next »

[beetleking22]

IIRC Wii U's devkit cost 5,000$

But yeah, I have to agree 1-2 Switch seems really fun, but not 60€ fun.

Wow.  From 5000 dollars to 500 is very good for indies. Even poor like me can afford develop game for Switch.

[ProgramGamer]

yeah, except that's probably going to be like 600 or 700 dollars Canadian.

I'm really salty about the Switch being priced at 400$ CAD btw. That's simply not a price I'm willing to pay to get one of these things.

[cynicalsandel]

blame the canadian dollar

[ProgramGamer]

I know why the price is like that. I still don't like the fact that it's priced 150$ above what everyone else has to pay.

[cynicalsandel]

if you understand the currency exchange then how can you argue that you're paying 150 more?

[ProgramGamer]

The Canadian and US dollar used to be equal a few years ago. Now Canadians have to pay about 30% more on purchases from the us than before because exchange rate. It's not like japan, where they just have a different currency altogether. I guess this applies to other goods too, but the knife twist in the wound here is that the difference between 250 and 400 is much more than 30% (in fact it's exactly 60%, twice as much), which makes me extra mad. They're straight up charging more to Canadians.

[cynicalsandel]

the switch is 300 usd not 250

[ProgramGamer]

Upon Googling it, you're right, but I could have sworn that they announced the thing to the tune of 250$ on their big reveal livestream. I would have bet my own life on that. What the heck.

Anyways, I guess that explains the price point. Still not getting one though.

edit: I went back and watched the beginning of the stream, they announced it at 300$. How the heck did I make that kind of mistake??

[miguli]

Nintendo Switch teardown:
Imgur link

[gimymblert]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1345574
Venture Beat Guest Report: Nintendo dominated Super Bowl gaming buzz

This report is a bit of a “Switch” since Nintendo is the only console brand to make our top five chart this time around.

GamesBeat has partnered with iSpot.tv, the real-time TV ad measurement company with attention analytics from 10 million smart TV screens, to bring you a monthly report on how gaming brands are spending their TV ad dollars and which commercials are generating the most digital response (iSpot measures actions across Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and all major search engines). Below are the top five most-engaging gaming industry brands from Jan. 16 through Feb. 15.

Nintendo was the only console brand that generated substantial buzz around its TV ads in the last 30 days — and generate buzz, it did. It captured nearly half of the gaming industry’s digital share of voice and was closely followed by Top Games Inc. Overall, during the period measured, 27 brands spent an estimated $61.6 million running 67 spots over 16,700 times on national television, generating almost 1.9 billion TV ad impressions. As expected, brands that shelled out for Super Bowl ads saw big boosts in conversation.

[eyeliner]

I was hoping you could use the Switch as-is to be a development machine, kind of like the XBox One.

Bummer it is not. Oh well. One might hope for the future, though.

[DanHulton]

The $500 price is actually a really sweet deal for big studios, too.  If a dev unit costs $5000 and you have twenty developers/QA testers that all need their own machine, that's $100k outlay just to consider Nintendo development.  At only $500, that's only $10k outlay.  At a difference of $90k, you suddenly have to sell far fewer units to get to profitability.

All that to say, we should definitely expect more great indie games, but also more triple-a games from bigger studios.  It's gonna be a good library, I'm pretty confident to say.

[Tuba]

The $500 price is actually a really sweet deal for big studios, too.  If a dev unit costs $5000 and you have twenty developers/QA testers that all need their own machine, that's $100k outlay just to consider Nintendo development.  At only $500, that's only $10k outlay.  At a difference of $90k, you suddenly have to sell far fewer units to get to profitability.

All that to say, we should definitely expect more great indie games, but also more triple-a games from bigger studios.  It's gonna be a good library, I'm pretty confident to say.

I wouldn't expect triple-A games. At least not stuff like Assassin's Creed and COD. I don't think companies are going to spend money and time porting their big games for the Switch. Even if Unreal and Unity support it, there's still a lot of work to with assets and optimization.

But big publishers seem to be investing in smaller titles like Unravel from EA and Child of Light from Ubisoft and I'm sure those kind of games are going to be on the Switch.

If an AAA title is on the Switch, it will have to be either exclusive or at least made first for the system. And I don't companies pouring resources there unless the system becomes a huge success like the Wii and I doubt that'll happen.

But I am expecting the library to be pretty good. I think it will be just like the Vita's library: a lot of indie games and niche japanese stuff like Visual Novels, RPGs and Monster Hunter clones. With no other portables in the market, a lot of japanese devs should flock to the Switch.

[DanHulton]

I wouldn't expect every AAA game, but I do expect some.  I think Skyrim shows there's interest, and the good tales they tell about the porting process will encourage others.

Like anything else, it'll be a cost/benefit thing.  For some, it'll make sense - they'll make more money selling the port than the port will cost to make.  For others, not.  I'm fine with this, honestly.

