Nintendo Switch (Currently Plagued) - Here we shit post about the new Nintendo console, The Switch

[skykiii]

But the only exception would probably be the Game Boy Advance, but that was mainly an victim of another issue that we take for granted, nowadays

What issue would that be?

............

On the issue of portable comfortability... I recall always feeling like the original gray brick Gameboy was the most comfortable, with the original GBA being also pretty comfy. The rest of the Gameboys were too small and I found I always needed one of those grip thingies to make them at all comfortable.

I remember liking the Sega Game Gear back in the day too. The PSP... could've stood to be bigger but I don't recall ever being in pain (physically, anyway. A lot of 3D games though sometimes required me to adapt or try different control configurations).

The Switch... yeah it falls into that "it starts to hurt unless I use a secondary thing" (in this case, Hori Split Pad Pro) to make it not fucking hurt.

 

[NerdShamer]

What issue would that be?

You know, it wasn't backlit, had to constantly replace the batteries.

 

[BananaSplit²]

This whole debate is pointless anyway because the joycons are pointless. I don't think anyone in their right mind would play the Switch without the pro controller.

Joycons have been useful to play local casual games between friends or family in scenario cases where I could only bring the handheld itself (+pouch).
And besides the lack of proper d-pad, the joycons work fine combined with the grip as an extra controller alongside with the Pro controller I own.

I don't know why all you Nintendo nerds think hybrids are the future of gaming.

Because mobile hardware has evolved well enough to catch up with the stationary counterparts, helped by the fact the jump leaps between home console generations have progressively become smaller. Something like Nier Automata and EDF 4.1 can be played on the current Switch with virtually no differences from the PS4 versions, I couldn't hope to have this level of tech marvel back in the PsVita days (which already struggled on PS4-era Atelier games, a port of the PS2 game EDF2 or even Risk of Rain 1).

And it's cool to have a 2-in-1 device where I can alternate between portable and docked whenever I feel like it, with a single unified library. It's a lot more convenient that way than the PS4 + Vita combo which forced to buy the same game on two different machines, and that's assuming cross-platform saves were supported in the first place.

Nevermind the Steam Deck has an official dock that allows it to be used like a desktop computer, as another example of hybrid system, although the transition between portable/docked is not as seamless as the Switch and shouldn't be attempted in the middle of a game.

I have no doubt that business decisions also play a role here. Maybe more in the case of Yakuza, it was mainly about the personal taste from the series original director/producer, who is no longer with the company. But Sega themselves don't have a problem with putting games on the Switch. Which is why I'm leaning more towards technical limitations here. Same with other companies like Square Enix and Bandai Namco, who both put plenty of games on the Switch, though not necessarily their biggest and best titles.

I don't think anything stopped the RGG studio to port over their older PS3 games (1+2 HD Collection, 3 to 5, Kenzan, the original Isshin, OF THE END/Dead Souls, Zero), in order to test the waters and build up their home audience on the Nintendo system, other than this samurai loyalty to SIE/Playstation that could be seen amongst other Japanese third-parties for a while. Nihon Falcom was guilty of this too, and now they're throwing everything at the hybrid console but still paid the price of neglecting their home audience for a few years. Aquaplus remains still silent and seems to prefer a samurai's death rather than support Nintendo, which I hope I'm wrong on this one.

Like I'm very happy with the massive third-party support on Switch so far, but I can't help but stare in disbelief about the business decisions of certain nippon executives who refuse to accept a reality where Playstation is a shadow of its former self. The CEO of CyberConnect2 (on Twitter) was a good public example of that.

On a side note, Yakuza Dead Souls on Switch would have been fun to compare against its past performance on the PS3 hardware.

 

[Waifu Denier]

Same for Square, they didn't even bother porting Kingdom Hearts over properly. Technical limitations aren't holding many games back, these companies just don't want to invest because of other reasons, namely resources and demographics.

Square is a particularly egregious example given Sora got into Smash, and they couldnt even port over the PS2/3 KH games to run natively.

Joycons have been useful to play local casual games between friends or family in scenario cases where I could only bring the handheld itself (+pouch).
And besides the lack of proper d-pad, the joycons work fine combined with the grip as an extra controller alongside with the Pro controller I own.

