[Bloomberg] Nintendo Plans to Boost Switch Output to Meet Resilient Demand
- Thread starter brutaka3
- Replies 337
- Views 24,522
- Start date
- Industry News
S.T.E.M. toys?
nothing really, but it also wasn't something the console was built around. outside of the IR camera, maybe. but if it wasn't for Ring Fit, I feel that would be ditched for the successor
The point is Nintendo will include new ways to play no matter what. Motion controls, touch pads, stem toys, 3d screen, asynchronous gameplay were all something new and different. They will continue that.
I don't doubt that, but to hinge the whole system on the gimmick without prior success? I don't see that happening. as I said it only happened once (actually twice, with the Wii since motion control hasn't taken off yet). anything Nintendo will do will have to be based around the flexibility of tablet and joycons
None of their systems were hinged around gimmicks. That's nothing more than internet dweller talk. You speak like that because Wii and DS expanded audience games exploded in popularity. WiiSports, Wii fit, Nintendogs, and Brainage saw far bigger success than the games on 3DS, WiiU, and Switch. If you think Nintendo doesn't want to repeat those success stories than you are kidding yourself. You guys live in a dream world of Nintendo viewing Wii as something they possibly regret. Then use WiiU as proof. Wii success is something they want to repeat. WiiU is what happens when support is poor, not when gimmicks fail. Switch exist the way it does to continue attempting WiiSports like games (expanded audience) while safely supporting the platform with the traditional titles (Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, etc.). Switch games offer the same gimmicky options as Wii/DS games. Another Wii Sports like hit with everything else Nintendo has on a single platform would be extraordinary. That's what they are aiming for, Switch needed a pandemic to reach the heights it did, Wii/DS did it organically.
you missed my point by a country mile. I unironically love my wii and wii u, so miss me with that dream world bullshit
the idea of Nintendo system built around gimmicks was one that largely started with the DS, though you can argue it happened sooner than that. you couldn't get away from the two screens, but it was successful, so they continued it. the 3D in the 3DS was heavily pushed, Nintendo even had to find a way to increase performance to support the 3D. but that was a bust and they stuck with it in diminished fashion until the 2DS. there were rumors that you couldn't actually turn off the 3D rendering aspect early on but I don't think that was ever substantiated. the Wii got popular around the motion controls and most of the popular games leveraged that. Wii U was a mess of strange decisions, but I don't think the tablet was one of them, despite being an expensive aspect of the system. the strangeness of the hardware design (lack of power), IMO, prevented the tablet from being used properly. part of the reason why we couldn't get two gamepads in one game.
the Switch is a convergence of the gimmicks what worked: motion controls, off tv play, and a bunch of things folks would aren't aren't "gimmicks" because they were "good from the start". this just follows the trend they been doing since they jumped into gaming. right now, there's no new way to play that has potential to take off that we know of. what is the next motion controls? what could be the out-of-left-field dual screen setup? they could do VR, but they need to take extra consideration for that, and the market is looking weird right now. body tracking?
I didn't miss your point at all, you stated yet again Wii and DS were built around their gimmicks and Nintendo pushed them. Well duh Nintendo supported them, just like Labo and Ring Fit Adventure. Those platforms had games that supported the new way to play such as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Nintendogs, Brainage, Labo, and Ring Fit Adventure as well as traditional games that included the new way to play seldomly or when it made sense. What Nintendo did with Wii and DS is no different from Switch. No its not possible to always come up with something ground breaking new like motion controls and touch screens but there will always be an attempt such as 3D screens, asymetric gameplay, and stem products. Who knows what Nintendo comes up with next but don't think for a second they won't try something new because playing the lottery atleast gives you a chance to win, while not playing at all gives you no chance.