[gimymblert]

Skyrim is like super old though, it's back from the x360 days! I would be impressed if that was fallout 4 ... but skyrim make more sense with the dual motion control thingy.

[eyeliner]

For a Nintendo player, Skyrim is a novelty. And considering they re-released a Skyrim Christmas special, it only makes sense it comes to the Switch even with some aditional contenido.

I'd say there will be some AAA, but adapted like in the Wii.

[Tuba]

Skyrim just got a remastered edition, I'm guessing they used this opportunity to make a cheap Switch port just to test the waters and make some politics with Nintendo. But I really don't see the Switch getting adapted ports like it was the case with the Wii.

You gotta remember that the Wii was Nintendo's best selling console ever, and one of the best selling consoles of all time. At one point, the thing was selling more than the PS3 and 360 combined if I remember well. So, it made some business sense to port games to it and even then, not many games were being ported and most were also getting PSP and PS2 versions with the same assets so the cost was not that high.

So, unless the Switch sells really well in it's first year, I don't think we'll see AAA ports aside from a few really old stuff like Skyrim. But I also don't think that's a problem now, if Nintendo plays nicely with indies, there'll be plenty of games for the system.

[Richard Kain]

So, unless the Switch sells really well in it's first year, I don't think we'll see AAA ports aside from a few really old stuff like Skyrim. But I also don't think that's a problem now, if Nintendo plays nicely with indies, there'll be plenty of games for the system.

Actually, ports for the Switch are more likely than ports for the Wii, or even the Wii U. The primary issues with ports on the Wii were a disparity in architecture, a disparity in relative power, and a disparity in controls.

The disparity in power was only an issue later on, and helped to contribute to the brevity of the Wii's viability. Initially, it wasn't much of a problem, because the PS2 was still riding high as the dominant system. Ports from games getting PS2 releases were no problem, the Wii could handle those with its eyes closed. But as High-def TVs got cheaper and more mainstream, and high-powered systems like the 360 and PS3 became cheaper and more accessible, games started targeting those higher-end systems as lead platforms, and the Wii started to get left behind.

The architecture disparity is a common one for consoles, and couldn't really be avoided with the Wii. With the Wii U there was less of an excuse, Nintendo should have been forward-thinking enough to go with a different architecture for the Wii U. I suppose backwards-compatibility might have been a factor in that decision, but in hindsight it was most likely a mistake.

The controls were the biggest sticking point for ports on the Wii. To a certain degree, this carried over to the Wii U as well. (though in a different way) The controls for the Wii were its biggest deviation from "standard" video game fare. And because the differing controls were so central to the Wii and its success, you couldn't just strip them out of ports to the system. You had to design ports around the WiiMote and nunchuck. And most multi-platform developers just couldn't hack it when it came to making compelling experiences with those controls. So most developers were left making custom-designed Wii games, or extremely lack-luster ports. The Wii U suffered slightly from this with the essentially required gamepad, but not as much since the gamepad at least contained a standard control scheme. The architecture difference was far more significant to the Wii U.

The Switch neatly side-steps two of these three issues. Its control scheme is standard, it has everything you normally expect from an industry-standard controller setup. And this control scheme is available by default, so developers can rely on those standard controls for ports. There are some extra features for the controllers, but those are optional and won't be required for a port unless the developer/publisher wants to include them. It's architecture is also now an industry-standard architecture. It isn't the exact same architecture as the PS4 and Xbox One, and that could be a problem. But it is the same architecture as thousands of tablets and smartphones, an architecture that has broad support and is extremely well documented. And most significantly, it is an architecture that is broadly supported by most portable game engines. (even most proprietary in-studio engines)

With the Switch, the biggest impediment for ports is the issue of rendering and processing power. Switch versions will by default need scaled-back versions of high-profile cross-platform games. The Switch is simply not going to be as powerful as either the PS4 or Xbox One. It's a handheld device that needs to be sold at a reasonable price, the power disparity is something that simply can't be avoided. The scaling that a lot of developers are building into most modern games may help matters. But there will still be some games that can't be easily ported because of the hardware demands. That will be the most likely factor to prevent ports to the Switch.

[eyeliner]

So, nothing new then. Either because of one thing or the other, Nintendo will still not be getting all of the games for them Hardcore Henry type players.

Whatelse is new?

Defenders will say that half a dozen Nintendo titles will make up for it. Mario, Zelda, possibly Metroid, some Starfox, or F-Zero.
But no, most probably, something like Kirby, Yoshi and Luigi.

Nintendo had better step the game up, and live up to some of the fan's demands to keep the system relevant.

[s0]

So, nothing new then. Either because of one thing or the other, Nintendo will still not be getting all of the games for them Hardcore Henry type players.

Whatelse is new?

plus, the casuals that made the wii a success all switched to phones. it's like i said earlier. nintendo's audience at this point is limited to fanboys and people who can afford multiple gamming systems.