I consider the Pro Controller D-Pad to be the worse causality, since it's probably the worst D-pad on a Nintendo console in a very long time.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It was Furukawa who said that, I think, I believe the article I cited was relatively recent.

What Furukawa says and what he does are two very different things. Ultimately, he will have to chart his own path forward for the company. He isn't his predecessor, and nobody should expect him to be.

As I said, they surely learned their lesson, they proved it with Switch.

Nintendo have shown countless times in the past that they are extremely hard headed as a company. I take nothing for granted.

It's not an HD system, it's an HD capable system

A distinction without a difference.

and only when docked, which not even every model is capable of.

Aren't newer Switch's capable of outputting 720p undocked?

PS3 was HD capable too, but people didn't expect "a crisp HD experience" just because of that.

What are you talking about? Of course they did! If anything the expectations for the PS3 were higher than for any other console because it was the most expensive console on the market at the time and Sony was basically selling the damn thing as some kind of super computer with its cell processor. Its main selling point was its graphical capability. Which is why so many people were disappointed when games released for the thing ran like shit because of how hard the damn cell processor was to code for and work with.

And in Switch's case it's a portable game console, which people have naturally lowered expectations for in terms of performance. I'm sure Switch 2 will be stronger and I hope it had a 1080p screen, but we'll see.

Lowered expectations in proportion, but clearly much higher expectations than people had for, say, the 3DS. Its about perspective and the overall situation, not just that the Switch is a portable console. And people don't see it as a portable console only, but a hybrid console. That is a big difference, and its a difference that Nintendo themselves have encouraged.

Connecting to a TV shouldn't magically raise people's expectations. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it shouldn't.

Why not? The fact is, its a hybrid. Its not just being sold as a handheld, but also as a viable Tv play only option. That is what Nintendo themselves are selling it as. Yes, people are going to have higher expectations for it. Maybe not PS5 level expectations, but definitely not 3DS level expectations.

GanePass is an interesting thing on Nintendo from a business perspective, I like doing armchair analyses, but this is one I can't tell whether or not its in Nintendo's favor from their own perspective to have it or not, but I lean towards it not.

It will probably come down to what kind deal Nintendo can get out of Microsoft. Nintendo will almost certainly want a cut of every game sold on their system, so any Game Pass integration will mean that Microsoft will see what meager profits they make on subscriptions already cut down even more, at least for Switch users. Nintendo would benefit from the large game catalog, but money and control would be the biggest issues.

Almost anything on PS4 can be put on Switch with enough resources thrown at it, we have enough examples of that, it's just a question of if it is worth it.

Switch 2 just needs to be strong enough to warrant wider support by making porting easier to make and to improve parity with other consoles. It doesn't need to be a portable PS5 or anything.

I think on this point, we largely agree. The point of releasing a Switch 2 is not to match the PS5, but to make porting easier and more viable for the third party companies.

Same for Square, they didn't even bother porting Kingdom Hearts over properly. Technical limitations aren't holding many games back, these companies just don't want to invest because of other reasons, namely resources and demographics.

Ultimately, these companies are in business to make money. If the level of investment was lower and more equal with the Switch's competitors, these companies absolutely would port their games over. The fact is, that's just not the case right now.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Like I'm very happy with the massive third-party support on Switch so far, but I can't help but stare in disbelief about the business decisions of certain nippon executives who refuse to accept a reality where Playstation is a shadow of its former self. The CEO of CyberConnect2 (on Twitter) was a good public example of that.

Its the old Japanese mentality that's highly resistant to change. They still think of the world as one where Playstation is dominant and are highly against changing their mindset to one where its not. It seems most companies have come around to accepting the "new normal", as it were.

 

[Waifu Denier]

A distinction without a difference.

There is a very pertinent difference. The Switch is capable of 1080p output, as was even 7th gen consoles such as the PS3, but if only a small fraction of graphically intensive games actually render at that resolution, then the resolution is pointless because you arent getting an image as sharp as an actual 1080p rendered image would be.

