←back to thread

781 points HelloUsername | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nerdjon ◴[] No.42725322[source]
Happy to see that Nintendo is treating the switch more like how they traditionally handled their mobile platforms instead of their consoles.

Iterating instead of throwing out everything with each new version. There is a part of me that is going to miss the, do weird shit and see what works, Nintendo that brought us some really fun ideas. But a stable Nintendo just being able to continue putting out great games has its advantages.

I am curious about the specs, but honestly don't care much. The only real issue the Switch had was being able to keep up with some of the games put on it with FPS but it still had beautiful games (like Tears of the Kingdom). So as long as it is actually a decent spec bump I am happy and have zero care to compare it to the other consoles (but I am sure people are going too and scream that it is "underpowered").

The biggest thing I am curious about, will it be OLED since that will be disappointing to go back to non OLED from the OLED Switch. And Price.

replies(14): >>42725406 #>>42725620 #>>42725623 #>>42726594 #>>42727079 #>>42727591 #>>42727785 #>>42728681 #>>42728750 #>>42729685 #>>42729885 #>>42731412 #>>42733275 #>>42837431 #
bargainbin ◴[] No.42727079[source]
They’ve got the weird shit covered still, apparently the joy cons in this gen can be used as mice.

Was heavily rumoured/leaked and this teaser video literally shows them gliding along a surface.

How Nintendo will leverage that functionality, who could honestly say, but that’s the genius of keeping a toy company mindset in an industry full of sports car company mindsets.

replies(6): >>42727232 #>>42727379 #>>42727779 #>>42727813 #>>42728517 #>>42728748 #
adamc ◴[] No.42727232[source]
That last sentence is worth an essay of its own. Everyone else keeps pumping resources into being photo-realistic blah-blah-blah without nearly enough attention to "is this fun"?
replies(10): >>42727589 #>>42727650 #>>42727886 #>>42728293 #>>42728326 #>>42731095 #>>42731853 #>>42732280 #>>42734314 #>>42734667 #
danudey ◴[] No.42727886[source]
I saw an interesting analysis years ago about whether or not the most powerful console 'won' in each generation (i.e. whether or not being the most powerful console of your generation leads to success).

Generally speaking, no, it doesn't actually affect things, and in several cases (e.g. the Game Boy, the Wii, and the Switch come to mind) the objectively 'worse' console (from a tech perspective) was more successful by a country mile.

replies(2): >>42728431 #>>42739593 #
basfo ◴[] No.42728431[source]
It's interesting how many people see the Switch as being in its own category rather than acknowledging it as the winner of this console generation (which I completely agree it is).

Most people think the “console” battle is between PlayStation and Xbox, and that PlayStation is the winner.

This is probably a big win for PlayStation’s marketing team.

replies(6): >>42728841 #>>42729192 #>>42729450 #>>42730455 #>>42732437 #>>42732584 #
mrandish ◴[] No.42732437[source]
> This is probably a big win for PlayStation’s marketing team.

I don't have any current Gen console (nor have I played one) but as a long-time tech market "interested observer" my understanding is that XBox had a bit less raw power last Gen and tried correcting this Gen and succeeded in having a bit more raw power than PS5. However, it apparently didn't matter to the market. So it seems to be another example like Betamax vs VHS, where the product with somewhat better technology didn't win because consumers found other factors more important. In modern game consoles, I assume those factors would be some mix of exclusive titles, compatibility with existing previous gen game libraries, marketing+brand perception and, more recently, the console's subscription game service.

It's interesting that Microsoft apparently didn't internalize this lesson, since Nintendo has been remained competitive for ~20 years by combining significantly weaker hardware with high-quality franchise games plus a clever differentiating factor (novel interaction (Wii) or portability (Switch). Of course, it would be wrong to conclude "CPU/GPU power doesn't matter" because it's more complex than comparing mips, flops, rops, etc. It also depends on how much, and how well, developers and game engines optimize for a platform's hardware.

Microsoft definitely learned their lesson about high-quality franchise games with their recent (and very costly) acquisition spree including Call of Duty. Although, to get anti-trust approval it can't be platform exclusive for at least a decade. I'm wondering if MSFT's claims that they're happy to be a games software company selling on all platforms may actually be true. If so, it may not bode well for the future of the XBox hardware business - which would be sad because more competition is generally better for consumers.

replies(2): >>42732817 #>>42733741 #
astrospective ◴[] No.42732817{5}[source]
Part of the issue is Xbox segmented the market with the less powerful Series S and put constraints on releases needing to have feature parity between the two, quite a few devs have had issues with. It delayed Baldur’s Gate 3 for months until MS waived off the split screen co-op. Seems bizarre to chase power at hard and then make it harder for your devs to develop to it.

https://www.techradar.com/gaming/is-the-xbox-series-s-holdin...

replies(1): >>42733112 #
1. mrandish ◴[] No.42733112{6}[source]
I agree that the XBox senior leadership has made a series of critical strategic mistakes going back over a decade which have nerfed the otherwise generally quite good hardware, software, game and online service execution. Just with XBox One the long string of gaffes and fatal errors was... impressive.

* Going all-in on bundling the Kinect, a very costly depth camera interface peripheral, with every XBox.

* Committing to making XBox an "all-in-one entertainment system" by building in an expensive HDMI input capability to enable being an electronic program guide, digital video recorder, Blu-ray disc player, streaming TV service and music service. The Kinect camera peripheral also had a built-in IR blaster to control all your other living room devices.

* Announcing pervasive DRM that would tie game discs to the user's account, prevent reselling or lending game discs.

* Aggressively pre-announcing no backward compatibility with previous XBox games. A senior XBox exec apparently told the media (on the record), "If you're backwards compatible, you're backward."

While the last two mistakes were walked back before the console even shipped, building in & bundling costly hardware couldn't be walked back. Nor could the significant investment in developing operating system and application software to support electronic program guide, IR control, video streaming and recording. These large hardware and software investments certainly came at the cost of investing as much in hardware and software to better render games, play games and support game development. You can kind of understand why MSFT thought each of these things would be good for MSFT strategically, but they were all tone deaf in terms of what their market wanted and fatal distractions from the main business of being a good game console.

I hope someday a definitive case study will be written giving insight into how otherwise smart, experienced executives can make so many catastrophic strategic errors over such a long period of time.