The Story of the Switch - A Year in Retrospect

pedro702 · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Like I said earlier, with the modern VEGA chips it's not hard to reach 1TFLOP without reaching any extraordinary thermal or power consumption issues, not to mention Pascal which was already available. A custom chip would've gone a long way in making the system more competitive on the console arena, but it is what it is - I'm only offering insight. If low-to-mid end laptops can do it these days, so can the Switch - 1 TFLOP of single precision compute really isn't that much when the high-end chips offer many times that.

did you even looked at GPD Win 2?

Its a mini laptop made for gaming and yet it cant even run pc games at decent fps, heck gta 5 on ultra low 720p no shadows and such runs under 30 fps, and that thing costs 900" or 650$ for backers, laptops have huge ass baterys, bigger than the switch itself.

just see this most powerful gaming portable computer running gta5 that looks worse than the ps3 version by far and the switch could run it better than the ps3..

dont tell me they are also putting the worst chips and components and charging 650 to backers, this thing will only release in may even.

Kioku · Mar 5, 2018

pedro702 said:
did you even looked at GPD Win 2?

Its a mini laptop made for gaming and yet it cant even run pc games at decent fps, heck gta 5 on ultra low 720p no shadows and such runs under 30 fps, and that thing costs 900" or 650$ for backers, laptops have huge ass baterys, bigger than the switch itself.

just see this most powerful gaming portable computer running gta5 that looks worse than the ps3 version by far and the switch could run it better than the ps3..

dont tell me they are also putting the worst chips and components and charging 650 to backers, this thing will only release in may even.

Using GTA V as a reference point on obviously inferior hardware is Moot. I'm sorry, the game brought my 4790k/980ti to its knees when it released.

pedro702 · Mar 5, 2018

Memoir said:
Using GTA V as a reference point on obviously inferior hardware is Moot. I'm sorry, the game brought my 4790k/980ti to its knees when it released.

all in all when it releases none backer will have to pay 900$ for "AAA" pc gaming on the go, the switch is a 300$ device its like comparing apples to oranges.

Kioku · Mar 5, 2018

pedro702 said:
all in all when it releases none backer will have to pay 900$ for "AAA" pc gaming on the go, the switch is a 300$ device its like comparing apples to oranges.

Well duh. Dedicated gaming system with portable option vs dedicated portable pc with gamepad.

pedro702 · Mar 5, 2018

Memoir said:
Well duh. Dedicated gaming system with portable option vs dedicated portable pc with gamepad.

yeah you can buy 3 switches for the release price lol, heck if nintendo had went this route and release a hybrid console for 600$ that would still be inferior to xb1 games it would have been a huge flop for sure.

Risingdawn · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Like I said earlier, with the modern VEGA chips it's not hard to reach 1TFLOP without reaching any extraordinary thermal or power consumption issues, not to mention Pascal which was already available. A custom chip would've gone a long way in making the system more competitive on the console arena, but it is what it is - I'm only offering insight. If low-to-mid end laptops can do it these days, so can the Switch - 1 TFLOP of single precision compute really isn't that much when the high-end chips offer many times that.

With the greatest possible respect, the vast majority of people who play on consoles wouldn't even know what a TFLOP is, and would care even less. And that goes double for handheld gamers.

It goes beyond power; things like local co-op, instant sleep/wake, portability, screen fidelity/size, weight, fan noise, 20 minute game times, versatility and a whole host more are just a few reasons why people are so enamoured with Switch.

As for which processor is more powerfull and what price it could have been negotiated too at the beginnng of a development cycle possibly many years previously to announcement is pure conjecture.

Heat, price, size, weight, manufacturing, development time, power consumption, profit. All those things would have been analysed and decided upon years before Switch was announced.

At the end of the day, truth is none of that even matters because there is no handheld console in competition with Switch of equivalent power, it's closest rivals are a generation behind and long abandoned by Sony.

