Kind of the issue though, it isn't really a direct competitor to MS/Sony systems. Looking at it like that makes many (certainly not all), of these questions/concerns not accurate.

And no one is ignoring the software or OS, those are issues, but saying something like ethernets is standard when more and more devices actually come without them anyways is untruthful.

quote:
not coming with a way to play and charge your joycon (have to purchase a charging grip is absurd), etc.

My first X1 controller did not come with the battery pack and was AA battery powered

quote:
That's the thing. I don't think people are super upset, they're criticizing it for not having things that you expect out of a console. The cloud save thing is compounded by the fact you can't move your saves off your Switch. Once again, if all of your competitors have the feature, it is absolutely a standard feature. A standard that's been practiced for nearly 10 years now.

It's a lot of posts and a lot of emotion and negativity about something that people aren't upset about that, which means they care in some respect.

So you say Nintendo should do it's own thing, but everything is about doing exactly what competitors are doing, or tackling problems in the same way. That's a bit misaligned. Like I said, I agree on this, but at least for me cloud save was never an expectation without a paid for online service. (BTW, a Standard is HDMI, USB-C, Controller Button Organization, etc.. These are things that everyone designs to spec to. And Nintendo does well there now. Cloud Saves are simply a feature gap, not a standard it's up to the consumer to evaluate whether or not it's a necessity.)

Moving saves is a problem, I'd assume this is fixed quickly.

quote:
VC is tied to Nintendo's offerings and has been available on DSi, 3DS, Wii, and Wii U. Other consoles launched with some type of VC support (even if it was terrible), so I don't see why it's a big ask for them to include things that even they've done before. Really, I just want to play Earthbound on my Switch.

We've already got Neo-Geo games today, I'm not sure if those are considered VC or not. This does suck, I want Earthbound on the go, I want Mother 3. I want Chrono Trigger.

quote:
You didn't touch on games as a service or game streaming, but I don't think VR is a huge power requirement. If Samsung can use their phones for VR, I would think Nintendo can have some type of offering if they chose to. Like I said, they don't need to do all of the things that Sony and MS are doing, but they can still have their value proposition (switching from handheld to console) without missing things that everyone else has.

Something I've wanted to say for a bit in this discussion, a lot of this revolves around different types of companies. Cloud Save, VR, etc. - these are helped by Sony and Microsoft having access to a lot of cross-company resources. MS heavily uses Azure for X1 (I assume that's where the Cloud Save infrastructure is), Sony was in the cloud business for media, and it has media content to include. Microsoft has entire departments devoted to technology, streaming services, etc.

Nintendo is a game company. To do cloud saves, they'd have to invest in that internally, or have a massive contract with some external company. It isn't easy to contract with some other internal department for a service or for new technology.

When MS implements VR, they aren't doing it for the X1, they are doing it for every PC running Windows. That investment can reap huge benefits. Azure wasn't a game platform, it's a platform to empower a significant chunk of MS resources. Sony owns channels, media, other technology divisions that can lend expertise and drive other kinds of growth. Sony developed the Blu-Ray...made it an easy, cheap player.

The scale and scope are completely different. Well done for MS and Sony accelerating the game business into more of a complete media experience, that's a huge part of Nintendo falling behind. Think about Blu-Ray tech, the reason Nintendo never went there, was that every Nintendo game sold is money in Sony's pocket. That's it.

That doesn't explain things like Nintendo not using their biggest strength as a way to differentiate, VC catalog, simplicity (win like Apple does), or the design errors (charging grip, which really should just be included in the box), but there are probably business reasons behind SOME of this like cloud save, vr, etc. and how they make decisions that aren't just "blindness" or "not getting it," like some people think. It isn't as apples to apples as people want it to be. (And regardless of all of this, yes Nintendo makes very questionable decisions outside of this).

This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 12:34 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by sicboy

Because Awesome

Member since Nov 2010

77649 posts

Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:53 pm to Freauxzen

Essentially.......it costs 3rd parties more to develop for the Switch

quote:
Yesterday, the developers of the colorful adventure game Rime announced that it will be out on May 26 for PC, PS4, Xbox One. Later, it’ll also come to Nintendo Switch, although you’ll have to pay an extra $10 for the privilege.

Rime, which was originally announced as a PS4 exclusive before the developers at Tequila Works pulled the rights from Sony and turned it into a multiplatform game, will be $30 on PC/PS4/XB1 and $40 on Switch. It’s not clear why we’ll have to pay a premium for the Nintendo version, and the explanations from both parties have been vague.

“We set prices for our products based on the costs of development and publishing for each specific platform,” said a representative for Grey Box, the publisher of Rime, when I asked what the deal was.

When I pushed for more details—is the extra charge because they have to ship on proprietary cartridges instead of Blu-rays?—the representative added: “I can confirm cost of manufacturing is also a factor, in addition to the statement below about development and publishing costs.”

Rime is the first third-party game whose makers are charging more money on the Switch, which launched last Friday, and it may be an ominous sign for the console’s future. Is this an anomaly? Or will we see this “Nintendo Tax” on other indie games with physical launches on Switch?

Today during a Facebook stream, a fan asked Nintendo of America boss Reggie Fils-Aime why some games cost more on Switch. “We don’t make that pricing decision,” he said. “When you see those differences in prices, call up that third-party publisher and ask them.”

An assumption, maybe this will be an isolated situation, but it's kind of strange.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by oauron

Birmingham, AL

Member since Sep 2011

14513 posts

Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:58 pm to Freauxzen

quote:
Kind of the issue though, it isn't really a direct competitor to MS/Sony systems

I think this point is where our primary disagreements are. I like video games, so I do and will continue to compare Valve, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to each other. They compete for my free time spent in gaming, so they all set the bar for what I want and expect out that gaming time. While the target audience isn't entirely the same, I'm in that part of the ven diagram that is in all 4. As I look to respond to various things about perception and expectation, I think we just view them differently. You say it's not reasonable to expect as much from a free service, but it's been available on Steam for free.

I don't think anything I've mentioned is really a big reach for Nintendo to do. While they're not a very diverisified company with 100k employees, they're not a small, weak company (over $6bn in revenue for 2016). They've shown the ability to adapt and work with others to work into markets they're not familiar with (DeNA for mobile games), so it's not unreasonable for them to work with someone else if they're not comfortable with keeping up with the developments of the industry (not referring to just high powered processors and video cards).