PS: Off TV play isn't one of the Switch's gimmicks lol, that's called handheld play which is obviously from their handheld linage. Switch's gimmick of switching will likely remain just like motion controls and touch controls remained from Wii and DS. The pointer from Wii was removed, just like the dual screens from DS. Switch's camera that allows for Labo will likely carry on to the next platform like Wii to WiiU and DS to 3DS. I imagine the Switch's branding will continue with the next platform because Nintendo likes to work in pairs before changing the branding.
Do you mean they saw bigger success than their same franchise or just similar counterparts on Switch? Or do you mean bigger than any of their games on Switch?
I think Nintendo's current leadership is more reserved than Iwata era Nintendo, less quirky, and less desperate. Rightfully so as they have found their place in the market.
I expect the next platform will be highly iterative of the Switch with a new idea or two and I'm not expecting it for a while.
I expect the next platform will be highly iterative of the Switch with a new idea or two and I'm not expecting it for a while.
Yes bigger success than their counterparts on Switch.
you're essentially repeating my point. what even is this conversation then?
Actually this is fun, let's predict Nintendo's next gimmick. Come on guys, something out there has Nintendo thinking this might be cool to bring to gaming. Motion controls, touch screens, 3D screens, asymmetric gameplay, and stem products were all brought to gaming. Pointer controls, dual screens, VR, fitness equipment (balance board and ring fit), and remote control cars were brought as well. What else is out there? Folding screens still seem to fragile (my folding phone is recommended to keep the screen protector) and expensive. I had an idea that was basically WiiU on steroids lol. Asymmetric gameplay using the Nintendo Switch app to turn your phone into another screen to interact with your console. Any interesting screen tech out there? Is VR possible without glasses like 3d glasses less screen the 3DS had?
I feel like little has actually changed. While not super-major gimmicks, the things discussed here around LAB/Coding Garage and Ring Fit are just as quirky and experimental as before.
The Switch didn’t need a pandemic to outsell the Wii. It would of just took longer to reach. That’s it. The Switch was always going to outsell the Wii organically. Both in hardware & software. The DS is a different story though lol. It might not reach that even now. We will see. At least it will sell more software though.
In the end the bigger software sales is the more important metric anyway.
- Pronouns
- He
The specter for the WiiU is software droughts. Will there be software droughts for Switch 2? If there will be ample software, then it will be a success. Mr. Yamauchi once said that the NES [Famicom] is just a box that customers have to buy to get to Mario. Mr. Yamauchi is still correct. The Switch is just a box that wraps around your lifestyle that you buy to get to Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart, Monster Hunter, Witcher 3, Switch Sports, Pokemon, Bayonetta and more good games than I can count.
Just like the Wii was a box you bought to get to Wii Sports/Resort/Play/Fit, Twilight Princess, NSMB Wii, de Blob, FIFA/Madden, etc. Just like the PS4 is a box you buy to get to Devil May Cry 5, Bloodborne, Horizon, God of War, FFXV, FIFA/Madden, etc. etc.
If you want to look at the success or failure of the next Switch, look at the software pipeline. Is there any indication that Nintendo won't be able to support it and it will have N64/Cube/WiiU style software droughts? Is there any indication that the third parties that are already on board will abandon it like in the WiiU?
Always, always, always remember that software sells hardware. If the opposite were true, the GameCube would have sold more than the PS2.
Edit - looks like @Phenom08 beat me to the punch just up above: https://www.installbaseforum.com/fo...put-to-meet-resilient-demand.1325/post-132306. Much rep to you, sir!
Though the ability to use 3 different modes is itself a "gimmick" ultimately the Switch is a traditional console/portable at it's base.
1. Typical aspect ratio (16x9)
2. Typical resolutions (720p-1080p)
3. Typical inputs (dual sticks, D-pad, 4 face/shoulder buttons)
4. Expandable Storage
5. Internet Connectivity
The took a pair scissors and a chainsaw to the traditional design.
If they go contrarian and try to veer out of those parameters, essentially forcing people to cut against the grain further beyond reducing power/storage, it will only end poorly.
