It's always funny how Nintendo says they learned, but they never do.
They talked all about the gamepad and how great it is, so great they were going to let developers figure out how to use it. (that was actually code for, 'we think this thing is really cool and it HAS to have uses, but we haven't figured enough out so YOU do it'). They said it with a smile, like how empowering.
Now they are literally saying the opposite, that it detracts from the experience and that's why Zelda is going away from using it special.
Dat 180 on the gamepad to the point they aren't even trying to use it beyond inventory is amazing. What are they trying to fool us on now? Oh that this thing is a console first, even though it can't play any of the games consoles play.
He's out there saying there is no AAA 3rd party or overall drought, when in reality there is far more of a drought then with Wii U. Ubisoft launched with more games on Wii U then Switch has launch games overall! All told Ubisoft had 9 games from launch through the first four months. (6 at launch).
Switch has FIVE total games at launch from ALL developers INCLUDING Nintendo, and one of those can be played on Wii U.
Go through the list, Ubisoft, Activision, Warner Bros, EA all supported this far more then they are Switch. FAR, FAR more. Also Sega, Capcom, Bandai-Namco.
It's amazing they are literally doing the same thing again. But trying to spin it's completely different, changed, and better. They are telling us this with a straight face, and some people seem to be buying it. It's like Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the dang football.
It may be easier to port to Switch then it was to port to Wii U, but instead of being overall more powerful (though weaker CPU) then your competitors with PS3/360 at the time, Switch is far, far below PS4/XB1.... so it's harder to port because the hardware is so weak.
Will Switch ever get a Call of Duty? Wii U had one. A Mass Effect? Wii U had one. A Assassin's Creed? Wii U had one. Madden? Wii U had one. So on and so forth. Even if the support didn't last, they at least for a period of time had it.
Even now the messaging is confusing. What average person or parent walking in to buy a 'console' is going to buy a 'console' that can't play all the 'console' games they see advertised. Then when you ask why, it's because it's portable and they can't fit that sort of power in. That's going to confuse people.
I think they get that you can play games on the go and at home, but I think where the rub is, they think ALL the games will be coming to it and you can do it. Once they figure out it can't play pretty much ANY of the AAA 3rd party games they and their kids want, they'll pick up a competitor product that can... and likely save money to do it.
That's a helluva problem, and while different, it's very much the same thing. Switch has some major, major issues.
He's saying what they want him to say, he probably knows its delusional. It's his job to try to sell that delusion to everyone else.
They say every time that they know 3rd party support, droughts, lack of power, ease of porting/tools causes their power, and say they will fix that and it won't happen again.
The only one they likely actually did this time was porting/tools, but even then with it so far behind power wise, it's going to be hard for them to get their games on Switch even if they felt it was worthwhile.
Wii U overall had more power then PS3/360. Slightly worse CPU, much better GPU. So it could feasibly get many of the AAA 3rd party games to run on it.
Switch is far, far behind the XB1 and PS4 power wise and developers have learned their lesson which is why they are sticking a toe in with a safe game or two, rather then a full first wave of games.
So it's actually worse then the Wii U.
Nintendo's Zelda blows away New Super Mario Bros in terms of production value and AAA-ness, but that's really the only plus it's got at launch.
They aren't even launching with it really. No Call of Duty, No Madden, No Assassin's Creed, No Batman. You could say those aren't in season, true, but they could of used last year's version or announced the upcoming ones for this fall. They aren't.
There is FIFA on Switch, but built off the PS3/360 version and not at launch.
The Wii U version of Call of Duty BLOPS2 actually made great use of the gamepad and was built for the ground up. You could use it to call in your killstreaks (like pinpoint where to strike on the map) and all sorts of cool stuff. It launched basically on time too, with the launch of Wii U just a few weeks after it launched on PS3/360. An incredible effort they are not repeating with Switch.
There's no Mass Effect like there was on the Wii U, and funny enough, there actually is a new Mass Effect launching the same month as Switch.
The list goes on and on. There is no game like a Splinter Cell Blacklist on the docket a few months from now. There's some ports of some Japanese games, and they are vastly inferior to the PS4 version. Some people are now asking to see what they look like versus the PS3 version.
Ubisoft gave massive support for Wii U at launch and the first year. They are barely present for Switch. They even made an exclusive, Zombi U which also made good use of the gamepad's features.
