Do you think the Nintendo switch will fail or be successful?

[kamikazekeeg]

It was both Nintendo's fault and hater's faults, IMO.

Nintendo massively failed at marketing the system. They failed to court third-parties. And they never gave it a price drop, which is almost unheard of with consoles.

But at the same time, yeah, the hate was strong for Nintendo this generation. I saw soooo many people hating on it that never even picked up a Wii U Pad to experience how cool it actually was.

You can't blame people for not picking it up, it didn't have a very great selection of games, and Nintendo earned a lot of ill will for their backwards handling of Youtube.  Again, haters weren't a factor to any serious degree, it was nearly all on Nintendo for messing up, of which they've basically admitted as much.

[DreamsDied13101]

It was the same thing that happened to Dreamcast. First console to robustly support online gaming, innovative games, cool features with VMU / innovative controllers for special games (maracas, guns) / special downloadable additions to games.  Yet PS2 comes on the scene and dominates with a Playstation 1 upgrade with a DVD player. I can bet that 99% of users never took the system online.

It really is just a preference though. The majority of gamers will pick another iteration of COD over an innovative new game.

I don't believe Wii U failed to market itself. Nintendo failed to account for a market that no longer desires their gaming experiences. When speaking with average gamers (not us who go on sites because our collections are counted in the hundreds and thousands of titles) they are thrilled with the experiences provided on their cell phones, XB1/PS4, and computers. They enjoy free games to kill time, a Friday night FPS match, and streaming Netflix on their console. They are not looking for a unique FPS like Splatoon, or a simplistic yet engagingly deep experience like Smash Bros, or a bizarre puzzle game that stars a mushroom headed character like Captain Toad Treasure Tracker.

The library for the Wii U, although very small, is some of the most innovative games that have graced consoles in the past 10 years. Dare I say in the past 40.

[burningdoom]

^ The Nintendo games are very good, no doubt. But that's it. And that's the problem.

[telly]

Yet PS2 comes on the scene and dominates with a Playstation 1 upgrade with a DVD player. I can bet that 99% of users never took the system online.

I really have to disagree here; I think this is a huge misappropriation of the PS2. I could make the same argument that the Wii U is just a Wii upgrade with a Gamepad. And I would argue that the Wii U has its fair share of un-innovative or "rehashed" games as well. New Super Mario Bros. U, Mario Tennis US, Mario Party 10, Paper Mario Color Splash immediately come to mind, and there are certainly others.

And though the PS2 was not overly known for online games, it actually did have at least a decent amount of online support. Some of the popular games that I know of were Final Fantasy XI, Metal Gear Online, SOCOM, Star Wars Battlefront II, etc.

i just think it's not true that the majority of "gamers" play on the Wii U, and the average gamers who "no longer desire their gaming experiences" (whatever that means), only play on the PS4 or Xbox One. That seems like a very broad and bold statement that's pretty hard to defend.

[kamikazekeeg]

Yeah no kidding.  SOCOM was a big online game for me, I played FFXI for abit, I think I played Battlefront 2 on PC, but I did play Battlefield Modern Combat on the PS2.  Hell, the Final Fantasy XI PS2 servers lasted till 2016.  The console was discontinued in 2013.  There were the Resident Evil Outbreak games.  I know there were a few other good ones too.  I'm pretty sure I remember the Dreamcast had a number of other issues to overcome, but I haven't really delved into the Dreamcast enough to know for sure with that.

The Wii worked because it had a crap ton of games, no matter the quality, so it appealed to a casual market, the market that actually sells systems.  It was unique and had a ton of games.  The Wii U was unique to people that truly understood it, but Nintendo failed to justify its unique feature.  People thought it was a Wii attachment, as the terrible Wii U name didn't help.  The marketing for the system wasn't great (People have said they think the Switch has done more to market itself just in the lead up to the launch than the Wii U got in its entire lifespan).  There aren't many unique games for the system either.  Of the very small library of truly good games for it, I'd probably not be able to pull out ten that I would say are "innovative or unique".  The console simply did not have enough games to draw more people in.  Simple as that.  Even when it did get multi-platform games, the Wii U was rarely the better version and often was not as good as the other versions.

[telly]

The Wii worked because it had a crap ton of games, no matter the quality, so it appealed to a casual market, the market that actually sells systems.  It was unique and had a ton of games.  The Wii U was unique to people that truly understood it, but Nintendo failed to justify its unique feature.  People thought it was a Wii attachment, as the terrible Wii U name didn't help.  The marketing for the system wasn't great (People have said they think the Switch has done more to market itself just in the lead up to the launch than the Wii U got in its entire lifespan).  There aren't many unique games for the system either.  Of the very small library of truly good games for it, I'd probably not be able to pull out ten that I would say are "innovative or unique".  The console simply did not have enough games to draw more people in.  Simple as that.  Even when it did get multi-platform games, the Wii U was rarely the better version and often was not as good as the other versions.

And the vast majority of the multiplatform games on the Wii U were from the PS3/Xbox 360 era to begin with. Once the PS4/Xbox One games hit the shelves, the third party support all but dried up, because the Wii U was simply not powerful enough. That's just flat out failing to market the Wii U competitively, totally separate from what games are on the console.