I think currently leadership understands this.
1. Typical aspect ratio (16x9)
2. Typical resolutions (720p-1080p)
3. Typical inputs (dual sticks, D-pad, 4 face/shoulder buttons)
4. Expandable Storage
5. Internet Connectivity
The took a pair scissors and a chainsaw to the traditional design.
If they go contrarian and try to veer out of those parameters, essentially forcing people to cut against the grain further beyond reducing power/storage, it will only end poorly.
I think currently leadership understands this.
- Pronouns
- he/they
I think the biggest change is certain genres, namely 3D action games, have a way bigger ceiling than say 15 years ago. Mario Odyssey and BOTW sell 10s of millions of copies like it was nothing, whereas back in 2010 Mario Galaxy 2 came bundled with a "how to play" video because Nintendo was worried it would be so much more cumbersome for the average consumer than say, NSMB. There is less so this idea that everything needs to be blue ocean-adjacent to sell well.
I'm not sure if I'd say they cut up the traditional design. People saying that Switch is a vita successor isn't u founded in the sense that handheld gaming has been converging to this point for a long while now. Ports of console games have always been a thing, since the Gameboy, I guess. And each new unit brought those ports (or remakes, I guess) closer and closer to parity. It really came to a head during the vita where you could have the same game on the vita and ps3. Hell, docked/undocked play was a psp thing, just without the performance boost. Switch's gimmick is everything coming to a head
You have a point. The New 3DS had a full suite of inputs and you could make your game exclusively for it but hardly anyone took advantage of that. Vita had the touchscreen and rear touchpad so you could also do it there but nothing beats physical buttons and full analog sticks.
Inputs were trending that way for portables and Switch finally made good on the idea. Sony was knocking on it with PS Vita TV and DualShock functions but never look landed on it.
Nintendo looked at that function and said, "That's dope. Let remove steps 2-8 and now we are talking."
Nintendo is move towards simplification so the next console would probably have a simpler dock and more ergonomic Joy Cons.
What the fuck? This was a thing? I'm embarrassed to say I had no idea it even existed...
Sony had it's best idea when no one was looking.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Unless Wii included standard control inputs in its package (it didn’t), it absolutely was hinged around one particular unique use case; games were understood to be designed around what came with it out of the box (which was absolutely not the "analog stick(s), diamond button layout and shoulder buttons" standard) and software makers were greatly encouraged to feature the device's selling point. We'll call this the "Wii method" of introducing a "new experience", full new input paradigm that takes away what already existed to be replaced with something new in its place.
This contrasts with what I'll call the "N64 method", where some "new experience" was added to the hardware package without subtraction (even if it's peculiar in some way like the N64 controller was considered in its time), or what I'll call the "Mario Paint method", where an accessory is added through software bundling but relies on the basic hardware to facilitate this "new experience" (this last method has been deployed on every Nintendo hardware released).
Switch managed to be something different, introducing a "new experience" that was a lot more about conforming to user lifestyle than anything to do with the actual games or inputs themselves, but most of its actual gameplay gimmicks have happened using the "Mario Paint method", which they've pursued very aggressively this cycle (Ring Fit, Labo, Switch Sports, Home Circuit).
Between DS and Wii, DS was the more successful on both a hardware and software sales front, and the reason is because, for the most part, it didn’t mess with input methods for game designers who wanted them, including Nintendo’s own. The touchscreen was there, but so was what game designers (and players) expected; it was pretty clearly an "N64 method" design. This is reflected by the fact that 3 of the 5 best-selling games on the DS used the extra screen as a place to offload HUD and little more than that (NSMB, MK8 and PD/P). And that's Nintendo's own first-party output for the device, no less.
