Does it matter if the Switch is underpowered?

PowerUp! - "Today, reports are flying all over the internet about the Switch’s apparent lack of power when compared to PS4 and Xbox One. But does that matter?"

[FallenAngel1984]

Yes it really does

[morganfell]

No it does not. Power does not draw large audiences. Power appeals to select groups. The argument can be made that power allows for advances in games that then draw audiences. While there is some truth to that creativity is more important than pixel counts.

However Nintendo does have a problem and it isn't power. It is support. The Wii and Wii U both saw 3rd party support drop like a rock as well as Nintendo themselves dump the consoles. I purchased both and feel backstabbed. Moreso with the Wii U. Games are what matter and after the last two iterations Ninty has something to prove. That proof is in the doing, not in the promises of support, we had that last time. It isn't in a flashy video put together by the marketing department. Those kinds of videos do not keep the dust from a console. No, Nintendo must actually deliver software.

[LOL_WUT]

It actually does matter. ;)

[notachance]

ya the 3rd party support depends on the power you know... how are future, heavy graphic games like RDR2 are supposed to come to switch if it can't handle the games? Even I'm not sure OG PS4 and XB1 can handle it without dropping the resolution/fps... and that's only the already announced games, what would switch do when, let's say, cyberpunk 2077 comes?

- who has the strongest power = doesn't matter
- does it have the minimum power required to handle future games = matter

[glennhkboy]

Yes. Hardware power & 3rd party support go hand-in-hand. How can 3rd party, like Activition, support Switch if it cannot run CoD?

[ApocalypseShadow]

Don't worry Morgan. The kids don't get it that it has always been about fun and support. But they chase graphics so the developers chase graphics. If all the consoles were the same power with the same games, then what's the point of having three systems? They don't get it.

A third party developer can release the same game on all three but one or two of those consoles are not going to sell the same number of games even if the game looks identical.

But making a good, fun, original game on each will sell as it's not offered on the other two. Power and graphics only goes so far until you realize if the game is shallow or deep.

Maybe one day they'll figure it out.

[rainslacker]

Will depend on the target market for the device. More power can open up more target audiences, but if it goes too high, the price can exclude others.

So long as it can deliver on what Nintendo is going for, and if what Nintendo is going for is something that their target market finds desirable, then the power is inconsequential.

[ziggurcat]

Yes, it does.

[rjason12]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[Majin-vegeta]

Why don't you ask the Wii U😑

[Errorist76]

The WiiU's main problems were the gamepad and its name plus the price...main reasons why people didn't buy it. Because nobody bought it nobody made games for it. Sad truth.

[jonivtec]

Yesssssssssssssss it does. ...xbox one power Would have been perfect.Now lets wait and see 13 january.

[Fist4achin]

No, it just needs good games that gamers want to play.

[The_Sage]

It matters for 3rd party support.

[Ult iMate]

Ok. Let's say many gamers want to play RDR2. Will it run on underpowered console?
Look at Wii U if you want to see the relation between power and good games from 3rd party.

[Errorist76]

Tbh I don't see the Switch as an primary console..it's much more of a secondary device.

[LOL_WUT]

Thats what they said about the WiiU ;)

[sk8ofmnd]

Did it matter the wii was underpowered? Yes and no. The first party games were amazing as always but it lacked third partys and the shovelware was astounding.

Did it matter the wiiu was underpowered? Yes it did. They didnt have an award winning gimmick like the wii had and it was lacking all the third partys that swore the power of the console and their support just like the switch.

Now is also a very different time where most gamers want the latest and greatest $ can buy. If the switch is as underpowered as the rumors say it could be another dud. But if they price it competitively and keep the games comming annnd get third party support it could be another runaway success.

Morganfell:

But power does draw large audiences when you are the favored more popular console. Im as big of a sony pony as anyone but even i can admit ive liked previous generations games better. And despite not having real blockbuster games till after years on the market it has smashed its competition for grossly being known as the "more powerful console." The fact the ps4 had most third party games running better than its rival it made ppl believe that what their $ was getting them was the superior version of said game. If the switch gets dumbdown-watered versions of third party games none of this will matter but to only nintendo fans.