I mean think of it this way, for launch Ubisoft had; Assassin's Creed III, Zombi U, Just Dance, Rabbids Land, Your Shape: Fitness Evolved, ESPN Sports connection. Which means Ubisoft put out more games for Wii U launch then there is for ALL publishers for Switch.
Then they proceeded to do Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Need for Speed Most Wanted U, and Marvel Avengers: Battle for Earth within four more months. That's 9 games at launch and within four months of launch.
Warner Bros (3 at launch, 2 more within 5 months), EA (3 at launch), Activision (4 at launch, 3 more within 4 months) supported it like that too.
Switch isn't getting ANYTHING LIKE THIS at launch, the first year, or even announced.
Yeah the Wii U had way more AAA Western 3rd party then Switch currently does. It also launched with more then it has announced for 2017 as a whole.
At launch (or even before the console actually launched) you had AAA games like Call of Duty, Darksiders II, Mass Effect 3, Madden, Fifa, Zombi U, NBA2k13, Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham City.
There is only FIFA and NBA2k13 on Switch, and not at launch. You get Skyrim, but not until fall when it will be 6 years old (so far beyond when Wii U was getting 6 month to year old ports).
It's also strange people keep comparing it to Wii U's launch, yet Wii U had far more games packed in a far smaller window. People are comparing Wii U's November and December 2012 launch with Switch's March 2017 through December 2017.
If we then included the next 8 months for Wii U (since everyone seems to be doing that with Switch), you'd have to add in games like Lego City Undercover, Pikmin 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted U, Monster Hunter 3, Lego Batman, Resident Evil Revelations, Splinter Cell Blacklist, Injustice Gods Among us, Rayman Legends, The Wonderful 101.
Plus you had other games like 007 Legends, Tekken, Ninja Gaiden, Just Dance, Sing Party, Skylanders, Rabbidsland, Sonic Racing, Transformers, Mickey, Marvel Avengers, Amazing Spiderman, Sniper Elite V2, Game & Wario, Disney Infinity, New Super Luigi U, Dungeons & Dragons. Hell even a Pokemon Rumble U.
Notice how many of the Switch games that are being counted for Switch are almost forgotten on Wii U because there were so many others? Like the fighting games (for Switch that's Street Fighter 2 and it only has ONE), Just Dance, Sonic. You had a mini games (besides Wii U's Nintendoland, you had Game & Wario)
There's even more games then that on Wii U, but I skipped over quite a few lower end ones.
On top of all that, what happened with Wii U is a fact, while all the games announced for 2017 STILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY RELEASE in 2017. Some might not, just like some didn't with Wii U.
Xeno might not hit 2017, maybe not Mario, some people say Pokemon, but that's just a wild guess by those people. Reggie even said many of the games they announced are for 2018 and even the year after that (2019). 80 games being worked on over 2-3 years is not a lot, and some like with the Wii U (Ghost Recon Online, Aliens: Colonial Marines, etc) never will.
Finally many of the 'bigger' Switch games are on the Wii U. The biggest Switch game of 2017 is by far Zelda, nothing will come close to it. It's on Wii U. Mario Kart 8? Already there. Splatoon 2 isn't but it looks pretty dang close to Splatoon 1 on Wii U. That really just leaves Mario and Xeno and one or both might not hit 2017.
Some people say they are holding back for E3... well that's stupid. The console launches in 6 weeks, this March. E3 is just three months later. They already announced stuff into 2018 and 2019, so E3 is likely them fleshing out some of their announcements with a bit more detail and maybe a new thing or two. Why they would keep some game that 'may' come out in August a secret in January right before launch simply makes no sense.
They were hurting to show games, that's why they were bringing up people with NOTHING to SHOW but saying 'we are making a game for Switch', or for others having them go up there and show a cutscene, or even just a TITLE SCREEN. They also needed to showcase Skyrim, which launches in fall, when it will be a 6 year old game. You don't show what will be a 6 year old game unless you are running thin on titles to show.
It just really doesn't have AAA 3rd party support, far less then Wii U. Wii U's dried up, Switch may end up never having any to begin with.
Overall the Switch has a similar confusing message as the Wii U. Not in exactly the same way, but similar. Imagine the following conversation taking place in a store, or among friends or whatever.
It's a console?
-Yes... it's a console.