What are you talking about? Of course they did! If anything the expectations for the PS3 were higher than for any other console because it was the most expensive console on the market at the time and Sony was basically selling the damn thing as some kind of super computer with its cell processor. Its main selling point was its graphical capability. Which is why so many people were disappointed when games released for the thing ran like shit because of how hard the damn cell processor was to code for and work with.

I would have to disagree when talking about the early 7th gen. The earliest Xbox 360 models didn't even have HDMI and (F)HD TVs wouldnt be ubiquitous for a while.

 

[skykiii]

Its the old Japanese mentality that's highly resistant to change. They still think of the world as one where Playstation is dominant and are highly against changing their mindset to one where its not. It seems most companies have come around to accepting the "new normal", as it were.

This just makes me wonder how the heck Sony ever became dominant in the first place, since there was, after all, a time where they had to compete against Nintendo, Sega, and NEC.

You'd think after accepting "new normal" once, they would do it again.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

There is a very pertinent difference. The Switch is capable of 1080p output, as was even 7th gen consoles such as the PS3, but if only a small fraction of graphically intensive games actually render at that resolution, then the resolution is pointless because you arent getting an image as sharp as an actual 1080p rendered image would be.

That's basically ancillary to the actual point I was making. The fact is that the Switch is an HD console in that its capable of outputting in HD. Every game released for is going to be in HD to some level. The fact that not every game will reach the limits of its capability is irrelevant. The PSP, Gameboy and DS couldn't output in HD natively, thus weren't HD consoles.

I would have to disagree when talking about the early 7th gen. The earliest Xbox 360 models didn't even have HDMI and (F)HD TVs wouldnt be ubiquitous for a while.

Everyone seems to forget that there was a year between the launch of the 360 and the PS3, allowing HD to increase its market penetration. The 60 GB version of the original PS3 had an HDMI port from the start. The 20 GB model later added an HDMI port, starting with the Japanese launch. The PS3 was actually the first console to include an HDMI port out of the box.

This just makes me wonder how the heck Sony ever became dominant in the first place, since there was, after all, a time where they had to compete against Nintendo, Sega, and NEC.

You'd think after accepting "new normal" once, they would do it again.

It was probably a combination of Sony already being a household name in Japan, many companies being tired of Nintendo's tyrannical policies and haughty attitude which had alienated many of them (this was also why certain companies, like Namco, had jumped on board the Sega bandwagon), and Sony throwing money and favorable terms at companies to get them on board.

 

[Waifu Denier]

That's basically ancillary to the actual point I was making. The fact is that the Switch is an HD console in that its capable of outputting in HD. Every game released for is going to be in HD to some level. The fact that not every game will reach the limits of its capability is irrelevant. The PSP, Gameboy and DS couldn't output in HD natively, thus weren't HD consoles.

I think his point was, however, that the output is irrelevant when the console can't feasibly take advantage of it. A Raspberry Pi can output 4k, doesn't mean anything.

Everyone seems to forget that there was a year between the launch of the 360 and the PS3, allowing HD to increase its market penetration. The 60 GB version of the original PS3 had an HDMI port from the start. The 20 GB model later added an HDMI port, starting with the Japanese launch. The PS3 was actually the first console to include an HDMI port out of the box.

It still doesn't change the fact that at launch in 2006, even for the few FHD games out there, many people couldn't play them because they lacked a display capable of doing so to begin with, hence a reason Bluray never caught on like DVD did.

 

[xXx: State of the Union]

It still doesn't change the fact that at launch in 2006, even for the few FHD games out there, many people couldn't play them because they lacked a display capable of doing so to begin with

I remember all the bitching of how nobody could read text in Dead Rising because it was in HD.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I think his point was, however, that the output is irrelevant when the console can't feasibly take advantage of it. A Raspberry Pi can output 4k, doesn't mean anything.

But the Switch has no problem outputting in HD. That's the point. 720p and 1080p are part of its base output range. It can feasibly take advantage of its power. That's why this point is irrelevant. We aren't talking about edge cases here, but general capability.