[GrimReaperGamer]

I'm sure for some people it matters, but for me personally it doesn't. Just give me a great games library with consistent software support that isn't mainly shovel-ware and I'd be happy. I find more gamers today only care about the power of consoles, yet back in 1994 - 2006 most people only cared about the games library. The PS1 was under powered compared to the N64 and Sega Saturn yet it sold millions of more units simply because of it's massive games library. The Original Xbox was the most powerful console on the market in the early 2000s, yet a less powerful console in the PS2 outsold the Xbox and Gamecube simply because it had a large, amazing game library. Yet again I state the PS2 was less powerful than the Xbox and Gamecube and went on to become the highest selling gaming console in history. Power is not everything, the amount and variety of great games is everything.

[sk8ofmnd]

I think the console with the more third partys wins the favor in gamers minds. If all you do is crank out great first partys youre going to have a rough time without some kind of new fresh taste on gaming (wii).

[GrimReaperGamer]

I absolutely agree.

[glennhkboy]

In the case of PS1, it came with a CD-ROM, a powerful & cutting edge tech at that time. Sony also out spent Nintendo on 3rd party supports.
As for XBox, it was a late comer.

[The_Sage]

All signs point to yes.

[bluefox755]

Underpowered a little bit is fine, but not so much that it makes it difficult for 3rd party support, which is what Nintendo seems to do every time, and are doing yet again :(

[glennhkboy]

The Nintendo camp (both the company & their die-hard supporter) has gone down this believe over a decade now. Haven't they learn the lesson? Not powerful as your competitors means that 3rd games will not be available on Switch. This in-turn means the only Nintendo games will be available to a Nintendo Switch. This will hurt the Switch sells in a vicious cycle.

[hiawa23]

It doesn't matter if you are Nintendo fan and just want to play Nintendo games, but for the masses there may be some concern here.

3rd party support depends on whether there is enough power to port games over. With the Scorpio rumored to be 6Tflops, and the Pro being 4.2, I am baffled why Nintendo went the portable route, but given what we saw from the Wii and Wiiu, not surprised. I am hoping the Switch does well as the industry is better when all three console makers are competitive.

[phoenixwing]

Reports may be flying in but none of them are official. So this article may as well be another rumor on top of a rumor. I said the same thing about the pro, needed to wait for Sony to confirm before getting hurt over nothing.

[glennhkboy]

Actually the information came from the Nintendo European demo unit. So it may be a very accurate speculation.

[CrimsonWing69]

Did it matter that the Wii U was?

[InKnight7s]

If they just develop a normal console and forgot about the ideas that all about handheld screened console, And focus on power and give us a console can deliver remasters from last gen, FFXV, the witcher 3, resident evil 7 and all 3rd party games at least on same level of X1 + real quick releases of Zeldas, Mario and Pokemon ( without delaying ) that will smash every competitors within short blink of eyes.

[feraldrgn]

It really depends on how underpowered it is compared to the base PS4 & Xbone, if it's close or more or less the same power as the Xbone, then it's not too bad.
Though with PS4 & Xbone having or getting updates, it makes the Switch look even worse if the specs are true.

[abra511]

again with these dumb articles
yes it does matter it matters a great deal
if its waaaay underpowered

[bamillington]

not worth a comment. pure rumour. ninty always get more out of there hardware . personally i cant wait..

[FreeSpeech69]

It's not the most important thing but tbh Switch has very little going for it anyway.

[--Onilink--]

why do people keep saying its underpowered?

So let me get this straight, people want the performance of an X1, a $300 machine, but for $200 or less, in a handheld device, running on a battery, and probably with battery life of several hours. Does that really somehow adds up to anything less than a miracle machine? The specs simply line up to the reality of what can be done for the price and functionality of a device that is also supposed to be used on the go.

The only way they could have done something somewhat achievable is if the dock provided extra power, but that would have increased the price and then most people would have been complaining about that.

Im not really expecting the Switch to have all 3rd party games that come out on other consoles (i would rather play those games on my 4k set anyway), but what i do expect is the very strong 3rd party support that the 3DS had, specially from japanese developers to increase + some improvement on support from American and European devs. Maybe not full on support, but definitely better than the wiiU.

