 generations that have been completed it was a Nintendo handheld console that was top-selling, the other 2 it still made second place which is understandable considering that Sony dominated with the PlayStation being the first console to break 100 million sales and the PS2 being the top-selling console of all time but still for those two generations Nintendo handheld console sales increased, during the 7th generation a Nintendo handheld console reclaimed dominance over a PlayStation home console and still beat its own home console which was its own top-selling home console of all time while also being its first home console to sell over 100 million, every generation a Nintendo handheld console outsold their own home consoles, so far a Microsoft console hasn't outsold a Nintendo handheld console, the 3DS may not be performing as insanely well as the DS but that doesn't seem much different than the PS3 not performing as insanely well as the PS2 and it still done more sales than the original Game Boy and Game Boy Color during this age of smart phones, and currently, as in now now, it is this generation's top-selling console.

 

Therefore, the point of a Nintendo handheld console currently being the top-selling console isn't that it won't ultimately be outsold by Sony or even outsold by Microsoft for the first time. The point is that it is doing so well that they have to try to outsell it in the first place unlike the Wii U and if the Wii U was selling as well as the 3DS has then it would be Nintendo's second best selling home console after the Wii. That is why Nintendo resigning themselves to a handheld console with the Switch or more specifically combining their home and handheld divisions together under a hybrid with a handheld form factor isn't putting them in more danger of being taken out by phones, PC's, or even other consoles compared to if they just released another home console because their home consoles have been declining anyway even before phones added to the competition and their handheld consoles have always sold much better than their home consoles. So, what they are doing with the Switch isn't an example of them getting a step closer to pulling a SEGA. It is more like pulling a Sony, assuming they don't have a PS Vita successor, because it is an example of Nintendo putting all of their effort behind focusing on what they do best.

[Andromeda Stardust]

"Pulling a Sony..." I kinda like that. Except the fact Sony hasn't really innovated much. Their primary controller hasn't changed much since the Dual Shock first debuted in the late 90s. Nintendo really beats to the sound of their own drum. Just look at their colorful history of controller design. They launched a Dpad in a sea of joysticks, then the diamond SNES pad which Sony copied, next an analog stick which Sony copied, on a controller designed for freaks with three hands on a console designed for three friends no less. Game Cube had a somewhat contemporary design, then DS touch screen, which Apple copied, then motion control, which Sony copied, then Nintendo created a tablet design that got everything wrong, then created a new tablet design which got everything right.

 

What if instead of PSTV, Sony had created a dockable Vita instead? But Sony couldn't have created _^copied something so innovative, because it didn't exist yet!

[BillLoguidice]

Agreed. PC hardware development has stalled in the CPU department in terms of raw performance (still no 12- and 16- core desktop CPUs...) and one could argue that while the latest x86 CPUs have gotten a bit leaner in the wattage department by shrinking the die process, they are not much better compared to their equivalents from four years prior, in terms of raw horsepower per die, at least on the desktop front. And desktop PCs are all but dead except for custom builders and the enthusiast market. When was the last time you walked into Best Buy or Office Depot and saw row after row of beige boxes? A skimpy selection of laptops which are becoming more and more like tablets and less like serious work machines.

 

ARM devices on the other hand, has been following regular 18-month to 2-year iteration upgrade cycles that seem to follow the traditional 2-year contract period, and still kick x86's ass when it comes to performance per watt. I could see servers and supercomputer applications moving to ARM in a few years time. Imagine a 32-core ARM CPU with massive caches and a large RAM bank pulling half the juice of a traditional x86 desktop CPU? I could see them eventually supplanting x86 for server use.

 

What does this mean for Switch? In a few more years, a second iteration of Switch hardware could very well be caught up performance wise with the flailing MS/Sony x86 boxes. Perhaps when Xbone, PS4 v2 and v3 have finished their iterative cycles, PS5 and XB5 (yeah Microsoft will skip Xbox 4 just like they skipped Windows 9 and will be in sync with Playstation numbering) may in fact use ARM and once more be forced to ditch backwards compatibility.

 

Maybe they copy Nintendo and do hybrid mobile platforms, because it is obvious neither company has innovated much since they released their debut consoles. Playstation copied the SNES controller and later the N64 analog stick; both companies copied motion controls, and should the Switch be a smashing success, perhaps both companies will try to bank on hybrid portable/console hardware next.

 

Yes, and the 2 year upgrade cycle of mobile versus the traditional 5-6 year upgrade cycle of consoles will put Nintendo on the fast track to catching up to PS/Sony. See my above reply to Bill. Moore's Law is officially dead for x86 but still has a bit of headroom yet for ARM.