So when it came time for Nintendo to release a follow-up to their best-selling hardware of all time? They played it safe and went the "N64 method" again, adding more of what was expected (3D analog directional controls) and an additive feature, leaving the rest of the design largely untouched. So unimportant was this new additive feature that certain hardware releases in the 3DS line removed it entirely. So as was mentioned earlier, people seem to falsely remember the Iwata years at Nintendo as far more experimental than the current years when... really, not that much has ultimately changed.
So, with these 3 methods defined, when you look at most of their hardware, the huge majority of it used the "N64 method" of additive (and largely optional) new hardware/input features and more performant internal hardware; some hardware was more aggressive on the new features than others (a 2nd display with touchscreen and 3D analog controls don't really seem equal to 4 extra buttons and stereoscopic 3D, y'know?). So "new experience" seem to trend more away from what we saw with Wii, but clearly people are fixated on that particular make-or-break business decision when discussing this topic, and it stands out as the hardware that made the most drastic changes to how games were to be played out of the box. But most of them were just added into what already worked.
So now, we're about a week away from hearing that Switch will have bested the DS lifetime software sales record and passed the Game Boy line and PS4 to become the #3 best-selling console line of all time, hot on DS' heels.
Based on their overall history, even their recent history, the likelihood for big changes is gone. Whatever "new experience" the next hardware introduces, it's not going to get in the way of the core Switch-like experience nor impede their pattern of more performant internal hardware. Just like the 3DS' stereoscopic 3D didn't get in the way of what was, at its core, a DS-like experience with more (common) control inputs and better AV performance, with the DS and its second touchscreen also not getting in the way of what was itself largely a GBA experience with more (common) control inputs and better AV performance.
So yeah, anyone arguing "more Switch, but better performance and an ignorable new feature" isn't a very Nintendo thing to do probably need to analyze the company from outside their marketing bubble and see them as they are.
This contrasts with what I'll call the "N64 method", where some "new experience" was added to the hardware package without subtraction (even if it's peculiar in some way like the N64 controller was considered in its time), or what I'll call the "Mario Paint method", where an accessory is added through software bundling but relies on the basic hardware to facilitate this "new experience" (this last method has been deployed on every Nintendo hardware released).
Switch managed to be something different, introducing a "new experience" that was a lot more about conforming to user lifestyle than anything to do with the actual games or inputs themselves, but most of its actual gameplay gimmicks have happened using the "Mario Paint method", which they've pursued very aggressively this cycle (Ring Fit, Labo, Switch Sports, Home Circuit).
Between DS and Wii, DS was the more successful on both a hardware and software sales front, and the reason is because, for the most part, it didn’t mess with input methods for game designers who wanted them, including Nintendo’s own. The touchscreen was there, but so was what game designers (and players) expected; it was pretty clearly an "N64 method" design. This is reflected by the fact that 3 of the 5 best-selling games on the DS used the extra screen as a place to offload HUD and little more than that (NSMB, MK8 and PD/P). And that's Nintendo's own first-party output for the device, no less.
So when it came time for Nintendo to release a follow-up to their best-selling hardware of all time? They played it safe and went the "N64 method" again, adding more of what was expected (3D analog directional controls) and an additive feature, leaving the rest of the design largely untouched. So unimportant was this new additive feature that certain hardware releases in the 3DS line removed it entirely. So as was mentioned earlier, people seem to falsely remember the Iwata years at Nintendo as far more experimental than the current years when... really, not that much has ultimately changed.
So, with these 3 methods defined, when you look at most of their hardware, the huge majority of it used the "N64 method" of additive (and largely optional) new hardware/input features and more performant internal hardware; some hardware was more aggressive on the new features than others (a 2nd display with touchscreen and 3D analog controls don't really seem equal to 4 extra buttons and stereoscopic 3D, y'know?). So "new experience" seem to trend more away from what we saw with Wii, but clearly people are fixated on that particular make-or-break business decision when discussing this topic, and it stands out as the hardware that made the most drastic changes to how games were to be played out of the box. But most of them were just added into what already worked.