The moment you start thinking of the Switch as Nintendo Handheld gaming (with all that it entails) on steroids + the chance to play as well on my TV, the Switch definitely looks like a great proposition

[Errorist76]

Definitely agree...the Switch tries something different. There are the other two consoles for people who want the normal blockbusters, especially with everybody now striving for HDR and 4K. It wouldn't be wise if Nintendo tried to compete with those established brands that late in the cycle. For me owning a PS4Pro and a PC the Switch is a perfect addition. Why would I want a device which plays the same games I already have on other platforms?! I just hope the Switch, like you said, gets the 3rd party support the 3DS had.

[jmc8888]

No, you're adding what the Switch is all together incorrectly. People don't want it as a handheld. They want a console. Nintendo made a handheld, and is trying to make it their console. The handheld device and running on a battery is a hurdle that Nintendo created by itself against the wishes of the majority of gamers.

If you put unnecessary hurdles in front of yourself, well you don't get to use that as an excuse for why it can't be a certain level of power or price point, nor about battery life.

Thus, your argument is incorrect. I don't care about it's battery life. I don't care about gaming on the go. Most gamers hold that opinion.

In reality, they could of built a $349-399 3-4 TFlop console, perhaps if only 3 TFlops even at $299. Nvidia would of been a great choice as well. This would have given an upgrade path from XB1/PS4 to Nintendo for all these people.

Nintendo could give them all the AAA 3rd party games (Call of Duty, Battlefront, Titanfall, Battlefield, Cyberpunk 2077, EVERYTHING), running better on a Nintendo device then their current systems plus access to all of Nintendo's 1st party games for a competitive price.

As it is now, the rumor of the top price of Switch... the one with an ACTUAL controller, is $339. In essence, the portability aspect is the new gamepad resource mismanagement error. Most people could care less about what Nintendo is earmarking as it's selling point, yet in reality is what gave the Switch it's weakness in the eyes of the vast majority.

Nintendo fans who buy both Nintendo devices every generation see positive value in this approach. Just about everyone else sees it as a massive error that brings a console down and confirms that they cannot make Nintendo their sole console like they get to choose between Sony or Microsoft. Nor could they choose that as a mid generation upgrade.

All it would be, is a Nintendo box, something that is not a good place to be in, especially with the dearth of 1st party releases for the Wii U. Imagine if Sony only had Sony 1st party games. Or Microsoft only had Microsoft 1st party games. The appeal for a system like that would drop massively. Same thing with Nintendo, and we've not only been living it, it's set to continue.

What people are saying, is that a console, with that little power, is only worth $200 or less, and by going off the specs which, when docked, correspond to the raw power (before architecture improvements) to a Geforce 8800 Ultra from May 2, 2007, it's likely worth in the $129-149 range. Whether they like it or not, they are competing with Sony and MS. Just because you don't design your device to compete well with it, doesn't mean you aren't still competing.
As I laid out in other posts, I definitively show that smartphones and tablets have the portable advantages without the disadvantages Nintendo has. They have the edge, not Nintendo. So they can't compete competitively with smartphones, tablets, or consoles. Ouch.

If they can't do this, then it doesn't appeal to most gamers, only the Nintendo dual device hardcore niche, and if it only reaches that audience... well do I really need to prognosticate what the future for Switch would likely hold?

That blue ocean Reggie talks about Switch reaching is really just a desert mirage Nintendo is about to run aground on.

[--Onilink--]

considering that for many many years Nintendo's handheld business has been its biggest market by far, constantly outselling their home consoles and competition, and even the 3DS which sold less than usual being a complete success, I'd say that "People don't want it as a handheld" is a very big statement to base your point on.

Second, regarding the price, that one has an ADDITIONAL controller and a game, the base price rumor is $200

And the whole idea of doing a "mixed" console is what will give them the abitliy to consistently release more titles, since they wont have to split their workforce.

You mostly seem to be confusing what YOU would like Nintendo to make with the reality of how strong their handheld market and support (yes.. SUPPORT) has been.

[jmc8888]

I agree that if you look at it as a handheld, it looks ok... the problem is, not many gamers want a handheld. They want a console. If they want to game on the go, a smartphone. They should be designing a device that could be appealing to 90 percent of gamers, not 10 percent. It won't bring in casuals, and even many people who like Nintendo consoles, don't want to buy Switch, because it's not a console and it's setting up to be everything they hated about the Wii U.