Nobody cared how underpowered PSP was, or even Vita which was supposed to be a portable PS3 but couldn't even play Borderlands 2 at playable frame rates.

Switch runs at a tenth of the power consumption of a standard PS4, it runs off a battery and has a screen. The fact it can play on TV is a plus point but the selling point is obviously it's handheld nature.

Every single console can be battered for being underpowered when compared to something it's simply not trying to be, and always are by those occupying that 'other space'. PC bitch about consoles because they just don't get why you would want something of less power, now consoles do the same to handhelds. For exactly the same reasons.

Foxi4 · Mar 5, 2018

pedro702 said:
did you even looked at GPD Win 2?

Its a mini laptop made for gaming and yet it cant even run pc games at decent fps, heck gta 5 on ultra low 720p no shadows and such runs under 30 fps, and that thing costs 900" or 650$ for backers, laptops have huge ass baterys, bigger than the switch itself.

just see this most powerful gaming portable computer running gta5 that looks worse than the ps3 version by far and the switch could run it better than the ps3..

dont tell me they are also putting the worst chips and components and charging 650 to backers, this thing will only release in may even.

The GPD Win runs on a x-type ultra mobile chip cooled with a tiny cooler in a 3DS-sized case, the Switch has active cooling and can afford a higher TDP, compare apples to apples.

Risingdawn said:
With the greatest possible respect, the vast majority of people who play on consoles wouldn't even know what a TFLOP is, and would care even less. And that goes double for handheld gamers.

It goes beyond power; things like local co-op, instant sleep/wake, portability, screen fidelity/size, weight, fan noise, 20 minute game times, versatility and a whole host more are just a few reasons why people are so enamoured with Switch.

As for which processor is more powerfull and what price it could have been negotiated too at the beginnng of a development cycle possibly many years previously to announcement is pure conjecture.

Heat, price, size, weight, manufacturing, development time, power consumption, profit. All those things would have been analysed and decided upon years before Switch was announced.

At the end of the day, truth is none of that even matters because there is no handheld console in competition with Switch of equivalent power, it's closest rivals are a generation behind and long abandoned by Sony.

Nobody cared how underpowered PSP was, or even Vita which was supposed to be a portable PS3 but couldn't even play Borderlands 2 at playable frame rates.

Switch runs at a tenth of the power consumption of a standard PS4, it runs off a battery and has a screen. The fact it can play on TV is a plus point but the selling point is obviously it's handheld nature.

Every single console can be battered for being underpowered when compared to something it's simply not trying to be, and always are by those occupying that 'other space'. PC bitch about consoles because they just don't get why you would want something of less power, now consoles do the same to handhelds. For exactly the same reasons.

I'm talking from an analytical point of view - these things matter for developers as they outline what can and can't be feasibly ported to a system. Look at Doom, for instance - the Switch uses a special "lower than low" preset and still often fails to reach stable 30 FPS, let alone 60, and Doom is a highly optimised arena shooter. Things like these matter and they are cause for concern for the future. That's not to say that the system is bad - it can still be its own thing and it clearly has an install base, I just don't see it as the bridge between handheld and hone consoles it was purported to be. Perhaps next generation, this is Nintendo's first attempt.

EDIT: I was thinking of the GPD 1, 2 indeed has active cooling, but it's so cramped that it's pitiful anyways, and it's still using an ultra mobile CPU, so it makes no difference.

pedro702 · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
The GPD Win runs on a x-type ultra mobile chip cooled with a tiny cooler in a 3DS-sized case, the Switch has active cooling and can afford a higher TDP, compare apples to apples.
I'm talking from an analytical point of view - these things matter for developers as they outline what can and can't be feasibly ported to a system. Look at Doom, for instance - the Switch uses a special "lower than low" preset and still often fails to reach stable 30 FPS, let alone 60, and Doom is a highly optimised arena shooter. Things like these matter and they are cause for concern for the future. That's not to say that the system is bad - it can still be its own thing and it clearly has an install base, I just don't see it as the bridge between handheld and hone consoles it was purported to be. Perhaps next generation, this is Nintendo's first attempt.

im talking about gpd 2 not 1 it has a fan and an active colling system 2 it will be released in may.

also it will cost 900$ you can see it running doom on lowest settings and 507p resolution when you are in fights it drops to 33 or 34 fps so i dont see how this good 900$ device is that much better than the switch tbh.