 

As it stands now, the Switch is behind the original PS4 and Xbox One in terms of raw performance, and that's not even counting the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S (and, later this year, Xbox Scorpio). That's a LOT of generational power to make up for something that's intended as a dockable handheld. As such, I think the power lead will be easy for the PS4 and Xbox One series to maintain through the remainder of this particular generation. I also think you're greatly underestimating the performance possibilities left in the x86 architecture and not being tied down to mobile performance concerns. That's one of the reasons why the Switch's performance is scaled back the way it is. I also wouldn't discount being able to emulate x86 architecture at full speed via ARM eventually, so backwards compatibility wouldn't be an issue if for some reason Microsoft was motivated to drop x86 on the console side in 8 - 10 years. That's already coming to Windows later this year.

 

And unless the Switch somehow sets the videogame world on fire and outperforms not only the Xbox One, but the torrid pace of the PS4, as discussed in the "Why doesn't Microsoft make a handheld" thread, there's zero incentive for anyone else to make a handheld, even a dockable one. Nintendo was the only one in a unique position to make it work, with both a failed console in the Wii U and a flagging, but still healthy gaming handheld presence to consolidate.

 

As for the relative innovation thing, I'm not even going to bother to go there, because I find the very idea silly. As with any competitive industry, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo have both innovated and borrowed liberally from the competition's best ideas.

[BillLoguidice]

"Pulling a Sony..." I kinda like that. Except the fact Sony hasn't really innovated much. Their primary controller hasn't changed much since the Dual Shock first debuted in the late 90s. Nintendo really beats to the sound of their own drum. Just look at their colorful history of controller design. They launched a Dpad in a sea of joysticks, then the diamond SNES pad which Sony copied, next an analog stick which Sony copied, on a controller designed for freaks with three hands on a console designed for three friends no less. Game Cube had a somewhat contemporary design, then DS touch screen, which Apple copied, then motion control, which Sony copied, then Nintendo created a tablet design that got everything wrong, then created a new tablet design which got everything right.

 

Oh my goodness... Yes, Apple "copied" the DS because the former has a capacitive multi-touch screen while the latter has a lower resistive touchscreen. I guess we'll just ignore the Newton, or maybe say that Nintendo copied that or any of the other PDA devices that preceded it? I guess we'll also ignore the resistive touchscreen phones that came before the iPhone as well, because surely it was a clamshell gaming handheld that inspired Apple to create the modern single-screen smartphone concept.

 

Did Nintendo copy the Atari 5200, Vectrex, or the other consoles that had an analog stick before it? By adding a second analog stick for camera control versus Nintendo's solution of four buttons, did Sony not innovate, or was that simple iteration of Nintendo's "sole" idea? I'm asking because I want to know where we draw the line between innovation and simple iteration.

 

Again, anyone can nitpick any one or two things that one competitor cribbed from another competitor, but innovation comes in all forms, and certainly precious few "innovations" happened in isolation.

[Tanooki]

118.69M would be more accurate for Gameboy since we're having fun nitpicking. Nintendo didn't consider the GBC its own system any more than they did the GB Pocket or the Japan only GB Light. They're all just 8bit Gameboy with a difference in style in output and with the last one being a bit better inside (along with a color panel) which had a few games only it could run. It really wasn't until they got into having online services they considered a system ugprade a new system even on the same name which is what they pulled with DSi (death of backwards compatibility until the Switch) and again with New3DS because they double beefed up the guts inside like GBC crudely put and rolled with it. But when they pitch sales figures they put them all under one umbrella. GB+P+L+C is just Gameboy. DS+Lite+i is is the DS and 3DS+XL+2DS+New3DS+New3DSXL is just 3DS when they run the data. It's kind of weird, but given they basically run all the same stuff aside from a few games it makes sense. So with that nitpick GB actually edged out the PS1 sales but not PS2 since GBA (GBA+SP+Micro) are their own thing.

 

 

Reality is though you're probably right on the nose, Nintendo saw no reason to compete against itself when it was a loss leading prospect which had one anomaly that performed nice for 3-4 years, the Wii. Otherwise it was like watching a painful episode of Jackass where Steve-O wanted to just repeatedly be punched in the balls as that's the kind of mentality Nintendo had sticking with consoles...doubled over pain and loss. Going with the Switch you can still use it on a TV, it upscales to feel like a console, but the damn thing to anyone with half a brain knows it's a handheld and even the advertising isn't even all that sly about it with all the hipster roof parties and backyard bbqs with it with the kickstand out on a table.