Tablets and Consoles are already massively more powerful then the Switch. The fastest phones are basically on par, and would surpass it in about a year. 3-4 years from now, the top phones will be running circles around Switch, because in 3-4 years, phones will likely be approaching XB1 territory in terms of power.

More power would help Nintendo make better games. The Wii U was so underpowered they had lots of problems designing their own games for it. Now they're making another system that's not much more than it. They could easily have the power to make the games how they want to make them, instead of struggling to, like the Wii U, and likely with Switch.

So when you think big picture, what's better for Nintendo. A device a very small segment will love, and the vast majority ignore, or one that can deliver a home console experience everyone could enjoy? If they want a handheld, make a handheld. Nintendo faithful that want one, will buy one... and that too, means more sales. They could even still have some select instances where the games could be played on both. Why not with some 1st party titles? It's not either/or. They can still make it basically the same platform, but have a console that is more powerful and gives people what they want.

Instead they are shoehorning everything into a handheld, and asking devs to do so, and gamers to not notice. Even if the Switch somehow gets a few 3rd party games miraculously, no one will buy them because they are the poorest version around. What would be considered the 6th and 7th best version of those games. Not a selling point for console, and not a great moneymaker for 3rd party devs.

Even worse the rumor is that EVERY Switch game has to be able to run undocked. Which means 3rd party AAA devs, if they wanted to bring the next Mass Effect, Cyberpunk 2077, or the next big FPS to Nintendo, they have to not only get it to work on 0.384 TFlops, but actually undocked mode with 0.153. What does that mean? Well basically they are asking 3rd party devs to make a version that runs on the power of the Wii U. Does that sound like something that will happen 3-4 years after devs ditched the Wii U to begin with... and want that support for another 4-5 years?

I don't see improvement of support with 0.153 TFlops undocked and 0.384 TFlops docked level of power. I see it as potentially far worse. Yes I can see some handheld exclusives here are there that target a niche audience, but the games they make for consoles/PC's won't be.

We're getting to the point where devs would rather have you buy their games on Pro, Scorpio or PC, rather then the base PS4/XB1 versions of their games, because the base consoles aren't powerful enough. Yet Switch's power in 2017 is vastly under that, and is releasing with 0 install base about 3 1/2 years later.

Nintendo isn't going to convince people who want to game on a TV, to suddenly want a vastly inferior product and play it on the go but pay console price. They just won't.

[Exvalos]

Wow... I give the author credit for being able to damage control so much yet sound somewhat intelligent while doing so.

[raWfodog]

Sales-wise, power does not equate success. The perfect example is the previous generation where the Wii's total sales beat both PS3 and XB360 by about 15 million units. I'm not saying the the Wii's games were better but the 'underpowered' console clearly won the day in sales. But more power does make it easier to create better looking, better-performing games if the developers properly utilize the hardware.

[glennhkboy]

Wii had some very powerful controllers, (Wii remote, Wii Board, etc.) .

[SegaGamer]

It matters. but the Nintendo Switch could get away with it seeing as it is also a handheld console. As a handheld console, it will be the most powerful do date. If i was a developer, i would love to put my games on a home console AND a handheld one at the same time.

[isarai]

Ask the Wii U

It may not matter to gamers, but publishers dont want to spend the money to make a port from the ground up (which is what you gotta do if the power is bellow a certain threshold) for only a potential 3rd of the market. If this thing sells like the wii out the gate then 3rd party devs will be onboard, but even still you end up with the 95% shovelware and low budget garbage like the wii library. I hope it's powerful enough to run current gen ports but it seems unlikely

[jmc8888]

Of course power matters, and the latest leaks show it to run at less then 0.2 TFlops when undocked, and less then 0.4 TFlops when docked. Now since it's Nvidia coupled with some architectural improvements, it might hit slightly above that, but we're still talking about a 2017 system that has at best 1/3rd the power of a severely underpowered Xbox one.

It's literally 2008 power when docked.

A system like this will not get much 3rd party support, and definitely not get the AAA 3rd party franchises that move systems. The system catalogue of games will be small, and this is looking exactly like a Wii U 2, perhaps worse.