Risingdawn · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
The GPD Win runs on a passively cooled x-type ultra mobile chip, the Switch has active cooling and can afford a higher TDP, compare apples to apples.
I'm talking from an analytical point of view - these things matter for developers as they outline what can and can't be feasibly ported to a system. Look at Doom, for instance - the Switch uses a special "lower than low" preset and still often fails to reach stable 30 FPS, let alone 60, and Doom is a highly optimised arena shooter. Things like these matter and they are cause for concern for the future. That's not to say that the system is bad - it can still be its own thing and it clearly has an install base, I just don't see it as the bridge between handheld and hone consoles it was purported to be. Perhaps next generation, this is Nintendo's first attempt.

I do find it strange that it wasn't simply marketed as a handheld in the first place, I would guess it has more to do with trying to maintain the financial viability of 3DS as long as possible.

Or probably just to create the new 'hybrid' arena, after all why compete and share a market space when you can create and own one; something Nintendo have successfully done in the past.

One thing is for certain, long term success of Switch is down to the franchises like Pokemon, Smash, Zelda, Metroid, Fire-emblem. Let's not forget the target market is Japan first and foremost; portability and Pokemon, not power.

aofelix · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Like I said earlier, with the modern VEGA chips it's not hard to reach 1TFLOP without reaching any extraordinary thermal or power consumption issues, not to mention Pascal which was already available. A custom chip would've gone a long way in making the system more competitive on the console arena, but it is what it is - I'm only offering insight. If low-to-mid end laptops can do it these days, so can the Switch - 1 TFLOP of single precision compute really isn't that much when the high-end chips offer many times that.

Custom chip = way more money

The switch is already expensive for most people.

Of course Nintendo could do a 1080p screen, they could make it OLED, they could have a custom chip off of pascal but all of these will result in a much more expensive device .. possibly around ipad levels of money which is just stupid.

Now if you were to talk about the Switch's lack of viable voice chat, the switch's lack of bluetooth freaking headphones etc. then I'd really accept your critique as these are IMO design flaws with possibly very little cost added to the device.

Its weird because in many regards I do agree with you. I feel the Switch was maybe released one year too early. I'm sure if they'd released it this year, there would have been some leeway to get a cheapish pascal or vega chip and then porting games over from third parties would have been WAY easier. Things like Kingdom Hearts 3, FF15 would have been possible. I think however given how badly the Wii U was doing, Nintendo decided to sacrifice power for timing to try and control the market a bit better... and it worked out for them.

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

pedro702 said:
im talking about gpd 2 not 1 it has a fan and an active colling system 2 it will be released in may.

also it will cost 900$ you can see it running doom on lowest settings and 507p resolution when you are in fights it drops to 33 or 34 fps so i dont see how this good 900$ device is that much better than the switch tbh.

Thank you. Honestly the GPDWin2 is just horrible.

I WISH someone would just make a nice gaming tablet with some touch interface and bluetooth to connect a controller. I'd settle for a 720p screen if it meant great battery life too.

Foxi4 · Mar 5, 2018

Of course it costs more money, Nintendo is a multibillion company, I don't know why you people are worried about their bottom line. They've got more money than sense and can afford custom dies, unlike GPD which relies on Kickstarter money and has to use off-the-shelf components since there's no chance they could order millions, or even thousands of custom CPU's. Truth of the matter is that NVidia had a bunch of X1's since basically nothing uses them and their Shield business is not exactly a household name and only appeals to enthusiasts, so chances are that they off-loaded the silicon onto Nintendo with a slight rebrand at a discount price, which is perfectly fine, but we don't have to pretend that it's the best value for money scenario for end-users. Custom silicon would've been better, we can at the very least agree that this is the case.