[Schizophretard]

118.69M would be more accurate for Gameboy since we're having fun nitpicking. Nintendo didn't consider the GBC its own system any more than they did the GB Pocket or the Japan only GB Light. They're all just 8bit Gameboy with a difference in style in output and with the last one being a bit better inside (along with a color panel) which had a few games only it could run. It really wasn't until they got into having online services they considered a system ugprade a new system even on the same name which is what they pulled with DSi (death of backwards compatibility until the Switch) and again with New3DS because they double beefed up the guts inside like GBC crudely put and rolled with it. But when they pitch sales figures they put them all under one umbrella. GB+P+L+C is just Gameboy. DS+Lite+i is is the DS and 3DS+XL+2DS+New3DS+New3DSXL is just 3DS when they run the data. It's kind of weird, but given they basically run all the same stuff aside from a few games it makes sense. So with that nitpick GB actually edged out the PS1 sales but not PS2 since GBA (GBA+SP+Micro) are their own thing.

I get what you are saying. It is like the handheld line I didn't mention(Game & Watch) in that we would probably consider them 60 separate handhelds but they are considered a second generation line of handhelds that sold 43.4 million units that as a whole are considered the predecessor to and inspiration for the Game Boy. I didn't include them because you had to buy a separate console for each game. They are relevant though because without them there may not have been a Nintendo handheld console history and their home console history would have been different too. For an example, the D-pad.

 

Anyway, to be consistent, I separated Nintendo handheld consoles based on which generation they are considered to be in to show the performance of Nintendo handheld consoles within each generation.

 

Reality is though you're probably right on the nose, Nintendo saw no reason to compete against itself when it was a loss leading prospect which had one anomaly that performed nice for 3-4 years, the Wii. Otherwise it was like watching a painful episode of Jackass where Steve-O wanted to just repeatedly be punched in the balls as that's the kind of mentality Nintendo had sticking with consoles...doubled over pain and loss. Going with the Switch you can still use it on a TV, it upscales to feel like a console, but the damn thing to anyone with half a brain knows it's a handheld and even the advertising isn't even all that sly about it with all the hipster roof parties and backyard bbqs with it with the kickstand out on a table.

I think it is acceptable to consider it a hybrid of both a handheld console and a home console. The form factor is without a doubt handheld but in functionality it does both. For an example, when docked and using a Pro-Controller the experience would be of that of a home console. Another example is that the development of the games would come from the merger of Nintendo's home and handheld divisions. As a side note to that, I don't understand the point of view of those who wanted a new Nintendo home console but a primary reason they are not interested in the Switch is that they have no interest in handheld consoles. They could just leave it docked. It just seems like an OCD desire to have to see a box by their TV's. I myself have extreme OCD and yet even I can't relate to this "It must be in a home console box form factor for me to enjoy it as a home console." point of view when it has no effect on the experience.

 

Anyway, in my opinion, the roof parties, backyard bbgs, planes, trains, and automobiles type marketing is more about showing the extent of portability instead of what would likely be its more common everyday use when in handheld mode. Maybe I'm just projecting how I have always used handheld consoles onto the majority and could be completely wrong but in my experience those kinds of portability have always been more of the exception than the rule. I may have taken handheld consoles on long road trips, had them as my consoles of choice when going on vacation, and things like that but that has never been the primary reasons I have owned them and I never have played them more on the go than in my own home. It is like desktops vs. laptops. Sure I could take my laptop to McDonald's to use their WiFi or whatever and have took laptops on vacations but the reason I have one is so that I'm not glued to a desk instead of reclining back in a chair comfortably with headphones on to have a more personal and private experience like I'm doing right now. I have always used handheld consoles in the exact same context. It is one of the reasons that I don't think handheld console gaming and mobile gaming are exactly the same. People may play their phones in really small bursts everywhere in the little free time they have in their busy lives which it why most of the games are designed for that kind of use but I think with handheld consoles for most people most of the time they play them just like a home console minus being locked to a TV by spending hours relaxing on a couch, their bed, using them to not disturb others while sleeping, to hide from their parents that they are gaming too late in their room on a school night, etc. at home. That is why I prefer handheld console over portable console because it is primarily more about being in your hands than being portable just like a laptop isn't called a portable computer because it is more about being on your lap than being portable. In other words, handheld consoles are mostly used as portables within a home than outside of them for the convenience of playing anywhere at any time in your home.

