​

As the day of the Nintendo Switch conference and hands-on impressions draws to a close and the beans have been thoroughly spilled, we want to ask you - what do you think?

What are your impressions on the overall unveiling of the Switch given the pricing, games and hardware capabilities? Will you be Switching? Perhaps you've already pre-ordered one.

Vote in the poll and let us know! And be sure to share your comments in the thread below.

 

[Foxi4]

ALL KINDS OF "BIAS" WARNING

As such, I take offense to this general "just a tablet" thing, but people gotta be what they gotta be. I'm overlooking it I develop for mobile for a living, and the Desktop, and networks...and I gotta tell ya, Power per Watt is THE metric of the future, across the board. This said, c'mon man, you are knocking Nintendo for not going x86? The "just a tablet" x86 mobile SoCs are just soooo weak for *this* application vs purpose designed and fab'd ARM packages.
As for porting - this is largely at the Middleware layer, and THAT is tuned per-arch....and this has been going on for a long time. People haven't routinely written general consumer software in assembler (for non-embedded/RTOS use) in a long...long time C'mon

I guess I just don't understand, why, if as you say you wish the system to succeed...and you *know* it is already "set in stone" at this juncture...*how you think it would do so* with a message that seems to be largely skewed toward...not...supporting the product as a consumer?

I also, my opinion just reading your stuff here, seem to think feel *other people* think this thing is something it "isn't" based on some metrics that are, well, kind of based on Sony and Microsoft.

It is clearly a home console, with from what I've seen, home console-level "graphics" and not "mobile". It appears to have solid controllers, people are reporting them as clicky and responsive, if not small. It connects to the Internet. It is HD, connects to tv's via HDMI, supports storage expansion...it's a console. It's *small* but I don't think skeuomorphic "Base Station Dock" would have been the way to go to make it look "beefier"...this is the 21st century, you know, make it 33% bigger, add some ballast simply for weight and some "speed vents"

Nintendo has presented what it is they are selling and what they are trying to do. I don't think anyone is confused or misled. Maybe dissatisfied, but I mean this isn't Sony here and their Emotion Engine bullshit I don't recall Nintendo saying much of ANYTHING about this one other than it will be better than the last one. The evidence seems to support this as well. I mean I didn't see anything that looked "like a mobile game"...did you? Asking honestly. I didn't get that "vibe" although the "just a shield" lead up certainly made one think we'd be seeing some OUYA nonsense...but we didn't.

I do not see where this is divergent from the Switch outside of Ethernet which in most homes is NOT the de facto connection. Why should Nintendo add a single penny of cost for a component most people don't use?

Why does the Playstation 4 "require" half a terabyte of fixed disc storage? Does Nintendo have the same requirement? Et cetera. I just find your protestations very...dissonant?

You seem to be pretty out of date when it comes to x86 - mobile CPU's in that architecture are rapidly closing the gap against ARM in recent years. As I've already mentioned, the RX GPU used in the SMACH is comparable to Nvidia's upcoming Parker and with a little tinkering could very well reach the 1TFLOP the Switch supposedly reaches. As for the CPU portion of the SoC, games today are mostly reliant on the GPU anyways and rarely use more than 4 cores. Since Carrizo is HSA and hUMA-compliant, it'd be the perfect setup for GPGPU as memory is seamlessly shared by the CPU and GPU. It's a great candidate system that has all the advantages of sharing an architecture with PC's and both of the competitor's machines while keeping the power envelope low enough to be feasible in a mobile implementation.

Naturally this isn't a plea for Nintendo to redesign the whole system - that'd be ridiculous. I'm merely stating that I would've designed the system differently, taking heed of what's going on on other platforms. Gaming is going to be x86-oriented for the stretch of this generation as the majority of platforms use that architecture, being the odd one out has never helped a console succeed on the market.