So I can play all those games I can get on PS4/XB1 right....like GTA, Mass Effect, CoD, Battlefield, Battlefront, RB6 Siege, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Dishonored, Watchdogs, Titanfall, etc, etc?
-No... it's portable and thus can't pack in enough power for those games.
So it's not a console?
-Well you can play all those Nintendo type games and Japanese JRPG's and stuff like you found on the 3DS handheld
So it's a handheld?
-You can take the Switch games on the go and then hook it up to your TV so it's both
How long is the battery life?
-Well when it's new and you play the most demanding games on the system it can be as low as 2 1/2 hours but up to 6
As low as 2 1/2 hours? That's not long. So what exactly is this thing?
-It's a hybrid.
Hybrid of what? It doesn't play the console games all the other ones have, and has crap battery life?
-You can play Nintendo games on the go
Surely it costs less then PS4 or XB1?
-No, it's new so it costs more than a PS4 and XB1 at $299 (or more in other countries)
I assume if it's a hybrid and like a console it has a regular controller and a hard drive like a console?
-No that's $70 extra for the controller and you'll need to buy your own extra storage beyond the 32gb's it has, like a 128-256 GB micro SD card.
32gb's in 2017? So how much does it actually cost?
-You know the price of the PS4
Yeah $249-279 with a pack in game usually
-How about the more expensive PS4 Pro at $399?
Well yeah I knew the Pro was more expensive, wasn't sure how much
-Well it's more expensive then that when you add a controller and some extra storage
Well the Switch at least comes with a game right?
-Nope, and you need to pay for an online subscription like it's a Sony and MS console
Do I get free games like PS+/XBLive as long as I keep the subscription?
-Yes but only one game a month and only for 30 days and then you have to buy it because they take it back
What? Huh??? Nevermind....
...walks away confused. Then thinks how is it in any way a console when even Wii U got CoD, Mass Effect, Watch Dogs, and also a Assassin's Creed, when Wii U and all their competitors had some of those, but Switch doesn't. Three of those around launch too.
Like it or not people are going to be asking questions like this and the answers are going to send people off on a confusing quest just like the Wii U, just a slightly different direction.
It's too small and weak to play all those games, but Nintendo is marketing it as a console, and asking for higher then competing console prices currently are, asking more money for peripherals, and a bunch of peripherals/add-ons needed to match the functionality of it's competitors right out of the box. (like a pro controller and hard drive/storage)
That's going to be confusing to the average person. Right now most people probably haven't gotten around to asking those questions, but they will when they see they can't play those heavily advertised games on the new system they just bought.
But at some point people are going to notice all the NEW AAA 3rd party games, and not seeing the Nintendo logo, or seeing those games next to Switch.
Yeah it might be easier to see that it's a new Nintendo device and not an add-on to a previous one... but after that it's going to be confusing when everything contradicts itself.
Especially when they ask the salesmen in the store about the differences between the Switch and it's competitors right next to it. Even if they came in thinking about the Switch, many times they are probably going to leave with an Xbox or a Sony, get more games, and leave spending less money.
As a console its...$299 for 2007 specs launching in 2017. They are morons for thinking anyone would pay that much for that crappy hardware.
$70 for pro controller (and you are going to need it given how uncomfortable the joy con's are... both separate and when together... I think even Tyrian Lannister would need a Pro controller, the joy cons are that small.)
32GB's which means you need secondary storage, but can't hook up a Hard Drive (since it's a portable and they don't want it getting in the way), so you need expensive, small capacity SD cards. $50-100 for a lot less capacity then say the $79 or so needed for a 2TB hard drive. Hell I think I paid $79-99 from newegg in 2012 for a 2TB HD for the Wii U.
32GB's about the same in a 2005 Xbox 20GB. But you can't hook up a hard drive which even the Wii U could.
Secondary Online Service $60 (likely that much, and while people tolerate it for their main console and getting free games, few are going to want to pay that for their secondary, or tertiary playing console... and they get to rent a 30 year old game for 30 days every month... and you probably won't get the same quality of the service AND you have a lot less games to play online with Nintendo because you aren't getting Battlefield, Battlefront, and likely not even a CoD which at least Wii U got ONE of them. Not to mention everything else you won't get. Like Cyberpunk 2077, Mass Effect Andromenda, GTA VI, etc, etc, etc.)