[godslabrat]

I've always liked how the Super Game Boy and Game Boy Player allowed me to take my GameBoy games and slap them on the TV. To me, the Switch's idea of having one library of games for both environments is just a natural extension of the way I've been using my consoles for a long time. Then again, I don't belong to the community that considers portable games to be "lesser" versions of console games, or thinks that I should always opt for the big-screen version of a game when presented with a choice. I suspect that's where the "I'm not interested in portables" argument comes from-- for decades, some people have painted portable games as being inferior and they really aren't interested in revising that opinion.

 

To use an analogy, some people can see a cheeseburger on a ceramic plate and call it fine dining... but if you took that same burger, wrapped it in paper and stuck it in a bag, they'd call it fast-food garbage. It doesn't matter how good the burger is or how conveniently it's served, they've made up their mind that things are a certain way and that's that.

[BillLoguidice]

I've always liked how the Super Game Boy and Game Boy Player allowed me to take my GameBoy games and slap them on the TV. To me, the Switch's idea of having one library of games for both environments is just a natural extension of the way I've been using my consoles for a long time. Then again, I don't belong to the community that considers portable games to be "lesser" versions of console games, or thinks that I should always opt for the big-screen version of a game when presented with a choice. I suspect that's where the "I'm not interested in portables" argument comes from-- for decades, some people have painted portable games as being inferior and they really aren't interested in revising that opinion.

 

To use an analogy, some people can see a cheeseburger on a ceramic plate and call it fine dining... but if you took that same burger, wrapped it in paper and stuck it in a bag, they'd call it fast-food garbage. It doesn't matter how good the burger is or how conveniently it's served, they've made up their mind that things are a certain way and that's that.

 

I think I'm the opposite. I've almost always thought of the console/PC and portable/mobile experiences as different from each other. The portable experience has almost always felt scaled back to me in comparison to the same game on console, even when said portable, like a PSP or Vita, could theoretically offer console quality experiences. Of course, I've liked plenty of portables games just fine, but I've never felt them equivalent, just different. I truly hope the Switch has the secret sauce to rectify that, because I think I really do prefer the console experience to all others, and being able to be more portable with that experience would be quite liberating. We'll see soon enough.

[godslabrat]

 

I think I'm the opposite. I've almost always thought of the console/PC and portable/mobile experiences as different from each other. The portable experience has almost always felt scaled back to me in comparison to the same game on console, even when said portable, like a PSP or Vita, could theoretically offer console quality experiences. Of course, I've liked plenty of portables games just fine, but I've never felt them equivalent, just different. I truly hope the Switch has the secret sauce to rectify that, because I think I really do prefer the console experience to all others, and being able to be more portable with that experience would be quite liberating. We'll see soon enough.

I could see that argument being made when you're talking about porting genres that just are not designed to be played on the portable hardware of the time (Tomb Raider on GBC, GTA on GBA, etc.) but I would say all of Nintendo's first-party titles, and a very large chunk of the major 3rd-party titles, really did present a unique gaming experience in their own right. Then again, I'm also very forgiving of graphical shortcomings, which tend to be the area where portable games suffer most.

[Flojomojo]

To me, games are games and distinctions are artificial.

 

Old games are fun

New games are OK too

When we were kids, simple arcade-style games cost 25 cents to play once, or you could get a "lifetime membership" to play them at home for $30.

Nowadays, fancy games cost $60 and ask you to pay extra to have add-ons or extra game modes like online multiplayer.

Some of them are like the simple arcade games I enjoyed as a kid, except you can even play them for free ... or you can pay infinite money for consumable smurfberries.

The long-play RPG style of some GameBoy Advance or DS or 3DS games have more in common with long-playing computer RPGs than arcade games

These are of course also available on mobile, and consoles, and computers

There are many cases where I literally have the same game in multiple places: classic, mobile, console, and PC. Same game, just different places to enjoy it.

Just like having a book in bound in leather, hardcover with a dust jacket, trade paperback, mass market paperback, ebook, and audible. Same stuff, different media. No big deal, it's all good.

 

I say again, games are games, and I don't have much interest in drawing distinctions without differences.

 

You say "graphical shortcomings," I say "this is some pretty hot stuff on a tiny handheld gizmo."

[BillLoguidice]

When we were kids, simple arcade-style games cost 25 cents to play once, or you could get a "lifetime membership" to play them at home for $30.

Nowadays, fancy games cost $60 and ask you to pay extra to have add-ons or extra game modes like online multiplayer.

Some of them are like the simple arcade games I enjoyed as a kid, except you can even play them for free ... or you can pay infinite money for consumable smurfberries.

 

 

Just to make a point of clarification, it's something of a myth that games in the past cost loss than they do today. While $60 is the norm for the newest titles (before the inevitable price drops), when you adjust for inflation, new games in the past could easily cost that much, or considerably more. While it's easy enough to point to some astronomically priced Genesis or N64 games, we can go all the way back to the Atari 2600. A $29.99 Atari 2600 game in 1981 is the equivalent of $80 today. Just saying.

 

 

There are many cases where I literally have the same game in multiple places: classic, mobile, console, and PC. Same game, just different places to enjoy it.

Just like having a book in bound in leather, hardcover with a dust jacket, trade paperback, mass market paperback, ebook, and audible. Same stuff, different media. No big deal, it's all good.

 

Absolutely. Two recent examples for me are The Binding of Isaac, which I play on PC, Xbox One, PS4, and New 3DS, and Letter Quest, which I play on iOS, PS4, and Vita. Those are examples of more or less the same exact game regardless of platform.

[Flojomojo]

A $29.99 Atari 2600 game in 1981 is the equivalent of $80 today. Just saying.

Yes, though arguably you get a lot more for your money in 2017. Call of Doodie for $80 vs. MegaMania in 1982 bucks, for example.

 

All I'm saying is, games are games, games cost money, if you like them you should pay for them, and all platforms and eras provide value and fun. Old, new, mobile, console, computer, arcade ... all good.

[Schizophretard]

What if instead of PSTV, Sony had created a dockable Vita instead? But Sony couldn't have created _^copied something so innovative, because it didn't exist yet!

 

I think since Sony was the only manufacturer to give a good fight against Nintendo handheld consoles that they probably looked at things Sony did right and things they did wrong to help them in designing the Switch.

 

The PSP has TV out but not in the first version and you still had to use the PSP as the controller. Later the PSP Go had a dock with its own proprietary connector that is the same for use with charging that if lost you would be screwed but the PSP Go had bluetooth to allow using PS3 controllers. However, it would display small with black borders unless you bought a third party scaler. So, that was close to the Switch's docking but for the benefit of having this ultra-portable design had the cost of no UMD drive which meant you would have to buy your games all over again through PlayStation Network. That contributed to the PSP Go being a failure. However, it may be good to own today because you could just fill it up with PSP ROM's and emulators to have a very pocket friendly PSP and emulation machine that you could dock with the right equipment. The PS VITA was all screwed up by needing the PSTV and not working with all games. Anyway, the Switch does this docking out of the box with a non-proprietary USB-C connector with HDMI out.

 

The PSP only had one thumbstick which was more like a nub. The PS VITA addressed that with two thumbsticks but still only had two shoulder buttons and no triggers. The Switch has two proper thumbsticks, two shoulder buttons, and two triggers. So, at least as far as controls are concerned while making ports there would be no sacrifices there.

 

The PSP had a wide screen with a higher resolution than the DS which was at the time that people were starting to ditch their tube TV's for widescreen flat panels. So, even though this seems standard today then it was a big thing to show that the PSP was more for home console style gaming on the go than Nintendo's "kiddie" games. The PS VITA upped the resolution but with the Switch's 720p screen we finally have a handheld console with a standard HDTV resolution.

 

One of the PSP's selling points for being more for home console gaming on the go was that it was graphically similar to being somewhere between the PS1 and PS2, for the PS VITA it was like between the PS2 and PS3, and now for the Switch it is like between a PS3 and PS4. The PSP got third party "hardcore" support in the form of ports and/or franchises from home consoles made specifically for the PSP and the PS VITA could have had the same if Sony didn't forget it existed a day after launch and supported it but the Switch with the best mobile SOC on the market is too "underpowered" to get the same kind of support because they made the mistake of not naming it "The Sony PSP Switch".

 

The PSP and PS VITA both had expensive proprietary memory cards but this was a bigger problem with the PS VITA. The Switch uses standard micro SD cards of any size you want.

 

The PSP used UMD but the PS VITA used Game Cards. The Switch uses Game Cards too but Nintendo figured out that this was a better method of game media with the original DS.

 

The Switch's Game Card cases look almost identical to PSP UMD cases.

 

The PSP had a black glossy look to look more adult compared to the colorful look of Nintendo handheld consoles so you could feel more "hardcore" and less embarrassed to play it in public. The PS VITA was the same. With the Switch you have the option for colorful Joy-Cons but the standard look doesn't look like a toy.