So now, we're about a week away from hearing that Switch will have bested the DS lifetime software sales record and passed the Game Boy line and PS4 to become the #3 best-selling console line of all time, hot on DS' heels.
Based on their overall history, even their recent history, the likelihood for big changes is gone. Whatever "new experience" the next hardware introduces, it's not going to get in the way of the core Switch-like experience nor impede their pattern of more performant internal hardware. Just like the 3DS' stereoscopic 3D didn't get in the way of what was, at its core, a DS-like experience with more (common) control inputs and better AV performance, with the DS and its second touchscreen also not getting in the way of what was itself largely a GBA experience with more (common) control inputs and better AV performance.
So yeah, anyone arguing "more Switch, but better performance and an ignorable new feature" isn't a very Nintendo thing to do probably need to analyze the company from outside their marketing bubble and see them as they are.
I think you mean Sony had Sega’s best idea when no one was looking.
It would have yes beat Wii, Wii didn't have Nintendo's entire arsenal and was cut short. Give Wii everything DS got and it's a different story.
- Pronouns
- He
We also have to remember why the Wii has a different controller. It was meant to differentiate it from the PS360. Nintendo had just competed on PlayStation’s home turf of More Power and More Features and had the business failures of the N64 and GameCube to show for it.
The Wii-mote was an intentional business move (among other things) to show that they were going to go after new and lapsed gamers in addition to the “core.”
The Switch successor has no reason to make such a bold physical form statement to differentiate itself. Nintendo is already differentiated in that the mass market knows they have software for everyone on a device that can accommodate any schedule/lifestyle.
Now, Nintendo wants to get day and date AAA releases with PlayStation. They already have a controller concept that accommodates both button and motion controls. I don’t think we will see some zany new concept for control except as an added feature. The joy-cons are a synthesis of the Wii-mote and the classic video game controller.
Nintendo‘s next business goal is to expand their software offerings to include AAA software day and date, thus eliminating PlayStation’s perceived strengths. That, and continuing development of new entertainment experiences for the expanded audience. Look for an updated Switch Sports, another attempt at STEM software, an expanded Game Builder Garage (notice how that game destroyed the long-hyped Dreams by being simpler and cheaper), a truly new 2D Mario, a successor pet simulation toy and others.
We have certainly not said the same thing. You have insuitated multiple times Wii and DS were based around their gimmicks, which comes off as Switch was not. If I am wrong you can say I am wrong but you seem to be saying Wii and DS are based around gimmicks while Switch is not based around gimmicks? I am saying they all are based around gimmicks because that for Nintendo paid off dearly for them. Wii, DS, 3DS, WiiU, and Switch are all based around or accommadate their gimmicks. Some worked far better than others. They will continue this because its like playing the lottery, if you have something huge then it will be very profittable. WiiU and 3DS were poorly supported due to the split development and with the gimmicks not taking off the way Wii and DS did, it lead to a very poor generation. Switch fixes all of this because they have fused the software development, now Nintendo can properly support one platform while still shooting for the stars with gimmicks. Do you agree?
Great post! You are absolutely correct, this is why Wii gets the hate it gets. The Wii was made that way because it didn't want to be too complicated for the new audience it was meant to attract. That was clearly a mistake by Nintendo because it did alienate some developers, some games simply required more buttons to play than the Nunchuk and Wii remote offered. Although ill take the pointer controls back, that was something that should have stays, definitely the superior way of playing shooters!
I agree. That’s why even if the DS doesn’t get topped by the Switch in hardware sales, I will still consider it (Switch) Nintendo’s most successful single console (home or handheld) when it’s all said and done. At least until a successor comes and does even better lol.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Especially when you factor in DLC/Services as well as digital only games which aren't even factored into the software totals Nintendo reports.