Plus if you don't have Wi-Fi, you need to buy a lan adapter for likely $30.
Add it up, and you are in Project Scorpio price territory (and perhaps beyond in some circumstances) and definitely above PS4 Pro price. Rumored specs mean Pro is about 28x as powerful as Switch undocked, about 11x when docked. Scorpio is >40x the power of undocked Switch.
Yet you get the power of 2007, with likely no AAA 3rd party support beyond a couple of token efforts. The rumor of Beyond Good and Evil 2 and Rabbids/Mario crossover RPG was nowhere and might not even exist.
The launch lineup is one of the worst in history, and anyone with a Wii U can get Zelda on it. On Switch Zelda is 900p when docked, 720 undocked. So their 'new' expensive 'console' can't even run their own games very well. Games that were targeting the Wii U can't even hit 1080/60. That's how pathetically underpowered this is. I bet Zelda on Switch is 30 FPS too, it sure looked like it in the presentation... with dips too! (and I was watching a 60 FPS stream so it wasn't the stream).
Very few people care about portability, and have smartphones for that. So the compromises are in no way justified and people are paying (or likely NOT PAYING because they won't buy it) for something they don't want.
Those crappy peripherals with insane prices also look cheap and easy to break, and to lose. I also don't know anyone who wants to lug that thing around when they have a smartphone they can game on.
Mario MAY hit holiday 2017. Everything else in that weak presentation screams late 2018, 2019, or even 2020. So many times they had people go up there and simply say... "We're making a game". Or they showcased a title screen...ooooh. Or they showcased a cutscene which means the game is probably 1-5 percent done. The whole point of delaying the console from last year was for games to be available. They delayed it and it STILL doesn't have games, and they don't look like they will be ready anytime soon.
Splatoon is Summer. Mario is holiday 2017 (which could mean 2018). They could of delayed the Switch for another year and still not have many games for launch.
Meanwhile you can buy a PS4 or XB1 with far more power(PS4 is roughly 5-8x as powerful then Switch...5x when docked, 8x when undocked), far more support of AAA 3rd party, far bigger library, an actual controller included, and an actual hard drive with at least 500GB's. All for about $130 LESS then a Switch+Pro controller and NOTHING ELSE taken into consideration. You also likely get a packed in game with PS4/XB1.
Worse then XB1 reveal. At least Microsoft could take the Kinect out and remove the online check and thus reduce the price. You knew they had enough power to run AAA 3rd party games. Switch has NONE of that going for it.
Nintendo needs to price this at $129 without or $179 WITH a pro controller, ditch paid online, and even then it's best to wait until late 2018 when there will be a small selection of games worth owning. Nintendo is in a rock and a hard place, adding a controller increases the costs, while also needing a lower price, while also needing to ditch any revenue from paid online. People say they can't do that? Well then why put out the product if there is no way to make money off it? Seriously Nintendo, it's called Business 101.
Oh and 2.5-6.5 hour battery life. So you can play a 5 1/2 year old Skyrim that won't launch until fall when it will be 6 years old. Wow simply wow. 2.5 hours when the battery is NEW. Think about what that means a year or so later.
Did you see that the game where you don't look at the screen that is like a crappy phone game is $50, 1-2 Switch? That they want $40 for Street fight 2 HD? Oh and no pack in game with the system.
Don Mattrick is laughing at Nintendo eclipsing by far his own incompetence.
It's best as a handheld, but that's a niche market, and doesn't do it well with it's battery life and price. Not to mention crap lineup.
As a console it's horrible. 2007 power with enough add-ons needed to be priced near the rumored Scorpio price of $499.
People also forget that since they are combining their handheld and consoles, that a failure in sales is a much higher number. They sold 60+ million 3DS's and 15 million or so Wii U's. That's 75 million units combined. Any device that combines the two should do WELL above those combined numbers.
This won't sniff anything close to that, and that's just to match a massive console failure and a somewhat decent handheld. It can't even be considered a 'success' unless it sells like 120+ million units. It needs like 100 million just to not be a failure.
This thing screams 20-30 million units. Maybe it can luck out and sell 40-50 after a massive price drop, or people can see the writing on the wall and it sells like the Wii U but as a replacement for TWO devices. 30-40 million units sold would be a BIGGER failure then Wii U. A much bigger failure. Hell 60 million units sold would be a much bigger failure then the Wii U.