It still doesn't change the fact that at launch in 2006, even for the few FHD games out there, many people couldn't play them because they lacked a display capable of doing so to begin with, hence a reason Bluray never caught on like DVD did.

Blu Ray didn't catch on because by the time it had completely dominated HD-DVD, streaming and digital were in, and physical media was irrelevant. Blu-ray launched in 2006; Netflix launched its streaming service just a year later in 2007. Hulu launched in 2007 as well. 720p was already a thing before FHD became common. But even without HD, there was still a clear night and day difference between SD and HD that would have been noticeable even on an SD television.

I remember all the bitching of how nobody could read text in Dead Rising because it was in HD.

Ha. Good times.

 

[Baraka Obama]

I remember all the bitching of how nobody could read text in Dead Rising because it was in HD.

It wasn't too bad if you were using component or svideo to a normal TV but if you were using composite, which let's be real here 98% of people were, on top of being very the color fringing around the text made it almost unreadable.

 

[Waifu Denier]

But the Switch has no problem outputting in HD. That's the point. 720p and 1080p are part of its base output range. It can feasibly take advantage of its power. That's why this point is irrelevant. We aren't talking about edge cases here, but general capability.

But it does have a problem in general, that was the point. More often than not AAA titles on the Switch fail to render at 1080p. Zelda doesn't reach it. Witcher 3 doesn't. Pokemon doesn't. Bayonetta doesn't. Xenoblade doesn't. Monster Hunter and Doom doesn't even reach 720p.

Blu Ray didn't catch on because by the time it had completely dominated HD-DVD, streaming and digital were in, and physical media was irrelevant. Blu-ray launched in 2006; Netflix launched its streaming service just a year later in 2007. Hulu launched in 2007 as well. 720p was already a thing before FHD became common. But even without HD, there was still a clear night and day difference between SD and HD that would have been noticeable even on an SD television.

There were a variety of reasons Bluray didn't catch on but that is besides the point. When it took them eons to actually include an HDMI cable in the box, it's pretty clear that expectations of Full HD content isn't quite there.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

But it does have a problem in general, that was the point. More often than not AAA titles on the Switch fail to render at 1080p. Zelda doesn't reach it. Witcher 3 doesn't. Pokemon doesn't. Bayonetta doesn't. Xenoblade doesn't. Monster Hunter and Doom doesn't even reach 720p.

Which just reiterates why a Switch 2 is necessary. The Switch is officially supposed to be capable of 1080p and 720p. If there are games that can't even attain 720p, in 2023, that's an issue. My pre-built PC, which was at least seven to nine years older than the oldest Switch, could output those same games in 720p with no issue prior to me upgrading it.

There were a variety of reasons Bluray didn't catch on but that is besides the point. When it took them eons to actually include an HDMI cable in the box, it's pretty clear that expectations of Full HD content isn't quite there.

Except, as I pointed out, the PS3 did include HDMI capability out of the box. Only the 360 didn't.

 

[Celebrate Nite]

It wasn't too bad if you were using component or svideo to a normal TV but if you were using composite, which let's be real here 98% of people were, on top of being very the color fringing around the text made it almost unreadable.

it's both interesting and irritating when people bitch about analog input and then they experience S-Video and Component for the first time and go "omg this looks really good!!!"

Like, yea... HDMI is good enough to where you can see the zits on a person's face, but let's not pretend digital doesn't have it's downsides... specifically the lag to where you'll never get a 1 to 1 experience like you do with analog

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

What Furukawa says and what he does are two very different things.

Well, on that point we'll have to wait and see to be sure, but currently we have nothing more than his word to take him on until Switch 2 is properly revealed.

Nintendo have shown countless times in the past that they are extremely hard headed as a company.

Fair point, but Nintendo is now, for better or worse, a bit of a changing company. New people in key positions and important individuals like Miyamoto seeming less involved (I recall he had input on consoles before, but I don't think he is even too involved in game development itself anymore).

Also, the Wii U was their most egregious embarrassment, worse even than Virtual Boy since it was only an experiment thrown out to die, not a mainline home console. I'm sure they took that absolute failure to heart more than any other because it was entirely their fault, unlike underperformers before which they were only partially responsible for.

A distinction without a difference.

Not at all. Though PS3 was an HD capable system it usually didn't output at 1080p, and sometimes even lower than 720p, as was the case with Tekken 6 we spoke about earlier. As was pointed out to you, many Switch games don't output at HD even docked.

Point is, just because a system is HD capable doesn't mean you're getting HD, so the distinction between "HD" and "HD capable" is real, it matters. The vast majority of PS4 games and all PS5 games are HD, but PS3 & Switch are only HD capable.

Aren't newer Switch's capable of outputting 720p undocked?

Not all games, and that's not typically regarded as HD anyway.

What are you talking about? Of course they did!

No, they literally didn't, because most people didn't even have an HD TV in 2006, so they COULDN'T have expected a "crisp HD experience". I'm sure some owners of HD TVs might have expected that, but not all of them because that's like getting a color TV back in the day and expecting all TV to be magically be in color. It takes time for that, early adopters know they aren't yet getting the fully formed experience of whatever newfangled tech they have, I mean if you buy a 3D TV and expect that everything's going to be in 3D now then I don't even know what to tell you except you have more money than brains. Yeah, PS3 supported 3D but that doesn't mean you should have that expectation for each game.

Lowered expectations in proportion, but clearly much higher expectations than people had for, say, the 3DS.

Why? Because it can connect to a TV? So can a phone, but even the latest $999 iPhone isn't matching console quality graphics falling short even of last gen standards according to Digital Foundry's analysis, so why on God's green Earth would a reasonable consumer expect $199 tech from 2017 to do it just because other models of the exact same tech can connect to a TV...?

Why not? The fact is, its a hybrid.

Thst just means it's a portable that connects to a TV, saying "hybrid" doesn't make it magically stronger. Steam Deck isn't going to become a high-end PC that can play the latest and greatest games at maximum settings because it can connect to a TV, there's games that won't even run adequately on it and that doesn't change because AV out exists. Expectations should be "cheap PC that plays most games in a playable state", nothing more.

Are there people who will expect more? Certainly. Should they? No. Again, connecting to a TV means nothing aside from "now the screen is bigger".

It will probably come down to what kind deal Nintendo can get out of Microsoft.

Yeah, it'd have to be a really good one, I think. GamePass makes too many games available cheaply, it might cut into game sales on their platform significantly. They'd need to make enough to offset that and then some. It could also shift consumer expectations to a degree, which may not be worth any deal Microsoft could reasonably make. It's interesting to think about.

I think on this point, we largely agree.

That's good, in general I think we mostly agree on the main points and are largely arguing minutia otherwise.

Ultimately, these companies are in business to make money. If the level of investment was lower and more equal with the Switch's competitors, these companies absolutely would port their games over. The fact is, that's just not the case right now.

Not necessarily, like I said there's more to porting games than "can we do it", even if it's reasonably easy and cheap to do so it may not necessarily be a good investment. It would be trivial to get certain games on Switch but they aren't there, so you can only conclude that they either project low enough sales not to bother, or for whatever reason prefer the PlayStation ecosystem.

 

[Waifu Denier]

Except, as I pointed out, the PS3 did include HDMI capability out of the box. Only the 360 didn't.

It did, but besides most games not rendering at 1080p, it was expected most people would be running it on a non-HD TV at the start, hence why they didn't even bother to include an HDMI cable and instead put in component. It was capable of FHD digital output, but hardly expected to be frequently used in 2006.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Not at all. Though PS3 was an HD capable system it usually didn't output at 1080p, and sometimes even lower than 720p, as was the case with Tekken 6 we spoke about earlier. As was pointed out to you, many Switch games don't output at HD even docked.

Point is, just because a system is HD capable doesn't mean you're getting HD, so the distinction between "HD" and "HD capable" is real, it matters. The vast majority of PS4 games and all PS5 games are HD, but PS3 & Switch are only HD capable.

This is what I mean when I say its a distinction without a difference: an HD television can still output SD images. You may even only use it for SD if you are connecting it to, say, rabbit ears, as opposed to a cable or internet hookup. But at the end of the day, its still an HD television. Most TV channels and even streaming services don't output in 1080p, but that doesn't make my 1080p HD television any less of a 1080p HD television, even if I never watch anything 1080p on it. All HD devices are "HD capable". There's no real distinction. The fact that not all of the content made for it can take advantage of that fact is irrelevant. Just like if I owned a Ferrari, it would still be a supercar even if I never take it above 50 mph, my ability to use the power of a device or the ability of the content I consume to take advantage of the power does not effect the reality of the device itself.

Not all games, and that's not typically regarded as HD anyway.

720p is still HD, its just he lowest level of it. 1080p, 1440p, 4k, 8K, etc. are just different levels of High definition.

No, they literally didn't, because most people didn't even have an HD TV in 2006, so they COULDN'T have expected a "crisp HD experience". I'm sure some owners of HD TVs might have expected that, but not all of them because that's like getting a color TV back in the day and expecting all TV to be magically be in color. It takes time for that, early adopters know they aren't yet getting the fully formed experience of whatever newfangled tech they have, I mean if you buy a 3D TV and expect that everything's going to be in 3D now then I don't even know what to tell you except you have more money than brains. Yeah, PS3 supported 3D but that doesn't mean you should have that expectation for each game.

Everybody didn't have an HD TV, that much is true. But that's irrelevant from a Sony marketing standpoint. They were clearly pushing the idea that HD was the future and everyone would soon have an HD TV. Its part of the reason why they pushed Blu-ray so hard and included an HDMI connection from the outset, alongside the fact that they were also early pioneers in HD televisions. Sony were banking on wide adoption within a few years, which did ultimately turn out to be the case. In 2010, only three years after the PS3's launch, 46% of American homes had HD TV sets, and that number grew to 86% by 2015. Sony sold the world on their console's power, particular when it came to HD; its what they used to justify the high cost. This influenced people's perceptions of the PS3 as one of the first "HD consoles", regardless of how many games, or consumers, could actually take advantage of it in the abstract.

Why? Because it can connect to a TV? So can a phone, but even the latest $999 iPhone isn't matching console quality graphics falling short even of last gen standards according to Digital Foundry's analysis, so why on God's green Earth would a reasonable consumer expect $199 tech from 2017 to do it just because other models of the exact same tech can connect to a TV...?

People clearly have different expectations for a phone, even an iPhone, than they do for a dedicated video game console. Nobody expects a little old iPhone to be a good gaming machine.

Thst just means it's a portable that connects to a TV, saying "hybrid" doesn't make it magically stronger. Steam Deck isn't going to become a high-end PC that can play the latest and greatest games at maximum settings because it can connect to a TV, there's games that won't even run adequately on it and that doesn't change because AV out exists.

Nobody expects the Steam Deck to be a high end PC and nobody in this thread said that. You have a bad habit of using straw man arguments in your argumentation, and that's a bad habit you really need to break. Nobody expects a Steam Deck to beat some roided out custom desktop PC in performance, but the Steam Deck is very capable for a handheld, and shows that you can have good, even home console level gaming experience even on a handheld device. Yes, the fact that the Switch is a "hybrid" matters, because that sets expectations, expectations that Nintendo themselves encourage. Neither the Switch nor the Steam Deck are operating on the same level as the Gameboy, DS, or 3DS. Being "handhelds" doesn't make them "the same" and the expectations will be different for those prior devices compared to the latter.

Expectations should be "cheap PC that plays most games in a playable state", nothing more.

Are there people who will expect more? Certainly. Should they? No. Again, connecting to a TV means nothing aside from "now the screen is bigger".

What you, in particular, think people should expect, is honestly irrelevant. What matters is a)what the general public expects, b) the expectations that the companies themselves encourage and inculcate, and c) how well the companies can actually meet those expectations once they meet reality.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It did, but besides most games not rendering at 1080p, it was expected most people would be running it on a non-HD TV at the start, hence why they didn't even bother to include an HDMI cable and instead put in component. It was capable of FHD digital output, but hardly expected to be frequently used in 2006.

But it shows that a) the capability was there, and b) Sony were actively planning for it.