As for your claim that "it is a home console", functionally it is, there's no doubt about it, it's a turn of phrase. What I meant was that in practice it's a tablet with an HDMI Out, it's just obfuscated by a dock that serves no purpose other than being a pass-through for the connectors when it could've been so much more. In my mind a true hybrid would utilize the dock to pack some extra firepower upon connecting, like additional storage. It could house a large HDD to hold all of your games while in portable mode you would pick the few that you want to take with you. It could take advantage of the PCI-e rail by adding a sister dGPU to bolster performance. It could do a whole bunch of things, really. As it is, the Switch is a tablet with HDMI output - we already have those, we just don't call them home consoles, so it's a bit of a smoke and mirrors situation.

So, this is what you meant, when you said you would have designed it better?

Possibly. It's just ramblings of a madman at this point in the game, but I definitely wouldn't ignore AMD as a supplier of the SoC, especially since Nintendo had a long-term relationship with the company and could negotiate a very favourable deal for themselves. Not only that, but Nintendo devs are also used to working on AMD hardware, so the learning curve would've been more manageable.

 

[darkten]

You seem to be pretty out of date when it comes to x86 - mobile CPU's in that architecture are rapidly closing the gap against ARM in recent years. As I've already mentioned, the RX GPU used in the SMACH is comparable to Nvidia's upcoming Parker and with a little tinkering could very well reach the 1TFLOP the Switch supposedly reaches. As for the CPU portion of the SoC, games today are mostly reliant on the GPU anyways and rarely use more than 4 cores. Since Carrizo is HSA and hUMA-compliant, it'd be the perfect setup for GPGPU as memory is seamlessly shared by the CPU and GPU. It's a great candidate system that has all the advantages of sharing an architecture with PC's and both of the competitor's machines while keeping the power envelope low enough to be feasible in a mobile implementation..

So...what would be the *downside* for Nintendo using this...considering the fact that (why you assumed I did not know this, I don't know, especially since your solution offered up a *modified* version of that stuff...) this info was surely available to them as well?

See...my core "issue" with this (type) of assumption is the notion that Nintendo "didn't think this through" or whatever when clearly they did...it isn't "just-a-whatever" and you know, again, everything is about Sony and Microsoft...doing what they do/did/whatever. Anything Nintendo *would have done* at this point given the run up to building these things would have been "obsolete" by now anyway, and whatever MS/Sony released after would still have been likely "newer"...so it is a lose/lose. Let those guys keep that up. After enough back-to-back 60M+ "AAA losses" (the only games in that range that really seem to do well nowadays is Sports and a good chunk of those costs go to licensing, royalties/revenue shares and the like) the industry is going to walk it back anyway, because it isn't sustainable.

Or...look at it another way: The world doesn't NEED Nintendo's take on the Playstation. We have Microsoft for this. As these consoles pile on more "value add" to essentially sell things that are NOT games, like music...and TV...and video...there is no need for Nintendo to even go there. Why?

As much "retro" stuff and "classic play styles" stuff that is out there and constantly...*constantly* selling, Nintendo could have easily chosen to chart another Blue Ocean course...and appears to have done just that...by not making the "Ultimate Gaming Testosterone Machine!" (because again...why bother. If that is *really* where your head is, you get a ridiculous PC...it's like a nerd muscle car, yeah?) but the Ultimate Nintendo Console.

I don't think that was a poor choice/bet at all...when you look "past" the 'Platform War' angst. I just see things for what they are and judge them on *their* merits. The market will decide tho, sure enough, if the world needs another "dumb, 'underpowered' Ninty console" or the Next "Wizbox - Now with Even More Convergence!" with a lot of Ooo-Ahh Jargon, somewhat better "in-game rendered engine" glorified "puppet shows" because the FLOPS...and a brand-new per-title MSRP approaching $70.

I really think they will be fine here...but I understand your concern. I just think you are worried, prematurely, about the wrong thing.

TL;DR - "More is Equal to Better" is a specious equation to base anything on, because More == More && Better == Better for *sure* More != Better is not. It COULD be, but it isn't a direct correlation.