One of the hysterically inaccurate memes is... well they are combining 3DS/Wii U production on one system. Well that only appeals to a small segment of the population. If you told me that I could play ANY 3DS game on my Wii U, I'd say... well that doesn't do anything for me. I'm not a handheld gamer, and most gamers, aren't handheld gamers besides a couple minutes here or there on a phone.

Which leads us to the next hysterically inaccurate meme. That Nintendo isn't competing with Sony/MS. Well that's just bs. Every bit of gaming is competing against every other bit of gaming for your gaming dollar/whatever currency. It's relatively finite. PC/XBox/Sony/Phones/Tablets/Ha ndhelds/Arcades/VR/Nintendo/ETC are ALL competing against each other. To some more then others, but ALL are in competition with each other.

So where does Switch fit? Well it's in a really bad spot. It's probably got the most competition against it then any other device, because it's trying to sandwich itself as a competitor in consoles, handhelds, and phones/tablets. They aren't avoiding competition, they are actually throwing themselves to the lions of competition.

Switch, if the rumors are correct, is basically beaten by Tablets and Consoles, whereas more or less tied with Smartphones (which upon the iteration after, like say Iphone 8, will be clearly behind [and that's when docked at full power]). So in each and every area of competition they are beaten or about to be beaten in power. That's HORRIBLE. They aren't a low power console. They are a lower powered tablet/handheld, and only at par with smartphones. Yet they want to call it a console? Insane.

The next hysterically inaccurate meme is that Nintendo can't get 3rd party and that no one buys Nintendo for 3rd party games. This is a load of bull it reminds me of Biff having a mouthful of manure in Back to the Future. Nintendo used to be the 3rd party king. Just because it isn't now, or in the recent past, does not denote the future. Nothing stays the same. Sony and MS are not gifted console supremacy until the end of time. In fact, this CURRENT GENERATION completely blows that idiotic argument out of the water. MS had taken control, until they screwed up, and Sony took it back. See, things aren't locked down, and any time Nintendo wishes TO TRY TO COMPETE, they have a chance to get their former status back... just like Sony did this generation, and what Microsoft will try to do in the future.

[glennhkboy]

Also, on the game side. Developers are either going up-power (Sony/ MS consoles) or Free-to-play (phone/ tablet). Nintendo put himself right in the middle of the cross road.

[jmc8888]

Third party games do not appear on Nintendo, because their systems were architecturally different, underpowered, and didn't sell well. When the Wii was selling well, they got entire ground up inferior versions of 3rd party games. But they got them. Without that advantage they won't get it. So they haven't.

Now their architecture is more in line with Switch, but drastically and tragically underpowered. It will be very hard to put new AAA 3rd party games on Switch, basically impossible.

This is a massive problem. If you can't get AAA 3rd party games, your console will not sell well. Motion controls were the exception, and it does not appear Nintendo has come up with another motion control fad. Switch will not grab casuals like motion controls did. Mobile gaming isn't a novel concept, we've had mobile gaming since the 1980's.

See if Nintendo came up with a traditional console, for say $349-399, which offered say 3-4 TFlops of power, they could of offered an upgrade to ANYONE with a PS4/XB1. You could get AAA 3rd party games at a higher level AND get access to Nintendo's first party games. That's a strong position to be in. Very strong.

Switch on the other hand doesn't offer anyone who has a PS4/XB1 anything but first party games, and it simply isn't enough to sell consoles. We've been here before. It's not enough. Nintendo can easily compete with Sony/MS, and always are, but they choose not to design their product to be very competitive with consoles. That's Switch.

Mobile gaming is getting fractured as well. Tablets, phones are making serious inroads and removing casuals from the equation of buying a handheld device like Switch. Most people don't have the time or ability to game on the go. So gimping the console to produce a handheld, does not hold much appeal, and to many drastically lowers its appeal because they know power has been compromised to make it a handheld.

Nintendo Switch doesn't compete well with tablets/phones either. Tablets are already more powerful. Some phones, like the upcoming Iphone 7 are basically as powerful as a Switch when docked... but it can do it on the go, and has the functionality of a smartphone which Switch doesn't allow for. Meanwhile upcoming versions after that, and from other manufacturers will quickly outclass the Switch in the years ahead. Also the Switch doesn't fit in your pocket. It's big for a kid, and doesn't fold up like a 3DS for screen protection. It has pieces that can easily get broken or lost (joy-cons), which seem uncomfortably small. In fact, they seem like something made for the munchkins in Wizard of Oz. Even as a kid the Nes gamepads were small and uncomfortable. These look even worse, and I'm not a kid either.