[dreama1]

The Wii worked because it had a crap ton of games, no matter the quality, so it appealed to a casual market, the market that actually sells systems.  It was unique and had a ton of games.  The Wii U was unique to people that truly understood it, but Nintendo failed to justify its unique feature.  People thought it was a Wii attachment, as the terrible Wii U name didn't help.  The marketing for the system wasn't great (People have said they think the Switch has done more to market itself just in the lead up to the launch than the Wii U got in its entire lifespan).  There aren't many unique games for the system either.  Of the very small library of truly good games for it, I'd probably not be able to pull out ten that I would say are "innovative or unique".  The console simply did not have enough games to draw more people in.  Simple as that.  Even when it did get multi-platform games, the Wii U was rarely the better version and often was not as good as the other versions.

And the vast majority of the multiplatform games on the Wii U were from the PS3/Xbox 360 era to begin with. Once the PS4/Xbox One games hit the shelves, the third party support all but dried up, because the Wii U was simply not powerful enough. That's just flat out failing to market the Wii U competitively, totally separate from what games are on the console.

The situation is more awkward now. The switch is technically a 9th generation console, and the first. The gap might be even larger than 2-3 years before we see anything new from Sony or Microsoft in the realms of a new console.
Nintendo can't float around in a void forever like they're doing as much as anyone would like that. Quality 1st party games if anything was learned from the Wii U was it was not enough. In fact it wasn't particularly enough with the N64, or gamecube. And the situation is much more ugly in the market than it was in those days.

[kamikazekeeg]

The Wii worked because it had a crap ton of games, no matter the quality, so it appealed to a casual market, the market that actually sells systems.  It was unique and had a ton of games.  The Wii U was unique to people that truly understood it, but Nintendo failed to justify its unique feature.  People thought it was a Wii attachment, as the terrible Wii U name didn't help.  The marketing for the system wasn't great (People have said they think the Switch has done more to market itself just in the lead up to the launch than the Wii U got in its entire lifespan).  There aren't many unique games for the system either.  Of the very small library of truly good games for it, I'd probably not be able to pull out ten that I would say are "innovative or unique".  The console simply did not have enough games to draw more people in.  Simple as that.  Even when it did get multi-platform games, the Wii U was rarely the better version and often was not as good as the other versions.

And the vast majority of the multiplatform games on the Wii U were from the PS3/Xbox 360 era to begin with. Once the PS4/Xbox One games hit the shelves, the third party support all but dried up, because the Wii U was simply not powerful enough. That's just flat out failing to market the Wii U competitively, totally separate from what games are on the console.

The situation is more awkward now. The switch is technically a 9th generation console, and the first. The gap might be even larger than 2-3 years before we see anything new from Sony or Microsoft in the realms of a new console.
Nintendo can't float around in a void forever like they're doing as much as anyone would like that. Quality 1st party games if anything was learned from the Wii U was it was not enough. In fact it wasn't particularly enough with the N64, or gamecube. And the situation is much more ugly in the market than it was in those days.

Which is why I think by then, that the Switch will also have its 3DS library merging, giving it a lot more games.  It won't ever be able to compete power wise to a PS5 or whatever thing Xbox does if they aren't dead by then, but it would be the only solid portable experience (There's no way Sony does another handheld), while offering a reasonable at home experience too.

[telly]

My only issue with that is I don't know if I would like the switch as a pure handheld. I haven't used it, but I imagine it would be bulky and cumbersome, and the 3 hour battery life doesn't help either. Anyone have experience with it as a handheld so far?

[DreamsDied13101]

My only issue with that is I don't know if I would like the switch as a pure handheld. I haven't used it, but I imagine it would be bulky and cumbersome, and the 3 hour battery life doesn't help either. Anyone have experience with it as a handheld so far?

It depends on how you use a handheld. The Switch would need to be carried in a purse (ahem... Case). The 3ds barely fits in pockets still, but the Switch is about the size of a Wii U gamepad without the bulk. I would take it on a business trip, but it seems bulky to take on a trip to the doctor's office waiting room. Although I have been known to take my Game Gear with me and I get a lot of fun stares.

[lordsofskulls]

Honestly I feel like the "Revisioned" version of Switch.  Is going to be the real success.

I feel like Nintendo is going to do with Switch something similar to what happened with Gameboy/DS (DS/Dsi/3ds/3DS XL/ 3DSXL NEW)

Because the cost of the console is alot lower.  This allow Nintendo every 3-5 years bring out new Console.

I think Switch will succeed.  But time will tell.  The more popular console usually gets more exclusives. Basically if Nintendo can get everyone that been making games for their 3DS/DS games to make for Switch.  We be Golden. + Get people also make for more powerful console.

My big question is... if Nintendo sees Switch as the NEW 3DS.... or if their something else waiting for us.

Cause i am looking forward to "New Generation Handheld" that not a phone.  Unless the Phone is the Gaming Console. (Meaning i can TXT/APPs/Browse Internet/Take Videos and Pictures) and have small place to insert 3DS size cartridges, if not smaller.  Tipping the phone sideways and have size switch controllers wirelessly connected to the phone.  With stand case attachment.

Which in theory is basically phone with a Emulator App + controller that hooks up thru blutooth.  But i want more of Gaming Console than a phone.

In Truth.  I want a TRUE Portable Home Handheld Console.  With 10 Hours of Battery Life.  Samsung Note Size Screen.  That Connects on the go as 720p and at home 4k Resolution.  With new Mobile Speed of 5G (50 mybites) with 100% Coverage anywere in United States even in middle of Woods.  (2025 *fingers crossed)