 

The PS VITA was a flop but has a strong indie scene. I can see the same people moving on to the Switch.

 

In short, I don't think Nintendo is just going after their own crowd but going after those who were fans of the PSP and were disappointed in the PS VITA. Also, I don't think they were doing it just by observing what Sony was doing to get the "hardcore" crowd but also was observing what Nvidia was doing with their Shield line which it why they teamed up with them. And I get the impression from here that Nvidia didn't just provide the SOC but was deeply involved with the Switch's design. Like maybe something like Nvidia was working on a Shield Portable 2, Nintendo made a deal with them around then, and then they worked together to turn it into the Switch by combining in the features Nintendo wanted. That impression was strengthened when I watched Spawn Wave's reaction to the internal design of the Switch:

 

[Andromeda Stardust]

To use an analogy, some people can see a cheeseburger on a ceramic plate and call it fine dining... but if you took that same burger, wrapped it in paper and stuck it in a bag, they'd call it fast-food garbage. It doesn't matter how good the burger is or how conveniently it's served, they've made up their mind that things are a certain way and that's that.

Whoa dude. Huge difference between a fast food burger and a gormet burger. This coming from someone who loves burgers but loathes fast food. Educate yourself sometime.

 

Using the Switch analogy, fast food is the mobile Android/iOS games. Gormet is like a 3DS or Switch tablet.

 

That's a nice cooling fan. Also based on leaked docs from the Devkits, max CPU is 2.0Ghz, higher than previously thought.

[Tanooki]

To that point within a point earlier ago -- 100% agree. PS TV shot itself in the foot 100%. They had a huge opportunity there and screwed it up badly. I could understand a few games totally based around the camera/touch controls not being compatible, but when a lot of games which had optional or bypass capable touch garbage (like the leader of the pack Uncharted) failed to run on there, and others which had none at all it was game over. For all the every few months $20 amazon sales on the device I not once could convince myself to pull the trigger on the thing because ... Sony. Yes I know you could whitelist it with an email backdoor hack, but Sony also annoyingly loves to force firmware updates and it felt like it could be a cycle of harassment. I still consider getting one and whitelisting it, figuring at this rate they don't care anymore to firmware update it or anything. I do miss Dragon's Crown. Truth though is I could just as easily buy a PS4 blu ray remote and swap my old PS3 with the PS4 in my room and leave the other for movie only play and go buy a cheap copy of the original game again.

 

 

I know off topic there and on topic is far smaller, but that video says a lot to both back up and debunk some of the fans and trolling we see online about the system we get in another 8 days. Yes we're basically a week out here now. I do like his angle that it very well could be a pre-Pascal type system as it is marked as an X2 on the code not a X1, but those numbers can mean anything without a scan of the guts. You have to really wonder what's going on in there as we get more clues, it's just more questions since stuff still is buried inside or buried under a poor image so you can't read certain chip numbers to look them up.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

 

I know off topic there and on topic is far smaller, but that video says a lot to both back up and debunk some of the fans and trolling we see online about the system we get in another 8 days. Yes we're basically a week out here now. I do like his angle that it very well could be a pre-Pascal type system as it is marked as an X2 on the code not a X1, but those numbers can mean anything without a scan of the guts. You have to really wonder what's going on in there as we get more clues, it's just more questions since stuff still is buried inside or buried under a poor image so you can't read certain chip numbers to look them up.

I think the Switch packs a lot more horses than fanboys, tech articles, and the early leaks give them credit. Someone will blow the lid on this CPU soon enough. May very well be X2 architecture without the process size and die shrinkage.

[BillLoguidice]

PSTV was a no-go, because, despite the handheld having a beautiful OLED screen, the resolution is only 960x544. To me, it looks like garbage on a TV. The Switch has the advantage of having a native 720p screen, and a dockable resolution bump from there. It will look like its native content on a TV. That's the main difference.

[Tanooki]

I think the Switch packs a lot more horses than fanboys, tech articles, and the early leaks give them credit. Someone will blow the lid on this CPU soon enough. May very well be X2 architecture without the process size and die shrinkage.

I'm starting to think something like that too is very possible. I'm thinking at the least it's a customized version of their 2017 revision of the X1 chip for those 4K tv shield console systems and perhaps with the other stuff that has been said where it maybe a maxwell chip but uses pascal processes or something to that effect where you get part of the benefit of the future unit without the smaller dye and cooler running temp (or the full boost of it either.)