Switch can't compete against smartphones and tablets in other ways too. With these devices you have access to huge libraries of games. Including a ton of free and cheap games. In a device you don't have to purchase for gaming, because you purchased it for other reasons and the gaming aspect is pretty much literally free if you want it. Switch is asking that you buy a dedicated device, add it to what you carry around, and then pay $60 or thereabouts for the games. This does not appeal to casual audiences whatsoever.

[jmc8888]

So it competes very poorly against consoles. It competes very poorly against phones/tablets. Now lets look at rumored price. $229-339 is what's been thrown out there. Way too expensive. This thing screams $129, $149, $179 for the three bundles, and even at $179, the price is too high. Why? Because of what it is competing against. A $229-339 price range (and including the various versions) is a non-starter. When you can get a PS4+game for $249, you are literally price wise up there with vastly more powerful systems that get far more functionality and 3rd party support. You don't need to worry about not having access to the games you want with a PS4 or XB1. But that's not all. If you look at the rumored highest bundle price, it's only $60 less then the PS4 Pro. 4.2 TFlops against 0.153 TFlops when undocked or 0.384 TFlops when docked. So for $60 more for a PS4 Pro you get a device that is approximately 11 times more powerful when docked, and 27x more powerful when 'on the go'. That is absolutely massive. Even the original PS4 is about 5 times more powerful then Switch in docked mode.

With such power disparity, it needs to be massively under the price that Sony and MS are offering their consoles for... which as of right now, and will eventually go lower, is $249. That's why $129-149 are the Switch's best bet, with $179 being a bit too high, but maybe justifiable if it gives you a game and controller. Some will say, well Nintendo can't do that. Well if Nintendo doesn't, it sets itself up with a product that won't sell.

If a product's needed MSRP is higher then the market will bear for it, then that's a product Nintendo shouldn't put on the market. Wii had a price advantage plus motion control fad. Switch will have neither, and be in a price position WORSE then Wii U if it launches in the $229-339 range.

Plus since PS4/PS4 Pro/Xbox One S are all on the market, any of them can get a price drop to make things more precarious to Nintendo's price position for Switch at any time.

Another hysterically incorrect meme is that you can only play Nintendo games on Nintendo systems and that because some people see it as their 2nd system that's ok. Well it's not. Again, Nintendo first party games at this point in time, cannot carry system, unless their whole plan is the ability to make profit off of 10 million sales. There are plenty of ways to play Nintendo games. You have your old consoles, or like me I can play my Wii U and get my Mario fix at basically the same level of quality as anything Switch will have for its entire generation. It's not like Switch is offering a much better Nintendo experience. Other people like to use emulators like Dolphin. Put their discs in their computer and play the game at 1080/60 or higher. Plus there's now Pokemon Go and Mario Run on smartphones. So people can get their fix without the newest Nintendo system. If you have a Wii U and don't game on the go, the Switch seems like an expensive sidegrade to continue on with a small amount of Nintendo titles.

[jmc8888]

A final hysterically incorrect meme is that Nintendo doesn't need powerful systems because its games don't need it. Wrong. They make systems that because of a lack of power then have to gimp, tone down their ideas, and delay their own games until the next system comes out. We've seen this with multiple Zelda's now. We've seen this with Star Fox. We've seen this with their titles as well. More power, would allow Nintendo to make the games they want to actually make and not have these massive problems and delays. They can keep their art style how they please, but to say the extra power wouldn't make their games look and run better would be stupid. 1080/60 Mario Kart 8 would have been better then 720p. Zelda at 60 FPS is better than 30 FPS. If anyone wanted to make the jump to 4k with their titles, Nintendo would actually have the easiest time given their art style. But they don't want to try to leverage that advantage. Just waste it and let others claim it first. Whoops. More power would not only objectively improve their games, it would also allow for bigger and better experiences. Nintendo worlds while artistically beautiful, leave alot to be desired in other areas. Their worlds have a lot less going on. Something power would help them flesh out more. They also could create more games in genres that typically use more power. Open world and FPS.