 

[Foxi4]

So...what would be the *downside* for Nintendo using this...considering the fact that (why you assumed I did not know this, I don't know, especially since your solution offered up a *modified* version of that stuff...) this info was surely available to them as well?

See...my core "issue" with this (type) of assumption is the notion that Nintendo "didn't think this through" or whatever when clearly they did...it isn't "just-a-whatever" and you know, again, everything is about Sony and Microsoft...doing what they do/did/whatever. Anything Nintendo *would have done* at this point given the run up to building these things would have been "obsolete" by now anyway, and whatever MS/Sony released after would still have been likely "newer"...so it is a lose/lose. Let those guys keep that up. After enough back-to-back 60M+ "AAA losses" (the only games in that range that really seem to do well nowadays is Sports and a good chunk of those costs go to licensing, royalties/revenue shares and the like) the industry is going to walk it back anyway, because it isn't sustainable.

Or...look at it another way: The world doesn't NEED Nintendo's take on the Playstation. We have Microsoft for this. As these consoles pile on more "value add" to essentially sell things that are NOT games, like music...and TV...and video...there is no need for Nintendo to even go there. Why?

As much "retro" stuff and "classic play styles" stuff that is out there and constantly...*constantly* selling, Nintendo could have easily chosen to chart another Blue Ocean course...and appears to have done just that...by not making the "Ultimate Gaming Testosterone Machine!" (because again...why bother. If that is *really* where your head is, you get a ridiculous PC...it's like a nerd muscle car, yeah?) but the Ultimate Nintendo Console.

I don't think that was a poor choice/bet at all...when you look "past" the 'Platform War' angst. I just see things for what they are and judge them on *their* merits. The market will decide tho, sure enough, if the world needs another "dumb, 'underpowered' Ninty console" or the Next "Wizbox - Now with Even More Convergence!" with a lot of Ooo-Ahh Jargon, somewhat better "in-game rendered engine" glorified "puppet shows" because the FLOPS...and a brand-new per-title MSRP approaching $70.

I really think they will be fine here...but I understand your concern. I just think you are worried, prematurely, about the wrong thing.

I'm not saying that it was a bad choice, Tegras are top-of-the line mobile chips. I mentioned modifications since, for all intents and purposes, if rumours are to be believed, the Switch already runs on a modified SoC. The advantage is precisely what you mentioned yourself - middleware. With both major gaming platforms running on AMD's SoC's and an ever-growing importance of PC, the engineering focus will be on x86 systems, not ARM ones. The sheer wealth of available libraries alone is a good indicator of the possible advantages. HSA and hUMA are also big deals as they simplify communication between the two processing units significantly by allowing simultaneous access to the same addressed space. There's lots to talk about here, it goes beyond the scope of the thread, but my point is that cobbling together a very small distribution of Linux/UNIX/BSD and coupling it with shortened API's consoles are known for would allow the Switch to be truly competitive without breaking much of a sweat. Naturally ARM has its own slew of advantages, I'm merely throwing what-if's around. As for being a PlayStation copycat, I buy that excuse as much as the Wii and the Xbox 360 being Mac copycats. All of those devices are in the same pool of technology, there's no reason to pretend that they aren't all derivative. There's no magical hardware under those hoods, they're all clones of clones, except tailored for a purpose. Using similar hardware would not detract from Nintendo's ability to make compelling games or designing a unique system around a familiar core hardware package, it would merely be attractive for third-party developers as it would reduce a great portion of the coding load to copy-pastes, which is nothing to scoff at with today's long development cycles in mind.