aofelix · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Of course it costs more money, Nintendo is a multibillion company, I don't know why you people are worried about their bottom line. They've got more money than sense and can afford custom dies, unlike GPD which relies on Kickstarter money and has to use off-the-shelf components since there's no chance they could order millions, or even thousands of custom CPU's. Truth of the matter is that NVidia had a bunch of X1's since basically nothing uses them and their Shield business is nit exactly a household name and only appeals to enthusiasts, so chances are that they off-loaded the silicon onto Nintendo with a slight rebrand at a discount price, which is perfectly fine, but we don't have to pretend that it's the best value for money scenario for end-users. Custom silicon would've been better, we can at the very least agree that this is the case.

Nintendo can afford it but I don't think the general population can or would have, given how badly the Wii U did.

And selling a console at a loss, as proven by the PS3, is a risky proposition.

Foxi4 · Mar 5, 2018

aofelix said:
Nintendo can afford it but I don't think the general population can or would have, given how badly the Wii U did.

And selling a console at a loss, as proven by the PS3, is a risky proposition.

Business is risky by definition. They wouldn't have to sell the console at a loss at all, it wouldn't take much to make the Switch a more serviceable platform.

aofelix · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Business is risky by definition. They wouldn't have to sell the console at a loss at all, it wouldn't take much to make the Switch a more serviceable platform.

Sorry but can't help but disagree. Why would you repeat the mistakes of other competitors? The PS3 selling at a loss pretty much crippled Sony at one point. Its a stupid risk to take. Sony struggle off the back of the PS2, one of the most successful consoles ever.

Nintendo are proven right but how well the Switch has sold. In your ideal world, they either sell the console at far smaller profit margins or even lose money. Thats just plain silly given how badly the Wii U sold.

godreborn · Mar 5, 2018

I want a switch; I need a switch. I'll be collecting at the conclusion of this thread for anyone willing to donate to the "godreborn switch relief fund."

LysergCooltyp · Mar 5, 2018

I'm still sceptical. While the AAA titles released '17 certainly are interesting what I'm waiting for are Fire Emblem, Bayontta 3, SMT V and Dragon Quest XI. As long as 2 of them are out before the 4th Quarter of '18 I will be satisfied. I got a 2.3 console waiting to be used and if it doesn't seem like there will be anything worthwile in a reasonable timeframe I might just sell it off to someone that wants to hack his switch and re-buy the console at a later time when prices drop.

Foxi4 · Mar 5, 2018

aofelix said:
Sorry but can't help but disagree. Why would you repeat the mistakes of other competitors? The PS3 selling at a loss pretty much crippled Sony at one point. Its a stupid risk to take. Sony struggle off the back of the PS2, one of the most successful consoles ever.

Nintendo are proven right but how well the Switch has sold. In your ideal world, they either sell the console at far smaller profit margins or even lose money. Thats just plain silly given how badly the Wii U sold.

You're right, the real world performance does prove a point - my point. AAA titles are still flying right over it 99% of the time despite a massive install base and tremendous sales. I'm thinking about the customer, what I care about is whether customers are getting good value for money, but you can continue worrying about Nintendo's profit margin. I would happily pay $50 extra to get double the performance, in fact, I'd pay $100 on top of the asking price if it meant that the Switch would be competitive and fulfilled its promise of AAA gaming on a portable.

pedro702 · Mar 5, 2018

Foxi4 said:
You're right, the real world performance does prove a point - my point. AAA titles are still flying right over it 99% of the time despite a massive install base and tremendous sales. I'm thinking about the customer, what I care about is whether customers are getting good value for money, but you can continue worrying about Nintendo's profit margin. I would happily pay $50 extra to get double the performance, in fact, I'd pay $100 on top of the asking price if it meant that the Switch would be competitive and fulfilled its promise of AAA gaming on a portable.

you would but the rest of the world might not, also 50$ for double the performance? are you serious? lol
People already complain its too much already and think nintendo should have a pricedrop because ps4s were at 300$ when switch came out and people said switch graphics are worse, totaly desragarding the point its portable.