Imagine playing a game like Plants Vs Zombies Garden Warfare, but it's Mario vs Bowser Mushroom Kingdom Warfare. A perfect FPS game for Nintendo that can leverage all the wonderful, colorful characters of Mario ethos in battle. A game and genre that can help pull people in with a proper powerful device. They literally could of given people that plus CoD, plus Battlefield, plus Titanfall, plus Star Wars on a device that is more powerful and looks better then OG PS4 or XBox One S for $349-399, and give access to all of the rest of Nintendo's 1st party classics (which would also be fleshed out, able to be made, be more visually appealing, with higher resolutions and framerates). All for about the same price as what the rumored, and gimped power Switch top level bundle that is rumored at $339. Which would have a stronger appeal to the masses? Simple, the one that costs about the same, is much more powerful, allows Nintendo to properly utilize their artistic style, allow more modern genres, plays AAA 3rd party games, and makes a powerful argument to any gamer to buy a Nintendo Console.

[jmc8888]

Now this doesn't mean the Switch is all bad, to certain people. I have no problem understanding that people who buy NIntendo handheld and consoles will love this system, but that's a small niche of the larger gaming universe. That's not a hook for the masses, it's a hook for a small niche. It also undercuts their own sales. Instead of selling two devices, with the ability to profit off both, they now will only get one hardware profit opportunity from the people who were most likely to buy two devices. Whoops.

I don't want Nintendo to fail. But they had a huge opportunity to leapfrog the PS4/XB1 and get back in the game and make a compelling argument to remain relevant in the minds of most gamers. They passed on it. Instead to focus on a niche product that competes poorly against everything else, for what is rumored to be too much, with too little power, that will hurt development of it's own games because it's underpowered, and will remain niche. One of these days, a bad device will destroy Nintendo hardware. I don't know if we're there yet, but I don't want it to get to that, and I don't want it to get even close to that. The best way to do that, is to make a device that appeals to the gamers that spend money on hardware and software. That's not what they are doing. Casuals won't go for this, and the Nintendo hardcore isn't enough.

I sure hope they have something up their sleeves, because what Digital Foundry released spec wise yesterday, does not look good at all. 0.384 TFlops is horrible for 2017. Almost unfathomably bad. While there have been obviously been improvements in architecture to hit above it's weight class, the raw power of 0.384 TFlops or 384 GFlops was actually matched with a GeForce 8800 Ultra that release May 2, 2007. Almost ten years before Switch releases. So if I say it's literally 2007-2009 power, it's because... it is. Imagine an Atari 2600 being priced about the same as a NES, which would you have bought as a kid? Then realize, the gulf might be wider between Switch and PS4 Pro. You may accept it or not, but what do you think such a products market prospects with gamers would be as a whole?

[truechainz]

I agree that the answer is yes and no. The thing is from the moment we knew this could be taken on the go, we knew it wouldn't be as powerful as a home console. The problem for Nintendo from a marketing perspective, at least for people like the one's on this site, is that clearly nobody in this group is capable of thinking of this thing in its own unique segment as a hybrid. They will constantly compare it with home consoles even though it really isn't either home or handheld. For those who have payed attention as well as the passive audience who doesn't care either way, this has the possibility value. For the rest, Nintendo has to figure out the marketing to make it compelling.

[glennhkboy]

"The problem for Nintendo from a marketing perspective, at least for people like the one's on this site, is that clearly nobody in this group is capable of thinking of this thing in its own unique segment as a hybrid."
We, the non-believer, is exactly the one that Nintendo need to win over. Why should I buy this hybrid? What can Switch can offer me over my XBox/ phone/ tablet/ set top box?

[Stevonidas]

Only if you're too poor to afford a weak PC for 3rd-party games.

[3-4-5]

* It's a new console with it's own new library of games.

That is all I need it to be. It's also more powerful than the Wii U when undocked, so there is that as well.

It being under powered is more so the 720 to 1080p difference.

Either way....I get to play a new 3D Mario game....LoZ:Breath of the Wild & Dragon Quest XI all on the Switch ? = Amazing.