 

[darkten]

I'm not saying that it was a bad choice, Tegras are top-of-the line mobile chips. I mentioned modifications since, for all intents and purposes, if rumours are to be believed, the Switch already runs on a modified SoC. The advantage is precisely what you mentioned yourself - middleware. With both major gaming platforms running on AMD's SoC's and an ever-growing importance of PC, the engineering focus will be on x86 systems, not ARM ones. The sheer wealth of available libraries alone is a good indicator of the possible advantages. HSA and hUMA are also big deals as they simplify communication between the two processing units significantly by allowing simultaneous access to the same addressed space. There's lots to talk about here, it goes beyond the scope of the thread, but my point is that cobbling together a very small distribution of Linux/UNIX/BSD and coupling it with shortened API's consoles are known for would allow the Switch to be truly competitive without breaking much of a sweat. Naturally ARM has its own slew of advantages, I'm merely throwing what-if's around. As for being a PlayStation copycat, I buy that excuse as much as the Wii and the Xbox 360 being Mac copycats. All of those devices are in the same pool of technology, there's no reason to pretend that they aren't all derivative. There's no magical hardware under those hoods, they're all clones of clones, except tailored for a purpose. Using similar hardware would not detract from Nintendo's ability to make compelling games or designing a unique system around a familiar core hardware package, it would merely be attractive for third-party developers as it would reduce a great portion of the coding load to copy-pastes, which is nothing to scoff at with today's long development cycles in mind.

TL;DR - not on x86, 3rd parties won't dev for it/"good games" for it, because the "world" is going x86/PC.
Got it

Or devs can just use engines and middleware that target ARM...because they already do that if they use a COTS solution, unless they've written their own engines.

Again...this isn't a Zero Sum Game and I really don't understand why you are just like "NO ONE WILL DEVELOP FOR THIS" because everyone didn't drop what they were *already doing* to do so. Did you see a lot of this happen with the PS4 Platform bump? Sony has "clearly" 'opted out/punted' with the PS4...because they can. MS is basically getting "Ports" from the PC if you will, and everyone complains about "ports"...unless it is *something they want ported*...so, uhhh "Thinner! 4K Movies! More Convergence! Triangles coming soon!". And those "ports" are savaged by them PC Boyz all day long. It never ends

Maybe you are right, lol, and I'm just tired of this shit, it has been happening in earnest since the 80s and all of this "power" folks are pining for is simply to make prettier versions of Quake, Tomb Raider and Madden...over and over and over again. If that's all we are really doing/going for anyway, there is no harm and a market for Nintendo to make prettier versions of their crap over and over again too

 

[geodeath]

Should have ported Mario Maker over. Has touchscreen and motion controls. So, wouldn't be that difficult to still make levels.

If it is not that expensive, I still don't see the problem. You guys seem to be willing to pay the extra cost, rather it is included in the console or not.

All i am saying is that at the end of the day Nintendo would save people money if they increased the storage, as they would buy wholesale. I do not care too much because it is cheap, unlike the accessories

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So you can't compare a PC to a console, but you're okay comparing a home console tied down to a TV and power supply to a handheld device that you can pick up and play on-the-go? Okay.

There is a lot of truth in what you are trying to say. However, try to see things with other people's eyes too. All i am saying is that the Switch and the Ps4/Xbox etc are all in the same product *range*, so the comparison to a graphics card is not possible at all. The problems we think Nintendo is going to face from the competition are true because they *will* compete in the same shelves, as much as they would like to think they are alone in what they do.

Also, i did not say you cannot compare a PC with a console. I said a graphics card with a console. There is a difference. Also, you have to think about form factor. I said many times before (personally always) and other people did too, that i *do not care* a rat's ass about mobility. I will never ever never ever play mobile, especially if it is less powerful when mobile as sources claim. I will *always* play it hooked on my TV as many other people will do and in *that* particular scenario, tell me how it is different than any of the other consoles?

If mobility is a selling point for somebody, obviously the Switch is awesome. For me, it is an unnecessary cost, as it requires a screen, a second set of controllers etc. But to each his own.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

So you can't compare a PC to a console, but you're okay comparing a home console tied down to a TV and power supply to a handheld device that you can pick up and play on-the-go? Okay.