While having Pokemon games on Wii probably would help, its position in the multimedia landscape is likely what cut it short. Between the Kinect, smartphones and the initial rise of Streaming platforms, the Wii became pretty outdated. The lack of media options felt like it had a considerable effect on the design of Wii U (and that failure since the Wii U ended up late to the party led to the lack of them on the Switch).
I don't think Kinect would have hurt the Wii as much if the development environment was compatible. the Wii was a flawed design in hindsight given the landscape changed to favor "do it all" and agnostic tools. no UE3 games and in-house engines needing rebuilds if they wanted Wii support.
feels like the wii started some bad practices that, unnecessarily, continued into their later systems. until finally being corrected by the Switch. or maybe you can lump all these into the "dev-unfriendly" category and extend it back longer
- Pronouns
- He
It was Nintendo's inability to develop software for the tail end of the Wii and DS, and the incoming WiiU and 3DS simultaneously that caused the Wii to fall off. The media effects aren't relevant. The Wii had Netflix and Youtube and that was solid for 2011.
Hence why Nintendo merged their software pipelines for the Switch. If you want to see if the Switch will fall off a cliff, look at the software development pipeline.
You have a point, the thing that I was always questioning is how they would go about it. That said, I don't think that the Switch as a concept has exhaust everything about itself even when moving into the next-gen... it's more a question of what else they might do because dropping a sucess like the Switch is simply not one of them.
Exactly. I didn’t even think about that portion of the software sales.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
There’s no denying what the Wii was intended to achieve with its drastic changes, so I’ll quote around those posts.
The point of understanding how Nintendo has implemented “new experiences” is because…
I’ve argued for some time now that the current “Switch model” of “new experience”, being about accommodation of multiple consumer lifestyles in one package, has not spent all of its novelty, so Nintendo may not have to add all that much to this experience to maintain high consumer interest, as suggested here…
But more likely, we’re going to end up much closer to the SNES “4 extra buttons” tier of additive functionality, precisely because of the continued strength of Switch’s current novelty meaning that Nintendo won’t need to over-extend themselves regarding what any “new experience” they offer might be and will not risk undermining or superseding that core appeal. And that’s quite possible because “new experiences” have run the gamut, with one fairly recent example demonstrating additive features that were wholly and completely ignorable.
The point of understanding how Nintendo has implemented “new experiences” is because…
… and that’s why understanding Nintendo’s past implementations is so important.
I’ve argued for some time now that the current “Switch model” of “new experience”, being about accommodation of multiple consumer lifestyles in one package, has not spent all of its novelty, so Nintendo may not have to add all that much to this experience to maintain high consumer interest, as suggested here…
The most drastic thing I personally think could happen is finding a way to unify ALL their past input innovations into a single package, by adding Miracast functionality back in (now that it’s not expensive and experimental like it was when Wii U was introduced) and opening up DS to NSO by bringing back 2-screen play and leaving GamePad-like function as an option for software makers who thought it was cool.
But more likely, we’re going to end up much closer to the SNES “4 extra buttons” tier of additive functionality, precisely because of the continued strength of Switch’s current novelty meaning that Nintendo won’t need to over-extend themselves regarding what any “new experience” they offer might be and will not risk undermining or superseding that core appeal. And that’s quite possible because “new experiences” have run the gamut, with one fairly recent example demonstrating additive features that were wholly and completely ignorable.
Indeed, in terms of software that’s available on the platform, the marquee big IPs from 3rd parties are the last bit of expansion to the library possible, all other bases are firmly and completely covered. Whether they’re (to borrow the Japanese idiom) trying to catch the wind in a net or actually achieve what is/was thought impossible is TBD, but them making the attempt to grab for such games feels indisputable, far as I’m concerned.
I’d like to point out that it is worth nothing that “novel experiences” that proliferate through all platforms and subsequent generations become normalized. So there is going to be a strongly perceived correlation between failed gimmicks and curiosities done by Nintendo and a glossing over of what once may have been considered unique novel ideas as common sense. I believe this is probably somehow connected to survivors bias.