Even people who wanted Nintendo to fail because they hate them... I never saw them predict something even this bad. That's how bad Nintendo actually went about this. Worse then even the haters could guess.
This thing is DOA as a console, and as a handheld, it's pretty screwed as well. Worst of both worlds, ancient power, paid online, sparse launch window, sparse first year, likely sparse 2018, crap battery life, insanely price peripherals that are NECESSARY to use it as console.
Now you're playing with power... 2007 power. For the low, low price of a Project Scorpio and none of the AAA 3rd party games everyone wants, against competition that can do everything it cannot for half the price or less.
I'll buy Zelda on my Wii U and be looking forward to either an actual console in 2020-2021 or Nintendo going 3rd party. Because Switch is a product that simply can't be sold by Nintendo at a price anyone actually wants and has a supreme lack of power so 3rd parties will stay away.
So who is going to buy this?
Casuals won't
Hardcore won't
Kids won't
$250 for far more, or $430 for far less. ($299+70+50... that's for a Switch+controller+one modestly sized SD card). What do people think the average gamer is going to pick up. Not the Switch.
About the only ones that will buy it are the people that HAVE to have the newest Nintendo device, and from what I'm reading on various websites many of them are having 2nd thoughts. It's DOA to everyone else.
Nintendo is absolutely insane to come up with this.
It really wasn't unbalanced, it's just you had a bunch of people not knowing what to do in a mode set up that ONE SIDE... HAD to do specific stuff to stop the other side, or they would win.
Matches where players knew what and how to do it that I was a part of when playing the rebels, won a ton of times. Even 3-4 times in a row.
So it wasn't really unbalanced, you just had a bunch of players not knowing what to do, compounded by the fact that.. many of the people drawn in to try the game, don't play these types of games... ANY star war fan who had access to the beta was going to try the beta, and many of them don't play, rarely play, or simply aren't good at these games. Basically, in beta games, the average gameplay IQ of the participant is lower then the normal game, coupled with the fact it was new and people hadn't had time to figure it out.
The regular game will be better in this respect because the people who like this game and play these types of games will be a higher percentage of who owns the game, plus all the 9 million or so people who played the game will not be a complete noob to the game come launch, plus everyone else will eventually learn the rules too.
Of course they could tweak a thing here or there, but it really wasn't that unbalanced. You could literally take down BOTH walkers in just the FIRST section of the game (the first time the Y-Wings make the walker vulnerable)... of which there were THREE sections like this. If that wasn't enough, you have Snow Speeders in the third wave that allows you to take them down with tow cables. Each Speeder only needs to take down one AT-AT walker, and you can even have ONE Speeder take down BOTH Walkers.
So with all the ion shot, Ion grenade, vehicle turret, cannon placement, turrets, crashing vehicles into AT-AT's, plus good old regular gunfire... means that there was plenty of ways to kill these things. The key is to hold the points so you get more Y-Wing's fueled, as each Y wing fueled seemed to give you another 15-30 seconds to waste away at the AT-AT.
Oh and we were all using level 5 or below weapons and star cards. I'm sure we'll have more powerful weapons/star cards combinations once we level up and use when the game launches.
Lots of modes in the game, and obviously more maps, more guns, more star cards. There will be FOUR, Walker Assault maps at launch, with a fifth one coming with the Battle of Jakku.
@arrowhead927: Halo is also subsidized by Microsoft. Microsoft isn't in the Halo business for a cash grab, they use it as the biggest reason to own an Xbox. Thus they go the extra mile in order to better sway you to buy an Xbox. If Halo turned to crap, Xbox gamers would be much more easily swayed to buy a PC or Playstation.
Black Ops 3 has 14, but the size of those maps combined area wise would constitute about twice the size of the Hoth map. It's like comparing a back yard swimming pool to a football stadium.
Plus you guys forget that Call of Duty is a yearly franchise (that takes 2-3 years of full development... with no doubt has some work even before that), whereas this is EA/DICE's first attempt at a Battlefront game, which has to mimic a very detailed and very complex Star Wars Universe in about two years since they GOT the license to produce the game.
In other words, EA/DICE had about 1/2 the time to do something new that had to meet the specific standards of Star Wars.
To compare this as if it were equal is like saying the special olympian should of outran Bolt in the 100m dash.
jmc88888's comments