Also you seem to forget something while sony had come out of the ps2 with 150+ millions sold, and psp 70 million, they had their pokets filled with that and movie studios, computers, eletronics and such.

Nintendo came out of the wiiu with a big loss and wasnt good to take even more risks since their last console was a huge flop.

People seem to forget nintendo isnt an huge corporation its just nintendo games and ips, while sony and microsoft have all sorts of diferents busninsess from computer to eletronics and even movie studios that make billions for them, so if gaming division is at a loss they can cover themselves with their other departments , nintendo is just games and mershandising of their own ips wich is licensed to manufactors, so if their gaming departement is at a loss the entire company is at risk.

Foxi4 · Mar 5, 2018

pedro702 said:
you would but the rest of the world might not, also 50$ for double the performance? are you serious? lol
People already complain its too much already and think nintendo should have a pricedrop because ps4s were at 300$ when switch came out and people said switch graphics are worse, totaly desragarding the point its portable.

Also you seem to forget something while sony had come out of the ps2 with 150+ millions sold, and psp 70 million, they had their pokets filled with that and movie studios, computers, eletronics and such.

Nintendo came out of the wiiu with a big loss and wasnt good to take even more risks since their last console was a huge flop.

People seem to forget nintendo isnt an huge corporation its just nintendo games and ips, while sony and microsoft have all sorts of diferents busninsess from computer to eletronics and even movie studios that make billions for them, so if gaming division is at a loss they can cover themselves with their other departments , nintendo is just games and mershandising of their own ips wich is licensed to manufactors, so if their gaming departement is at a loss the entire company is at risk.

Nintendo is absolutely huge and does have various side businesses, although they primarily operate in Japan. I quite happily dropped my wallet down for a PS4 Pro and I would do it again in a heartbeat if I could have a baseline PS4-level experience on the go. People would complain about the price even if it was a $100, you're on the Internet, complaints don't translate into purchase decisions, which is well illustrated by the Switch itself. As it stands, it's a mere $100 more than a PS4 or an XB1 *and* it's portable, a mere $50 here or there makes absolutely no difference given the fact that you'll be using the system for 5+ years until something new comes along. Customers are happily buying the Switch despite the limited software selection, I'd trade price point for better software and more robust capabilities, and I know that most gamers would. Frankly, the Switch could cost a billion dollars and people would still buy it if it had Pokemon on it, so this is a conversation without merit, we don't live in hypothetical land. What we do have is the real life performance which could've been better, not that it hindered sales much. I don't understand the outrage my comment has caused, the current performance does cast a shadow on the future of the console, there's no doubt about it. The Wii U experiment showed us that even if Nintendo works double time on exclusives, they alone are not enough to propel the hardware - you need third party support, and that's just easier to garner when your platform doesn't require excessive levels of effort in order to run modern software. It was a simple observation, no need to get all bent out of shape about it, you guys can disagree if you want to.

Xzi · Mar 6, 2018

Foxi4 said:
Again, if the Switch is supposed to bridge the gap between home consoles and handhelds, which is the core of its design, it needs the brawn to pull it off. It can simultaneously be the best handheld console of all time and have a lacking spec in comparison to its full-scale brethren, both statements can be true simultaneously.

Yeah, but we're all aware of what that gap might mean to Sony or MS vs what it might mean to Nintendo. These are the guys that would've been fine riding out the generation with WiiU if it had sold better. Switch is at least a bit stronger than that home console, and in a completely portable form factor. In their mind they bridged the gap, and so far the market is agreeing.

Well-Known Member

猫。子猫です！

Well-Known Member

猫。子猫です！

Well-Known Member

Tempallica

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Tempallica

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Welcome to the Machine

I don't know why the microwave burns

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Time to fly, 621

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum