Nintendo Switch Press Conference at 3pm today, will you get one?

The Nintendo Switch was revealed late last year codenamed the Nintendo NX.

It is now finally the day that Nintendo will inform us about pricing and release date.
Launch titles, games in the works, features etc.

What are your thoughts and predictions!

Are you getting one, maybe more?

ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN CHOO CHOO!
https://i.redd.it/pil92gradotx.png

EDIT:

Here is the information that we know after the conference:

Price - $469.95

Release date - 3rd of March

What you get:

  • Console

  • Dock

  • HDMI cable

  • USB type C AC Adapter

  • Left Joycon(Blue if you get neon Bundle)

  • Right Joycon (Red if you get Neon Bundle)

  • Joycon grip

Launch titles include:

  • The Legend of ZELDA: Breath of the Wild

  • 1-2 Switch

  • Bomberman R

  • Some Skylanders game

  • Just Dance 2017

Many more announced and release dates TBC

Battery Life is 2.5 - 6.5 hours depending on performance requirement of game.

Online is free until "Fall later this year" (don't know their american Fall term) and will be paid, rumoured to be $5USD a month.

UI looks good but features missing, you need a smartphone to use for example, voice-chat, parental controls etc.

720p Multi-touch screen with built in dual front facing speakers and a light sensor, (no camera, we all have smartphones but my younger siblings did loving playing with the 3DS camera)

NO REGION LOCKING!!!!!! (Region Free)

32GB of internal storage, very disappointing. Imagine buying a digital copy of NBA 2k 2017/2018, the 2016 version of the game was over 43GB.

microSDXC for expandable storage, the limit of SDXC standard is 2TB, we are now in the erra of 512GB microSDXC cards atm (Remember to get at least Class 10 or UHS Class 3 Cards)

Up to 8 controllers can be connected to the switch at one time.

Accessories prices, go have a look here:

https://www.ebgames.com.au/featured/nintendo-switch-hardware

If I missed something, let me know down below!

Poll Options

  • 25
    Already pre-ordered (Launch Day)
  • 68
    Definitely buying one (But Later on)
  • 56
    Will decide after press conference (Maybe)
  • 154
    Not interested (No)

Comments

        • @Marrk: Then why does it try to compete with non-handheld consoles with its pricing? It basically puts the device at a price where you could be thinking about getting a PS4 or XBOX One.

          3DS was one of the front runners of the handheld consoles and thus, it was not unreasonable for game developers to develop games for it specifically. One of the reasons why WiiU flopped was, Wii U didn't have much third party support. The hardware spec was too low and made it difficult to develop for it. It's a vicious cycle. Lack of games lead to low sales figure, low sales figure leading to the console not being attractive for 3rd party developers.

          p.s. I own 3DS XL, Monster Hunter 4 sold me on it. My gf owns a 2DS (she can't see the 3D on 3DS).

        • @Oversimplified: The Switch is a combination of a handheld and a home console, you can't play the Xbox One or the PS4 on the go. I don't consider their pricing to be unreasonable for what is essentially a 2 in 1 product.

          The main reason that people will buy a Switch over the other consoles, is Nintendo first party games. If someone is into games like Battlefield 1, then of course they will lean towards other options.

          I am not saying that the console will fly off the shelves from day 1, though I do think that it will do well with Nintendo fans in the long run. It may take a bit longer to get the general public / those who aren't invested in Nintendo on board, though I believe that the console will easily outsell the Wii U.

        • +1

          @Marrk: It's essentially close to a handheld console in terms of its performance and what it offers. It is worse than Shield TV (they've underclocked GPU significantly). I am not sure what I want to say about its performance. It's awful. That said, I do think they made a trade off between performance and making it portable. It's Wii U all over again with its spec, but I think it's justifiable on paper at least.

          I don't know. I never thought of Nintendo's first party games to be, be all end all. They are great, but I actually want to see other games being developed on the console. If all you want from it is Nintendo games, I guess. Though I honestly don't think a console at full fledged console price can justify its price tag just with Nintendo games.

          I do think if Switch becomes a hit, the performance wouldn't matter, for me at least. I don't care about pixels, I care about the actual game and its aesthetics (even then, my favourite games include a roguelike game). The console just needs to sell well for it to become an attractive option for developers.

          So I honestly don't know what to expect with it. The more I am looking into it, the more lukewarm my responses become. That said, it's still on my wishlist.

        • @Oversimplified:
          You can't really say that it's performance is awful until you play it. There are specs on paper, then there is how it performs in the real world. Games like Super Mario 3D World looked and performed really well on the Wii U, they don't need the specs of the other consoles.

          You have Nintendo fans, and then you have the general public. People who are addicted to games like Pokémon / Animal Crossing / Anime RPG games etc won't need much convincing to pick the console up. 3rd party support is definitely preferable, though I have my Xbox One consoles for most of those games.

          If Nintendo said that the Mario Odyssey, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Splatoon 2 games were available at launch, in addition to Zelda, more people would have been keen to pick it up on day 1. The 1-2 Switch game probably should have come with the console.

        • +1

          @Marrk: OK, then I will say it more clearly. When I said awful, what I meant was, Switch has less horsepower than even PS4 and XBOX one, let alone PS4 Pro and XBOX One S. It uses Tegra X1, and it's underclocked Tegra X1. I honestly don't care about those figures much (again, a favourite game of mine is a roguelike that can probably run on anything that can be called a computer). That awful relative low performance reminds me too much of what happened with Wii U.

          I do think if Switch becomes a hit, the performance wouldn't matter, for me at least. The console just needs to sell well for it to become an attractive option for developers. If it sells decently, developers will develop for it regardless of the difficulty.

          So that's why I said, I don't know what's going to happen with it. I still am looking forward to it, though, but I am not as enthusiastic as I was before.

        • +1

          @Oversimplified:

          Exactly.
          This thing is okay as a handheld, but its also meant to be the successor to the GameCube/Wii/WiiU console.
          And as a home console it sucks… badly.

          Just think, you can get Xbox 360/PS3/Wii U level of performance from Intel Iris GPUs.
          And modern day games aren't really made for that level anymore.
          Instead they mostly get made for the Xbox One level and higher.
          Or if you want to talk PC specs; 8GB DDR3 RAM, Intel Core i5-2500/FX 8370, Nvidia GTX 680/770/960/1050 or AMD HD7950/r280/r380/rx460.

          With the current specs, it will do okay for a handheld.
          But they really withdraw from its capabilities as a home console, making it practically a gimmick.
          Game developers are really tired of dealing with tricky software, unoptimised drivers, low storage and weak hardware.
          They don't want to spend that much time developing games; they want to make them, get paid, and move to the next one.
          Which is why we're getting glitchy and unoptimised games like Arkham Knight and AC Unity, is becoming norm.

          So like I said, the Switch will probably get quite a bit of attention in the first year.
          The second year will be "okay". Whilst the third year will be meh, and people will come to a conclusion:
          What's the Point?

          Get a iOS/Android for your mobile games, and get a PC/PS4 Pro for your living room.
          It might not be quite as cohesive experience, but quality wise it will be a huge improvement and you will at least have all the titles you like on both more popular platforms.

          Bringing the debate full-circle, if Nintendo had not cheaped out.
          And as I said, used cutting edge specs… then their handheld market would stay relevant for many years to come.
          Think GameBoy/GBC/GBA… very powerful hardware (at its moment) so it stood the test of time.
          And the console experience would've also benefitted moreso.
          Because it would mean developers that develop games for the PS4, would need to only marginally scale them back, and voila they could have them running on the Switch.

          Hardware, software and services that doesn't get in the way, allows more games, allows better games, allows more sales, allows better mindshare, allows better profits… and that fuels the fire for the next generation.

          I mean they could come out with a newer Switch in 3 years time, but if the hardware is subpar already it means newer games will struggle on the old one… which basically creates a huge rift in the ecosystem like expected of the XB1 and Xbox Scorpio.
          If the specs are cutting edge as I said, the bump in efficiency and performance would be a lot more moderate, like the difference between the PS4 and PS4 Pro… so you wouldn't have a segmentation of the platform.

        • +1

          @Kangal: The cutting edge spec you are suggesting were unrealistic. The kind of spec you want, in my opinion, wouldn't be achievable unless they have as much profit margin and sales volume as Apple.

          I do think Nintendo did what they could do best with what they had. I do think they made a trade off. I don't think the hardware spec is impressive to say the least and I do think that the hardware spec will be a burden on developers. I don't know what's going to happen with the console since they still can sell well and do well as a result. Only time will tell.

        • @Oversimplified:
          You're wrong again.
          People are making 10nm chips these days. Using ARM's Cortex A73.
          And next-gen mobile graphics like Mali G71 and Adreno 540.

          I merely asked for a 14nm board.

          The GPU performance of the Tegra X1 is about 0.5TFlops, compared to the Xbox 360's 0.2TFlops, Wii U's 0.35TFlops and the XB1's 1.3TFlops. However, the Maxwell cores in the Tegra X1 has been surpassed by the likes of Adreno 530 and PowerVR's GT7600. Getting to ~1.1TFlops for the Nintendo Switch requires using cutting-edge technology, but it is NOT impossible. And it certainly is not as expensive as you might think.

          The specs I listed could've been had from 2015.
          So launching it in Q2-2017 is more than enough time.
          If Nintendo wants Pascal, then Nintendo will get Pascal… they just need to contract with Nvidia.

          But they didn't get Pascal, because Nintendo cheaped out.
          How would I know? Because Nintendo has a HABIT of cheaping out on consumers and…
          relying on nostalgia, hype, marketing, children, and human stupidity to move units ever since the GameCube.

          I'm not saying they had to go Pascal. I'm sure they could've seen their options from multiple vendors.
          But going cheap at the Start for a console is never a good thing.
          It leads to a failed console, and possibly releasing a "half-successor" shortly after like the PS4 Pro.
          (the PS4 was very underpowered upon release compared to previous consoles like the PS3/X360/Xbox/ /PS2/PS1/SNES/NES. The PS4 Pro is what the PS4 should have been from the start/2013, or The PS4's hardware should've been released much earlier in 2012)

        • +1

          I think you hit the nail on the head. Many would be scratching their heads as to why they are still using Maxwell. Pascal is just a far more efficient architecture and the battery life would see that. Now I feel it will be another wii u and third parties wont want to port to it because they feel its underpowered.

        • +1

          @Kangal: There are three companies that do fair bit of customisation for phones. Samsung, who sells most amount of Android premium phones. Apple, who sells most number of premium phones. Qualcomm, who sells SoCs for most Android premium devices. I can probably add Huawei and Mediatek in there, but the problem with those guys is GPU and they don't touch on ARM's architecture much. Even then the stuff you are saying, A73, 10nm or 14nm are still only done with premium phones.

          What you are basically saying is Nintendo should've done something simliar for their console which has far lower profit margin than the premium phones.

          Why not buy from those guys? I've mentioned why Nvidia is different, they use desktop architecture on their GPU. Outside the numbers, they support more APIs for developers and they are more simliar to other consoles as well. I don't think you can do cross platform as well on other Android chips.

          Why not modify what Nvidia had for Parker which has Pascal architecture GPU and better CPU? Again, Parker is built for automobiles, it's not a chip for mobile devices.

          Why not just change CPU and GPU or finFET? SoC means system-on-a-chip. On mobile devices, almost everything goes onto the SoC. They include almost everything from CPU, GPU, RAM, DAC, ISP, so on and so forth (varies between models, but generally speaking). It's literally the system on a chip, and therefore you can't just change CPU and GPU on it like you'd do with PCs. They need to redesign the entire thing.

          So, to what you are saying, why not build something from scratch? I mentioned this before, but on tablet, the only company that gets away with doing that is Apple. Their sales volume on iPad is massive and their profit margin is massive yet they are losing profit. The companies that do that kind of thing in mobile either sell those to multiple manufacturers or has enough sales volume to sustain those or has other reasons behind building one. I don't see it being a viable option for a console (again, smaller profit margin, lower sales volume etc etc).

          Why haven't they released one later? Does anything I've mentioned change with time? Would Nvidia release another mobile SoC that'd be more suited than X1? Would designing a SoC from scratch be more economical in future?

          So what options do Nintendo have with their design?

        • @Oversimplified:
          You're understanding is very outdated.

          Nintendo does not have to design their chips.
          They can get someone else to do so. But that doesn't mean they can't ask for modifications.
          The reason why you would go with a specific GPU set isn't ONLY about the performance, it is about the API support.
          The Tegra-Maxwell GPU's supports OGL 4+, DirectX 11 and 12, and native Unreal Engine 4.
          …you can't just get a beefy gpu from China that only supports OGLES and expect a great experience.

          However, the Tegra-Pascal can do those and much more efficiently.
          Let alone other options like the Adreno 540 which supports OGL 4+, OCL 2+, DirectX 12, and Vulkan.
          Or the more open standard Mali-G71 supports OCL2, DirectX 12, and Vulkan.

          The ONLY justification Nintendo has for using this older-tech is for Quick Production, Pricing, and a More Powerful unit soon.
          Let's break those justifications down:
          - Price. Nope. This thing is expensive, not over-the-top, but it isn't the $200 insta-buy product people thought
          - Quick Production. Nope. 28nm is very cheap, but 14nm mass production has been done for a couple years now.
          - More Powerful Unit.
          ….nope. Nintendo is only releasing ONE switch this year. Which means the entire platform will be dilute before a more modern successor could come.

          Nintendo has options.

          But what they CHOSE was to cheap out. They do NOT care about their brand, longevity, or the consumer.
          They want to hype this up to Eleven, then cash in for a quick buck.
          Lot's of companies do this, but it never works well in the long run.

        • +1

          @Kangal: 14nm is done for couple of years? 14nm products were shipped out on 2014, 4th Quarter from Intel (broadwell). If you look at mobile phone processors, 2015 from Samsung, Exynos 7420. TSMC is still using 16nm finFET. 14nm is still the smallest one available on market.

          Nvidia is the only manufacturer that I think would've been reasonable for this kind of application. Their latest SoC that could be used on mobile devices is X1. Parker is simply not suitable for mobile devices (that thing uses A57 as little cores).

          Yes, Nvidia should've design a chip specifically for Switch no matter how much it would've costed. Nintendo should be condemned for not paying for something that's done only for smartphones and iPads that have higher sales volume and margin. Nvidia should've changed their roadmap completely and made a mobile SoC for Switch specifically. Is this what you want me to say?

          I mentioned this 3rd time now, so here it is again.

          The companies that do that kind of thing in mobile either sell those to multiple manufacturers or has enough sales volume to sustain those or has other reasons behind building one. I don't see it being a viable option for a console (again, smaller profit margin, lower sales volume etc etc).
          They couldn't just swap out GPU and CPU (SoCs are not just GPU and CPU).

        • @Oversimplified:
          16nm = 14nm.
          Do a bit of research, and you will understand what this means.

          But the fact is 14nm has been in mass production for a while now, and it is affordable for the purpose of this console.

          Who can design a mobile GPU?
          Well you have Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Qualcomm, Apple, ARM, Imagination Technologies etc etc…

          My point still stands.
          The Nintendo Switch has lousy hardware for this day/age as a Debuting Console.
          This was a decision CHOSEN by the company to save money on the chip.
          The price bump for the Switch would've been from ~$40 to ~$60 per chip.
          And it could've easily been made with said specs at the US$249 price.

          But what we have instead is a price bump to US$300, and a $20 savings for Nintendo.
          So Nintendo is expecting an extra $70 profit.
          Plus the price of games, which are full-console price.
          Plus the price of their Online Services, which is equal/more than PS Plus.

          Nintendo has a lot of hype on this device. I think they will easily sell 5 Million units in the first year.
          So if Nintendo's schemes result in milking an average $90 extra from each unit, that's $90 x 5M = $450 Million in profit.
          But that profit will hurt the games and sales of the unit for 2018, after much of the hype dies down.
          And people start comparing PC Gaming to PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio, and the latest iOS/Android handhelds.
          That's where the "extra" profits will dwindle, and the platform will hit its plateau early.
          So in terms of lost revenue, we'd be looking at the Billions.
          Nintendo will have to accept another case of the Wii/Wii-U ecosystem.
          The only step forward then would be for Nintendo to introduce its successor, yes, that friggen early to get back into the mainstream. But all those early adopters that bought into the hype will be burnt.

          If hindsight is 20/20, you will come back to this comment in late 2019, and nod your head at all that I wrote.

        • +1

          @Kangal: AMD haven't made SoC at all. Intel pulled out of SoC market completely (with them basically sticking to Core M and taking Atom line out) after losing and failing to compete with others. Apple designing a chip for other company is unheard of. Qualcomm and Nvidia probably?

          I've mentioned that Nvidia is different from other manufacturers because they use desktop architecture on their GPU. They support more APIs for developers and they are more simliar to other consoles as well.

          I've also mentioned why I think the things you want are unrealistic. You cannot simply expect them to change finFET, GPU architecture and CPU on the go, they need to redesign from scratch to accomodate those.

          This is 4th time I am saying this. The companies that do that kind of thing in mobile either sell those to multiple manufacturers or has enough sales volume to sustain those or has other reasons behind building one. I don't see it being a viable option for a console (again, smaller profit margin, lower sales volume etc etc).

          5 million units? LG sold 13.5 million units (Q1 2016) of smartphones. iPhones sold 40.4 million, iPads sold 9.267 million (Q4 2016).

          I do think the hardware spec is awful, but I do think Nintendo made a tradeoff to make the console a hybrid. I do not like the hardware spec as well, but saying that they should've done something unrealistic instead only makes the complaints less credible.

        • @Oversimplified:
          I merely gave you a list of possible vendors. We, the public, never know what they have as prototypes.
          However, I don't condone all of them obviously.

          14nm/finfet… you keep saying this is unrealistic.
          I tell you it isn't, because, well it isn't.

          You say having Nintendo modify the Tegra X1 is unrealistic.
          I tell you, you are wrong, the vendor is Nvidia.
          Nvidia can make whatever changes they want… it comes down to the contract/negotiation between them.
          It is not unrealistic.

          I mean the Nvidia Shield TV is a niche/failed product.
          And by your logic, they should've never designed the chip as it is unsustainable.
          But I tell you, the market isn't as black and white as you might think.

          Okay, let's say Nvidia were unwilling to design a chip using off-the-shelf products from ARM (they've done this, not sure why they'd stop now) and match it to their Nvidia designed GPU (again, not sure why they wouldn't).
          Or let's say Nvidia wanted an exorbitant amount of money $90+ per chip.

          So who's next?
          Qualcomm.
          Nintendo could have just as easily built a Nintendo Switch with the QSD 821 processor and it would have (slightly) more performance than the Tegra X1. Although I think Qualcomm would've been more than willing to make a custom chip with more graphical Ooomph, if anything, to spread more control over the industry. And they could've had the units on shelves in November to make best use of the holiday ($$$) period.

          You see?
          Totally plausible, and not the least bit unrealistic.

          The hardware is there. The API is there.
          All that Nintendo has to do is to not screw its customers, but this is a tall order for them.

          Yes, 5 Million unit…. easily.
          The Nintendo DS+Lite (the one that sold great, not the New/2DS/XL) sold around 13 Million units its first year.
          The Xbox One sold around 10 Million units its first year. The PS4 sold around 15 Million units its first year.
          The GameCube sold around 9 Million units. And the Wii U sold around 6 Million units its first year.

          …you comparing this to LG's phone division is laughable.

          The hardware spec is awful for what this is. And it will be even more awful next year, when the field will be all about the latest iOS/Android handhelds, the PS4 Pro, Xbox Scorpio, and PC Gaming. It will be painstakingly dated. And the next year after that, 2019, it will be laughable. Nintendo will fall into the same trap they did with the GameCube and the Wii U.
          The Wii was a fluke, but that gimmicky method won't work a second time. The market knows this.

          There comes a time where you need to stop and evaluate… am I making the right decisions here?
          Sony did so that with their PS1, PS2, and PS4.
          Microsoft did so with the Xbox and Xbox 360.
          Nintendo did so with their NES, SNES, and N64.
          ….however blunders are hard and sometimes impossible to rise from see;
          Xbox One, Wii U, PS3, GameCube, Dreamcast, Sega Saturn.

        • +1

          @Kangal: I think I am repeating what I have said again and again. Actually I am.

          "I've also mentioned why I think the things you want are unrealistic. You cannot simply expect them to change finFET, GPU architecture and CPU on the go, they need to redesign from scratch to accomodate those."

          "The companies that do that kind of thing in mobile either sell those to multiple manufacturers or has enough sales volume to sustain those or has other reasons behind building one. I don't see it being a viable option for a console (again, smaller profit margin, lower sales volume etc etc)."

          I am not saying 14nm finFET is some kind of futuristic technology, I am saying that for them to implement 14nm finFET, change CPU, they'd need to redesign the chipset. Designing a new chipset from scratch for a console is unrealistic.

          You are making it sound as if designing a chipset is easy. Look at Snapdragon 810. They used same finFET as Exynos 5433, used same architecture (Cortex A57 & A52) and same configuration for the big.LITTLE. It's not just chuck new architecture in, reduce finFET and voila, new chipset in 10 minutes.

          "I've mentioned that Nvidia is different from other manufacturers because they use desktop architecture on their GPU. They support more APIs for developers and they are more simliar to other consoles as well."

          And you are saying the next best one would be Qualcomm who've never developed anything gaming console related? Who is not even remotely close to console gaming market with what they produce? Qualcomm over a company who already have fair bit of experiences with bridging PC gaming and Android gaming?

          The reason I brought LG up was simple. Mobile phones sell in higher volume, even LG sold a lot compared to what you are quoting with consoles and LG didn't sell well this year. Is LG redesigning SoC for their phones? No.

          "Yes, Nvidia should've design a chip specifically for Switch no matter how much it would've costed. Nintendo should be condemned for not paying for something that's done only for smartphones and iPads that have higher sales volume and margin. Nvidia should've changed their roadmap completely and made a mobile SoC for Switch specifically. Is this what you want me to say?"

        • @Oversimplified:
          Sorry it wasn't too clear, but I understand your point now.

          They can't just call up Nvidia and say
          "yo broseth, can you make the Tegra X1 chip for us, but use it with new 10nm-FinFet lithography, and let's ditch those Cortex A57 cores for some Cortex A72 or A73's".

          However, you need to know that consoles are in development for several years.
          And lithography and architecture are also in development for several years. Nintendo would know full damn well that
          ….14nm lithography would be mass available in 2016
          ….that Mobile GPU's will have modern API's in 2015/2016
          ….they could achieve performance surpassing a PS4 in 2016/2017 (cutting-edge/next-gen)
          ….or attain performance close to an XB1 in 2016 (bleeding edge/current-gen)

          Yes, compare the QSD 810 to the Exynos 5433.

          Yes, but it still is flawed to compare LG's phones to a console.
          Different markets completely. And different price ranges (there's lots of cheap LG phones too)
          Like I said, Nintendo should easily sell at least 5 Million units this year.
          Let me make it easy, if Nintendo does well:
          2017-2018 = 15 Million
          2018-2019 = 13 Million
          2019-2020 = 10 Million….total 2017-2020 would be >38 Million units (great success)

          If Nintendo does as well as I estimate them to do:
          2017-2018 = 10 Million
          2018-2019 = 7 Million
          2019-2020 = 4 Million….total 2017-2020 would be <21 Million units (flash in the pan)

          If Nintendo does quite badly:
          2017-2018 = 6 Million
          2018-2019 = 4 Million
          2019-2020 = 2 Million….total 2017-2020 would be ~12 Million units (failure repeated)

          However, its hard to judge/estimate after the 5 Million mark, as it depends a lot on marketing.
          That's why I said AT LEAST… which would mean Nintendo's profits are AT LEAST $450 Million extra.
          If they sell close to triple that, then Nintendo would've carved itself a nice $1.3 Billion extra profit.
          However, as I said, their lost revenue would be in the Billions.
          So Nintendo HAS TO do phenomenally its first year for that risk to pay off.
          Otherwise, its expenses will grow larger when looking at the long-term goal.

          And we need Nintendo to A) give good hardware, software, and support to consumers and B) earn lot's of profit for themselves.
          They need the profits to roll back into the system so they can churn out great games in the future.
          But as I said, this is a long-term goal… and it seems like Nintendo doesn't want to play.
          They want to cash in quickly. Then deal with all the problems later.

          I don't think people will be willing to buy a Nintendo console as the Switch, if the Switch turns into a dud like the Wii U. They will say; the GameCube flopped, the Wii collected dust, the Wii U wasn't supported well, and the Switch was a ripoff.
          They'll buy Mario games on their iPhones, but no-one will want to support their hardware anymore.
          That's even if they want Mario anymore… there could always be a next best thing eg/ Angry Birds instead.

        • +1

          @Kangal: You still aren't convincing me at all. This is going nowhere and I am repeating myself again and again. So, I am going to say these and leave this at here.

          I've mentioned Snapdragon 810 and Exynos 5433 because it shows why mobile SoCs are difficult to design and build. They had similair CPU configuration, but minute differences in CPU caused one to be a complete failure.

          This kinda feeds into what I want to say, which is, what happens with mobile SoC is very hard to predict. No one would've guessed that Intel would fail in the market, no one would've predicted Snapdragon 810 would be a disaster, no one would've predicted that Moore's law would be still relevant this far in.

          I simply don't think they could've done better with Switch, I've given you my reasoning 5 times already. Hardware spec wise, it's awful but it's a hybrid. they had to make a tradeoff. I don't like them using X1, but I've also given you reasons why I don't think there would've been much options available out there.

          Anyways, if you think they could've done better, so be it. I can't see other options being viable, but maybe that's me.

        • @Oversimplified:
          That's fine.
          I will +1 all your posts, because it was a refreshing chat.

          I will disagree with you in terms of predicting technology, and Nintendo's capabilities.

          I still know Nintendo could've done better, however what they have now is not completely cra-bad.
          It just is bad for the home console side, which is what this device is.
          The Nintendo Switch is a home console that can become portable, that's it purpose.
          However, they've gotten it backwards, now its a portable console that can become a home console.
          I just think the trade-offs were not ideal.

          All I know is that I love the concept of the Switch, but I hate the execution, and before long the mass market will come to the same conclusion. And that would mean less competition in the field, which is bad for me, the consumer.
          Nintendo should've been more humble, and tried less for a hasty cash-in.

        • @Kangal: it turns out I might have to go back on my words. I honestly didn't think X2 was good enough to be modified for portable purpose. Apparently some people are saying switch might have modified X2 instead of X1, just under clocked to oblivion when you use it in portable mode.

          Eh thought you'd be interested in how it turned out. Kinda just rumour still, but it sounds better than other earlier rumours.

      • I am betting Nintendo Australia target a kids /family audience only and the price point wont make it a success I think.
        And, as always, theywill have minimal/zero marketing and advertising.

      • The only time I see people playing video games together (physically) is FIFA or other sports games on the PS4/XB1

        • I have never seen anyone play FIFA or any other sports game. I don't understand why anyone even would play that. :p seriously though, those systems are made for online play. Recently though there are some really great local cop games (Overcooked, I'm looking at you), but the only games I see people play local coop are Mario Kart and Smash Bros on the original wii. I think the switch is gonna scratch a huge itch for a lot of people.

    • Yeah, 3DS was so fail, like between two people on this thread, there are 13 adult owned 3DS console right there. The may not do Launch Day box office type sales, but they sell consistently all the way to the next release, and usually for a few years more.

  • +1

    The system looks okay but there aren't any big games coming soon so I'll wait.
    Being an early adopter is generally a bad idea.

    And oh yeah, it's $469.
    Bit of a rip off.

    • Being an early adopter is generally a bad idea.

      There was that Ambassador program for 3DS if VC games were your thing. I was one of them, dw I know.

      Personally, I'm waiting till the Black Friday madness again, hopefully snatch a Switch then.

      • Yeah. Got that too.but would of rather paid less eben thry dropped the price of the 3ds so quickly becausr it was flopping. Early adopters gkt ambassidor as loyalty

    • New tech usually cost more on Launch, it is a good strategy, because when you lower the price for the proles, it gets a sales rush.

  • Definitely planning on picking up the system, not sure whether this will be at launch or not though. Mainly interested in Mario Odyssey so far, and will probably pick up Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (a few new features / characters / tracks, though not majorly different to Wii U version).

    Not sure why people are surprised by the price, was expecting to pay at least $450, and will gladly do so for a console that basically combines the 3DS with the Wii U. Hoping there will be a proper Pokémon game released for the system (rumoured), as well as a new Animal Crossing game (would love to play on the TV when at home, and on the go).

  • +1

    For what it's worth I won't be buying one simply because I own 3DS XL, PS4 Pro, PS3, Wii, PSP, DS lite, and PC plus iPad and an Android tablet plus phone. Already too many platforms and many classic games

    I have too many games on the backlog, I only managed to get the PS4 Pro just because of FFXV which I waited for 10 years.

    Many games are still shrink wrap at least several and some games yet to finish.

    I can say Switch will not exceed sales of the original Wii or DS all together.

    If they use that as benchmark they will fail

    Those were really innovations and was before the smartphone era

    The temptation to buy games and getting more excited with rave reviews thanks to ozbargain is more thrill than getting Nintendo Switch

  • Not buying. I have no need for a system that will likely have 4-5 good exclusives and the remainder of their "good" games being watered down versions of their XBox/PS4 counterparts.

    • Disgaea 5 is the better version of the game.It's not watered down at all. It's the one game that will sell the switch for me

  • +2

    This thing will flop harder then the WiiU. To be honest I think its retail shelf space will be so small come holiday 17 that even a new Mario wont save it (If Mario doesn't get delayed). Initial sales will be pretty good, although probably only 80% of the WiiU's, but over the following months it will be in big trouble.

    • Doubt that it will do worse than the Wii U (13 million sales), as a lot of 3DS owners (61 million sales) will eventually pick up the system. Especially if they release a proper Pokémon game for the system, that can be played on the big screen for the first time.

    • -1

      It has a chance to flop. Then when it's at a bargain price then maybe get it after a year. One year mark will determine if it's any good.

  • -1

    i think they definitely need to put out a Pokemon game that ties into Pokemon Go
    maybe something like the old Pokemon Stadium on n64 where you can battle your collected pokemons against other players

    • They would probably need to re-code a massive amount of Pokemon go to even get that functionality to work assuming back and forth functionality.

      It would make more sense to have compatibility with the 3ds games much like what pokemon stadium 1/2 had with the gameboy cart reader.

      • Pokemon Picross was such a good game. My friend stated playing and thought you could transfer the Pokemon over to your main game. They were so disappointed when they realised you couldn't. A tie in would be cool and good for both games (whichever two games were used)

  • Nothing that innovative here - gamers rarely play of the same screen. Even so for casual gamers. The functionality may appeal to kids, but then they are not the ones with disposable incomes. I can see the controllers going missing when out and about too.

    Huge opportunity for Netflix style cloud gaming, with their games being low spec but more focused on gameplay Nintendo could knock a service like that out of the park. Not to mention the multiplayer opportunity. PS Now is stalling, first major player to corner this service will win the current generation.

  • +2

    Everyone is forgetting one big point. Online play won't be free. Damn you Nintendo!

  • To me, it's a hard sell. It's more expensive than the xbox/ps4 with a monthly online fee. Already I'm not a fan of monthly fees just to play online (which is something that should be free imo), but to add to that, from the sound of it you will only be able to keep the free emulated games that they are offering for a month.

    If their 3ds online service is anything to go by, it might be pretty shit too

    I'm not too keen on the idea of running A AA games on the go with a handheld either. I would love a more powerful 3ds though. Maybe I'll get it down the line, but definitely not anytime soon.

  • If they don't clutch save their business model with a Switch S Pro or sumshit in late 2017 or early 2018..they dead.. This seems like a really limited console.. I mean it is essentially a souped up pixel c/nvidia shield tv with the x1 but eh..

    I just wanna know if it will have access to YouTube or Netflix or some Android app stores because then this becomes a slightly better android tab which for me and i know some others.. Win win

  • -3

    (profanity) yeah! Splatoon 2!, said no one on OzBargain ever

    • I enjoy Splatoon? What's wrong with it?

      • +1

        I love that game but it seems that no one here does…

        • It's the most popular title in Japan.

  • Maybe after they release the next revision. I plan on buying a Wii U when the prices drop. I missed the ozbargin posts and that console stays at ~$427. No thanks to that.

  • Cancelled preorder today.

    • Why did you pre-order in the first place? Pre-ordering a new console past 2012 is asking to get buyer's remorse.

      • It was my 10yo son's preorder, I bought him a PS4 for Xmas though and so he was already losing interest in the Switch.

        • +1

          It just looks like another Wii-U to be honest. They've already done the faux-Tablet thing and I'm entirely sick of motion controls. They've done nothing to catch up to the market and I just can't believe it.

          Arms looks nice, and this morning I found out you can turn the motion controls off. After Star Fox I think I will not be buying any game where the motion controls cannot be turned off. But Zelda is available on the Wii-U, so I don't even need to think about the Switch until when the catalog gets a little more impressive… I'm sorry, IF the catalog gets more impressive. (Yes I'm still mad about Star Fox and Metroid)

        • +1

          @FrankMcFuzz:

          Completely agree with you on starfox, the motion controls totally killed it for me.

          Nintendo should just go back to proper gaming back in the golden n64 days instead of this new gimmicky crap. I don't even care about the tablet or dual screens etc. Just give me a console that I plug into the TV and just play without the motion control bs.

  • I can either pay $660 to get switch, pro controller and new zelda.

    or i can hack my wii u and play zelda without getting up.

    I'm going to do the latter. If the switch came with a decent game (like wii sports for wii), or they had a big virtual console offering, then I would get the switch. But for now I cant see why I don't just pirate it and wait it out and buy zelda later.

    • +1

      Because you can buy it on Wii-U and it's exactly the same game?

  • Well my rule of thumb is, never buy the first generation of any new electronic. Usually you should wait it out until the 2nd generation comes that, when the bugs etc will be ironed out and it will be more stable.

    • +2

      i believe you have generation confused with SKU.

      Generation refers to the current level of Gaming equipment, current gen being Xbox one, PS4 and the Switch.

      SKU (or Stock Keeping Unit) which refers to the many variations of a console/device. Currently there will be 2 SKU's of the Switch (Neon and Grey). PS4/Xbox one will have a SKU based on HDD capacity and revisions (Xbox one s / PS4 slim/Pro etc).

      Model number change can also tie into SKU, but for simplicity many just refer to the obvious SKU's.

      • -3

        sigh, read before you post irrelevant stuff to what I said

        • +1

          still relevant. no need to get moody.

        • -1

          @Velathial:

          Must be that time of the month lol

        • -1

          @Velathial: not really relevant if im not even talking about SKU. Also if I was you that dislike my comment, honestly, i dont understand some humans.

        • @cheapisgood: Actually you kind of were talking about SKU. That's why i thought i might educate someone who might not know the difference.

          Nothing malicious in intent just noticed the incorrect use of terminology that is all ٩(◕‿◕)۶

          And no, didn't down vote.

  • +1

    I have been a gamer since my 6. I have been a big Nintendo fan. But am left with a very bitter taste coz of how Nintendo handled the Wii in its last years and how Nintendo did not bother with Wii U in all of its life-cycle.

    The contradictory point is Nintendo's hardware and software. Its hardware has not evolved as most of u would have wanted but you cannot deny that its software is purely fantastic. Most Nintendo games are (very) good and age very well.

    Atm, I am in a position not being sure if I want a new Nintendo console. I feel Nintendo has lost its touch in making consoles and unfor, in making great games. My prediction for Switch is that it will flop, may flop worse than Wii U. But seriously, you never know with Nintendo. They might pull a "Wii" out of their sleeves.

  • +1

    I guess I'll add my own personal views here… I think they've made a big mistake by acting like the Wii-U never existed, we can all agree it flopped, but they seem to be forgetting there is still over 13 million people who bought the console. Secondly, creating another portable console has just killed the 3DS or any future portable as they're not going to compete with themselves. Thirdly, while the remote play feature of the gamepad was great on the wii-u, everything else was just gimmicky and unneeded.. I've said before in other posts, if the wii-u had just shipped with the pro controller and they added functionally to use your 3DS with the console I'm certain things could have been a lot different.

    Either way, I think a lot of people are caught up in the hype.. I don't see innovation.. I see a tablet running nvidia shield with some gimmicky controllers. This system could have literally been the new 3DS portable, with better battery life I sure as heck would buy it.

    I can see what their doing… consolidating portable with home console into one and it makes sense… but I'm just unsure if it's the right time. Look at Playstation VR, brilliant technology… but has had abysmal sales due to the market not being "ready" yet.

  • Not getting it this year. I'll probably wait until it drops to $250 AUD brand new or get a second hand console for it at $250 if it's too long.
    Gaming at 720p is actually okay for the screen of that size.

    • That is going to be a long wait, the cheapest the Wii U hass ever been in a while was $280 with an average of 320 with a game, and that's being 5 years old.

      I'd say a reasonable drop is 100 bucks, make less on the hardware, and generate revenue through software.

      https://www.ozbargain.com.au/search/node/Wii+U

  • If I played games, then 100% would get the switch, but alas Im old and have so many games to finish on Steam and have a hardly used Wii U.

  • I had preordered it but I think I might cancel now. After seeing the game pad real gameplay when not docked it actually drops to quite low amount of frames per second every so often. The fact of the matter is that 720p at 6.2" is not good enough. It's the reason I never got a Wii U - Nintendo was being obtuse with the Wii U game pad resolution.

    Think about it… Netflix won't be being used portably with a resolution like that. With no 4K output all video content use even for short periods are gone.

    I will eventually get it for the Mario game - really gives off a sunshine feel.

  • +1

    I preordered on Saturday morning. will keep the preorder till first reviews hit and then decide.
    Just upgraded my receiver - so have a HDMI port free - this might just be the one to do it!
    Games wise- will pick up BOTW at launch, if not on Switch, then on the Wii U.
    1, 2 switch will (IMO) definitely be a hit with the kids. Not sure on ARMS yet and Mario Kart just looks like a cash grab. They should release an update for us who have it on the Wii U.
    Splatoon 2 looks great but not a day one buy.
    LOVED the SMO reveal - will definitely grab it on day one release, come November.

    • Good choices, however I do not like 1 2 switch at all, might've given it a go if it was a free game like wii sports / nintendo land, but since its full RRP, no way.

  • Merged from Anyone Buying a Nintendo Switch?

    Nintendo just announced the Australian pricing and it's going to be $470.

    As usual, I'm going to wait about a year until the price of both the console and the games come down a bit, then I'll buy it second hand. My PS3 game backlog is still quite a lot at the moment.

    What about you? Are you buying one?

    • -4

      Probably nobody until they launch it.

    • -1

      They are breaking new grounds for gaming, but the proof is in the pudding. Game developers need to get on board, but I don't see that happening as they won't be able to just port in from other console versions, meaning higher costs and lower audience base. So you would essentially be forking out big dollars for the mario family exclusives and some additional portability. Most people will be waiting, which means console sales will be down and less developers will get on board, I see this flopping similar to the Wii.

      • +3

        The Wii is the third best selling console of all time, and wasn't sold as a loss leader, so I don't think it fair to call it a flop unless xbox, PS3/4 are also flops.
        The WiiU was pretty disappointing, but I think 3rd party titles weren't the reason, more that it didn't particularly offering a compelling purchase reason.
        I don't see the Switch making any current xbone or PS4 players give up their consoles to have Switch only, I think they will sell a huge number to gamers as a second console, and a bigger number to casual and family game players.

        The console can be a huge hit without it having to be the best platform for a FPS or whatever. I looks to able to do things Xbone/PS can't, so if they are valuable to customers I think it will get good sales.

    • +2

      Yeah. I'll be waiting too. Maybe not a year, but at least for the first 6 months for them to work out the kinks. No rooftop parties anytime soon then.

      I wonder if I can buy a dock separately. I like gaming in bed, but I don't know if the portable screen would cut it for me.

      • Yeah, I think you can buy the dock for like $100, it's literally just a HDMI + USB-C docking station actually. I thought they'd have some sort of a fan attached to it.

        • If that's all, I'll just get the cables and power supply then. And some nice bookends.

    • If they get the same most of the multiplatform games (non exclusives) like EA franchise, fifa and most blockbusters, this would be awesome. But if they are getting a few nintendo only games, prob no. The small form factor suits someone who is are travelling all the time

    • +1

      If everyone thought like that "I'm going to wait about a year", during that first year, no sales makes it a flop and no third party's will want to develop games for it.

      So I thank the early adopters, like the 3DS early adopters, 3DS was a flop at launch, look at it now. I have pre-ordered one for myself, the gf says she will get one after when pokemon comes out.

  • +1

    Really want to play the new Zelda game but considering waiting to see if I can get a Wii U on the cheap and just play it on that - and wait until the Switch has a decent software library before pulling trigger.

    • I see your point, but wii-u new still goes for $400+ and usually $250+ used… may as well buy the switch to play Zelda.

      • 400+ for the deluxe, might as well get the white basic bundle for 270 brand new on sales, but if I hadn't got a Wii U i'd go for the newer console because that has more hope and longer life span than an already dead one.

  • We don't need to get into the whole "well what were you expecting" conversations, but I was pretty excited before the conference. I haven't owned a Nintendo console since the Gamecube and have been itching for some Nintendo fun for a while (still haven't managed to get my hands on the NES classic yet). However after watching the conference, almost all that excitement has gone. Maybe it was the slightly clunky way the conference was presented, but I'm left a bit disappointing.

    I'd be interested in BOTW, but I'm not buying a console just for that. And the new Mario game looks .. weird. Maybe it'll all make sense in the game, but from that trailer, there was the weird modern day/real world stuff, and every other "world" seemed to have a different art style .. It looked like an ugly mess to me.

    They brought out some devs to talk about that they were supporting it, but what did we get? A guy who hasn't even got a name for his game, Todd Howard shilling the old version of Skyrim, and an EA exec solely talking about Fifa.

    The rest was weird Japanese games most of which are either just starting development or are at least a year away, and 2 silly motion based party games.

    The hardware seems good and interesting, but everything else seems like it's playing catch up just because Nintendo wanted to rush this thing out in time for Zelda.

    Meh, I'll check back in in a year.

  • -1

    nah, just overrated gaming machine….i'd rather save my money on getting the PS VR

    • +2

      Ah, you're right, because current VR is totally not overrated at all.

  • +2

    I'm actually disappointed the more I see this console.

    I was expecting Nintendo to get their act together and release a somewhat powerful console that would be a match for the xbox/ps4 but clearly they just want to deviate from the competition here. Not impressed by the low resolution graphics capability with low-frame rates at time.

    Also, while Zelda looks nice, I was a bit underwhelmed with the new Mario game - it's set in New York, with everyday people and buildings. What I loved about the old mario games was that it was a completely different world with different level designs etc. It just felt like I was watching a revamped GTA with Mario in it.

    Not impressed.

    /rant

    • Are you saying New York is real? I thought it was some fairy tale land I see on TV and movies.

    • Did you watch the game trailer? its like 64, where your spacecraft ship thing is the hub world, NYC was one of the 4 shown off places, with mostlikely many more not shown off.

  • I'm a tech addict so i'll get it eventually but really not seeing enough for the first year to make me need one. Got a Wii U so Zelda & Mario Kart aren't required. (Though i would want the better performing Zelda) Got a ps4 so Skyrim and Disgaea 5 won't be bought. Only really want Mario Odyssey, Shin Megami Tensei (2018?) and Xenoblade 2 (wouldn't be suprised if delayed to 2018) and maybe Splatoon 2.

    EB really needs to have a bonus 50% or so trade in on games before i decide to get it.

  • Sadly at the moment I can't justify the cost of it until more games come out, in particular I'm waiting for Xenoblade Chronicles 2. That withstanding it's got a poor selection of launch titles at the moment and if you own multiple consoles like myself, there's not many truly unique games that can't be purchased on another platform.

    Also to add to that there's actually quite a few games coming out in the within the same month, those being Horizon: Zero Dawn, Persona 5 and Nier Automata.

    I'll probably wait on the comparisons with Zelda when it comes out but could settle on the Wii U version quite possibly.

  • I'm kinda scared that it will sell out on launch day like the Mini SNES

  • Not interested and I'm a pretty big Nintendo fan.

    I'll get Zelda on the Wii U (which was $299 with a game near launch btw). This thing seems overpriced and the other games don't appeal to me. If they announce Metroid and it gets a price drop I'll consider it.

  • +1

    I pre ordered already

  • Had one preordered from late last year, and now after seeing the launch lineup im not going to go through with it. It's just not worth $470 for 3 decent games a year

    • Makes you wonder what's going on in Nintendo. They've had all this time to come up with launch titles and they can only muster up a few? Lol at least there's zelda.

  • -4

    $465 for something with Xbox 360 equivalent graphics HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no thanks

    Ill wait for the emulator true cheap skate style

  • Wii U was a flop, Switch will be the same, same as Pokemon Go rapid declining of players. Nintendo isn't what is used to be.

    Last great console they had? Was the Wii in 2006.

    Titles, pricing and innovations make up a good console. Do they have a combination of these quantities?

    • Agree. The Wii was and still is a good console. The WiiMote was less than perfect but quite innovative. People even used them in combinatino with a projector or TV to make a cheap smartboard. It seems the only innovation now is for stuff that has no use either for the average person or for modding.

      Putting in slide rails and making things plug in is not going to be as useful but it will be cool for a few hours till you get use to the idea and realise that hey you want a BETTER tablet, a BETTER handheld and a BETTER console, not one device that does all 3 with compromises. It'll be uncool if as I suspect they plugging isn't very durable and things break often.

  • +1

    All aboard the fail train. This console will be the end of Nintendo as we know them. I predict it will fail harder than the WiiU. Too slow, poor battery life, outclassed by a modern tablet, far too expensive, no compelling games library, and they are repeating all the mistakes of the WiiU.

    It pains me to write this. 😞

    • Yup the next console will be called WiDead for sure. Just watch how hard this flops. It will flop hard real hard and make Nintendo out of console market become like Sega software only.

      You will then see they start to do more and more mobile IAP games like Mario and Pokémon etc.

      I would not be surprised Zelda on mobiles with IAP

      If this switch came before smartphone era possible to be a blast. Not now Nintendo. Don't forget I warned you.

      Many people will continue to play seperate platforms for home and on the go. No need to change. Very sure many others who already invested existing platforms

      Eg. I have 3DS for on the go. Console I will play PS4. More variety more games more choice. I don't care if I can't carry on game saves at home to on the go.

Login or Join to leave a comment