And also, think about it like this: When browsing through a store, online or not, will you find a graphics card next to the Switch in the same category? Or rather with an Xbox/Ps4? Just saying, they serve they same purpose, but Switch has the upper hand, obviously, if mobile games are needed/desired.

 

[darkten]

I will *always* play it hooked on my TV as many other people will do and in *that* particular scenario, tell me how it is different than any of the other consoles?

They are ONLY meant to be used hooked up to a TV?

If mobility is a selling point for somebody,

..it is...

obviously the Switch is awesome. For me, it is an unnecessary cost, as it requires a screen, a second set of controllers etc. But to each his own.

As I tell my children, because it is a great life lesson: "Everything is not 'about' you."

 

[Tigran]

Sure it is.. The world revolves around me!

 

[geodeath]

At launch, the cost of the XBox One was $500 (with peripherals included, fortunately), and the cost of the PS4 was $399 (which, eh, if memory serves, didn't include any PS move controllers that have since become a staple, with their "revolutionary" DS4 controller STILL costing $60msrp. Not to mention that the bundle that included a 500GB hard drive, two controllers, and a game was $500)

I get that people are upset with the pricing, but it's ludicrous to assume that it won't come down over time. It's even worse to try to compare it with two consoles that have been out for 3 years already in a much larger form factor that have already experienced price declines.

You are right, consoles do drop in price. Accessories not so much, yesterday i saw a DS4 controller at the best offer i have seen so far for £40. But this was Tesco, much like Walmart, with very limited stocks and there just for showing off that they sell consoles and accessories too. The actual RRP is still the same as the release price and many shops are still selling at that price. The other issue, that people have talked about before, is that the $60 controller price is *already* a lot. It is not like it is even ok, so it is ok to bump the prices more.

The other thing is the nintendo is even more anal to cutting prices to accessories. You do not have to believe me, look at the charts, this is the price of the WiiU pro controller for all time. All it even went down to is £30 from £33 and it averaged £36. Same goes for the DS4.

The other enraging thing about it is not the price alone but the fact that it sets a precedent for the rest to follow in. If people are ok with £105 and £65 controllers then perhaps why not move to £120 and £75 next time around? Companies make money from attach rates not from accessories so much. At least, let people buy a good base, either as a bundle or with discounts when bought with a console.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They are ONLY meant to be used hooked up to a TV?



..it is...


As I tell my children, because it is a great life lesson: "Everything is not 'about' you."

No, they are not meant to only be hooked up to the TV. So what? Is it still not a console that *can* be hooked to a TV? Do you think this will make everybody in the world judge the price, power and software line up in a completely different light because it gives you the ability to play on the go? I do not think so. For all of you that this is a selling point, it is a must have. I agree. For the TV only people (and there are lots) there is a lot of tech here that does not help in the price factor or power. Of course it is not about me. It is about all of us. For some reason people think that being able to go mobile is magically a fantastic selling point for all. Wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They should not raise the cost of acquiring the console on everybody to include a controller that only some people find necessary. You don't like the joycons and will only play with the pro controller? Fine, buy a pro controller. But you are not everybody and plenty of people will do not require the pro controller and thus do not want to pay the extra cost to have it bundled in their system.

This is why i got the more expensive bundle of the WiiU that included the pro controller. Words to remind Nintendo about, "choice" and "bundle".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

From what people are saying, NoE is selling in the UK in Pounds Sterling...£330. Since it isn't region locked, if you don't mind English, Spanish or French...get one from over here I say, since America seems to not want the thing, right?

It is £280 actually, i think it is €330 in Ireland?

 

[darkten]

No, they are not meant to only be hooked up to the TV.

I apologize...i was not aware PS4s and Xboxen were designed and meant to be connected to anything other than TVs/Large displays...since, you know, you mentioned this, not me, with your "value add" comparison. My point in response to this was that it is. It isn't to *you* but it is clearly a value add that is ACTUALLY relevant to GAMING

 

[geodeath]

I apologize...i was not aware PS4s and Xboxen were designed and meant to be connected to anything other than TVs/Large displays...since, you know, you mentioned this, not me, with your "value add" comparison. My point in response to this was that it is. It isn't to *you* but it is clearly a value add that is ACTUALLY relevant to GAMING

I never said it is not an added value in general. How much each person thinks this adds to their gaming habits and benefit though is of course personal. So, we can fight day and night in here trying to prove to each other that this is a good or bad benefit, but at the end of the day, all i was trying to say is that whoever is going to spend their money on it, is going to consider it from their own point of view and not only mine or yours. All i am saying is, there is another opinion on the Switch that completely disregards the mobile aspect, as beneficial as this might be for other people. I know at least 3-4 of my friends that share the same opinion, that they would love to play the latest and greatest nintendo has to offer but they do not have a need or want for a mobile device, i.e. will leave it hooked on all the time

 

[Foxi4]

TL;DR - not on x86, 3rd parties won't dev for it/"good games" for it, because the "world" is going x86/PC.
Got it

Or devs can just use engines and middleware that target ARM...because they already do that if they use a COTS solution, unless they've written their own engines.

Again...this isn't a Zero Sum Game and I really don't understand why you are just like "NO ONE WILL DEVELOP FOR THIS" because everyone didn't drop what they were *already doing* to do so. Did you see a lot of this happen with the PS4 Platform bump? Sony has "clearly" 'opted out/punted' with the PS4...because they can. MS is basically getting "Ports" from the PC if you will, and everyone complains about "ports"...unless it is *something they want ported*...so, uhhh "Thinner! 4K Movies! More Convergence! Triangles coming soon!". And those "ports" are savaged by them PC Boyz all day long. It never ends

Maybe you are right, lol, and I'm just tired of this shit, it has been happening in earnest since the 80s and all of this "power" folks are pining for is simply to make prettier versions of Quake, Tomb Raider and Madden...over and over and over again. If that's all we are really doing/going for anyway, there is no harm and a market for Nintendo to make prettier versions of their crap over and over again too

You're a bit of an absolutist, aren't you? I never said that nobody would develop for the Switch, I said that it would be more attractive and easier to develop for. If three out of four of your target platforms are x86 machines, guess which builds get the most attention? Developers absolutely can use ARM middleware, except for instances when it doesn't exist, which in the world of AAA games is "most times". When is the last time you saw an AAA multiplatform home console video game with an ARM build? I can't recall a single instance, bar a couple of ports for the Shield line of systems. If you can't see that this puts Nintendo at a disadvantage because large sections of the low-level nitty-gritty libraries, engines etc. will have to be recoded for ARM, I don't know what to tell you man.If the Switch sells well and the numbers justify that extra effort then developers will certainly go through the trouble of doing that, but it's a drawback right out of the gate. This isn't some kind of magical prophecy from a crystal ball, it's how the cookie crumbles. There's a reason why Skyrim is coming out late for the Switch rather than at launch, and you can be facetious about this if you like, but we've seen it before. Sony didn't "punt out" of anything with the PS4, quite the opposite - they switched architectures to save themselves from the sea of crap they dunked their heads into with the CELL that nobody wanted to develop for. It took years for games on the PS3 to catch up to the much more familiar 360 because everyone knew how to use the main PPC core, but nobody knew what to do with the SPE's besides maybe cry over them. As for Microsoft, they're "getting PC ports" about as often as PC is getting console ports, you can tell by the optimization issues this gen that the core target is still consoles most times.

It seems to me that you're the one dissatisfied with the direction gaming is heading. I can empathise, but I also have to stress that there are only so many "you's", and judging by sales of the Wii U in comparison to its competition, a whole lot more of mainstream gamers. Again, I don't have an issue with Nintendo games, I love'em. I also don't have a problem with the gimmicky, unorthodox way they design hardware - it's charming and makes their systems stand out. That being said, I would like to live to see the day when a gamer could pick up a Nintendo system and have both mainstream, or as you call them,
"Hurr durr 4k port le triangles" games *and* Nintendo games, because we both know it can be done if Nintendo designed their hardware mindful of gaming trends, and not with just innovation in mind.

As for the possible "harm", the harm is that if Nintendo's home consoles keep failing, they will simply stop making them, and I don't want that. There's only so many flops they can take before they fold, so you want them to have the best chances out of the gate as far as third-party support is concerned. We know where "Nintendo games and little else" road goes - it leads to the Wii U.

 

[Touko White]

Meh. I feel everyone's just jumping on a hype train with the Switch, and that they're not seeing the fact Nintendo won't bother attempting to get hardcore gamers and teenagers back, hardware DOES matter and it will be outdated and irrelevant once the new PlayStation and Xbox systems are out.

 

[leonmagnus99]

heya guys, what exactly needs to be charged with the Switch console ?

the joy cons also need to be charged yes? and what about the controller thingie the flat one ,where you plug the joy cons onto, does that flat controller need to be charged as well ?

and about the Dock of the console, when you place the switch screen onto that dock, it will charge it (without attaching any usb on it yes? it will use the AC power and the dock to charge the switch portable screen correct?)

and finally, we can also charge the screen while it is outside of the dock ,meaning i can use the USB-C charger of my phone to charge the Switch screen yep?

 

[sarkwalvein]

heya guys, what exactly needs to be charged with the Switch console ?

the joy cons also need to be charged yes? and what about the controller thingie the flat one ,where you plug the joy cons onto, does that flat controller need to be charged as well ?

and about the Dock of the console, when you place the switch screen onto that dock, it will charge it (without attaching any usb on it yes? it will use the AC power and the dock to charge the switch portable screen correct?)

and finally, we can also charge the screen while it is outside of the dock ,meaning i can use the USB-C charger of my phone to charge the Switch screen yep?

As far as I know or have read somewhere:

The joycons need to be charged, they get charged automatically when you plug them into the console. The charge lasts some 20 hours.

The flat thing is called Joycon Grip and it comes in two versions, normal and charging grip. The one included when you buy the console is the normal one.
Neither needs to be charged, but the "charging" grip version can be connected with cable to charge your joycons.

The dock charges the console via USB-C. The system includes a USB-C power adapter already that you plug into the dock. (the dock is powered via USB-C and it powers the console via USB-C also)

If you so want you can plug the USB-C power adapter directly to the console instead of using the dock to charge it. I suppose it works with any USB-C power adapter not just the one included.

 

[MrJason005]

I'll just be honest here:

They are bullshitting us again, and after, what, 3-5 years of Wii U misery and pain, including the occasional booms when a hyped up title would release (Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros etc.), they still haven't realized that just if a console has games from Nintendo, that isn't enough for it to be a success (Not in the eyes of your die-hard Nintendo fan, neither the average madden customer, but the economics and reputation).
Why did Nintendo's stock drop? Why do you see people pissing all over it because they thought Nintendo could finally compete in today's market? Why do people say that it is overpriced (probably to sell it at a profit because they know they are screwed but still want to sell this thing)? I even read somewhere that the Switch is trying to compete with iPads. This is a joke, to put it bluntly. When you have to pay 30 pounds to buy Angry Birds for 3DS, they are simply morons who can't keep up with the times.

Don't get me wrong, the games do look brilliant, but why wouldn't they? You have Nintendo as the MAIN games developer. Splatoon and Zelda look stunning, but guess what? I'm not going to buy it on launch. I'm just going to buy a used Wii U for dirt cheap when this thing drops and play everything for half the price, those games are available on both platforms either way. Maybe even hack it and play Gamecube games on the big tely.

So what if it has Skyrim? It's like they are telling us that they are competing with the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Wow, technology sure progresses, doesn't it?
The 3rd party support will probably just vanish after a while, like it did with the Wii U. We may get laggy 144p ports of Fallout4/COD/Whatever it is that is the big hit on the Switch, just for a quick laugh, and get back to normal business.

The only hope this has is as a 3DS Killer, which is very possible and if it does prove to be a good one, I may buy one. The docks cost 90$, don't forget. Why not buy a dockless switch if you never plan on using the overclocking and the HDMI hookup? There you go, Nintendo's new portable.

Turns out it IS a platform, as they said. The Nintendo NX wasn't a home console, it was a platform.

In the end, I'm not saying all this because I hate Nintendo. I love Nintendo, they make amazing stuff when they are motivated enough, but it just pisses me off when they take down any fan project that doesn't use ANY assets owned by Nintendo, when you can't post a youtube video with Nintendo in the tiny print or Mr-Copyright will kill you, and most importantly, when they think that things like the Nintendo Switch are a good idea.

 

[MasterJ360]

No actually.. it has a better lineup than Xbone and PS4. A hell of a lot better than the NGC and PS2, ungodly better than the NGC and PS1. And maybe if your generous, equal to SNES genesis.

B/c of breath of wild? its not enough to motivate me to get it when I can just pay $60 to play on the Wii U. They need bundles and more 3rd party line ups to get some of our attentions
Now they want to suck up even more money on their limited online network. I don't think we will see this console shine till next year thats a long wait with a $300 console on our lap

 

[VMM]

Just why didn't Nintendo make a New Super Mario Bros. for the Switch? A Nintendo console at launch needs a Mario title!

For me it would be better if they ported Super Mario Maker. It would be simpler to do than a new Mario and would sell like hotcakes

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

For me it would be better if they ported Super Mario Maker. It would be simpler to do than a new Mario and would sell like hotcakes

Don't care what Mario it'd be, just have one at launch!

 

[Deleted User]

I for one loved the wii but the wii U i did not get because to me all that thing was is a wii with a new controller but as for the switch tho from what i seen of it i like it and will be buying it when it comes out.

Just asking, but did you like the Wii U Gamepad? I haven't seen many people who like it on this site and I love the Gamepad. I thought it was great design.

 

[invaderyoyo]

You are right, consoles do drop in price. Accessories not so much, yesterday i saw a DS4 controller at the best offer i have seen so far for £40. But this was Tesco, much like Walmart, with very limited stocks and there just for showing off that they sell consoles and accessories too. The actual RRP is still the same as the release price and many shops are still selling at that price. The other issue, that people have talked about before, is that the $60 controller price is *already* a lot. It is not like it is even ok, so it is ok to bump the prices more.

The other thing is the nintendo is even more anal to cutting prices to accessories. You do not have to believe me, look at the charts, this is the price of the WiiU pro controller for all time. All it even went down to is £30 from £33 and it averaged £36. Same goes for the DS4.

The other enraging thing about it is not the price alone but the fact that it sets a precedent for the rest to follow in. If people are ok with £105 and £65 controllers then perhaps why not move to £120 and £75 next time around? Companies make money from attach rates not from accessories so much. At least, let people buy a good base, either as a bundle or with discounts when bought with a console.

View attachment 75328

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



No, they are not meant to only be hooked up to the TV. So what? Is it still not a console that *can* be hooked to a TV? Do you think this will make everybody in the world judge the price, power and software line up in a completely different light because it gives you the ability to play on the go? I do not think so. For all of you that this is a selling point, it is a must have. I agree. For the TV only people (and there are lots) there is a lot of tech here that does not help in the price factor or power. Of course it is not about me. It is about all of us. For some reason people think that being able to go mobile is magically a fantastic selling point for all. Wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



This is why i got the more expensive bundle of the WiiU that included the pro controller. Words to remind Nintendo about, "choice" and "bundle".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


It is £280 actually, i think it is €330 in Ireland?

I haven't seen any Wii U Pro controllers at retailers recently, but I have seen them at my local flea market.

Just last week I nabbed one, brand new, for 10 bucks. It was sealed in the box in everything. When stores can't get rid of stuff it ends up there...