Adam Tyner

Yeah, I think I saw that in the video, and Nintendo has confirmed that this is the case:

fumanstan

Joy-Con?

Dan

*sigh*
Take my money, Nintendo.

Any guesses on pricing?

RichC2

$299 is the going guess.

Krayzie

You could just use the Wii U to play zelda.

milo bloom

I have an iPhone 6Plus, so screen size isn't issue for me but most games simply don't work well on phones. I play Smurfs' Village and PokemonGo. Sometimes Hearthstone. But for "real" games, we have a 2DS and a 3DS because that's what they were designed for.

Mobile gaming is big, but games designed for a good piece of hardware (like a Nintendo portable) are simply a notch above.

redrum

I don't see all that tech costing just $300

RichC2

I agree. Mobile gaming is huge, but the games played on phones simply aren't the same.

It depends on the specs, as it is now this is a tablet with a docking station (that charges and does HDMI output).

Adam Tyner

Nintendo has said that the Wii U launched at too high a price point, so I've gotta think that $299 is the absolute ceiling (at least outside of any premium-type bundles) with $249-$299 being more ideal, although that seems like a really tall order for what you get. I guess it depends on what comes with the base package and what's extra. With the way it's being marketed, I'd be surprised if the dock were sold separately, but that's a possibility.

Dan

Interesting theory, Adam. You're probably right. The "core" tablet & mini controllers could easily be the base system, and people can just add on what they want.

But those controls are TINY

pinata242

That's an extreme case, though. You're taking half a controller and making it a full one temporarily. Cost effective, at least.

squidget

I'm in. I'm a mobile gamer these days with a 3ds in my bag

fumanstan

Yeah, in my opinion its not hard to see it costing $300 at all. For instance, as a comparison the Nvidia Shield Tablet (which I own) using an older Tegra chip was re-released the other year at $200 and that can run Android ports of games from the last generation just fine. You can even buy a full sized controller to pair with it

I don't think there's anything that unique about the hardware here at all that isn't already available (albeit in more complicated fashion and minus the game support) that the Switch is trying to offer here.

RichC2

Yep. According to Verge, the Switch is indeed powered by a custom nVidia Tegra chip. In many ways, this is essentially the Shield 2.0.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/20/1...ts-new-console

$299 starting price seems reasonable.

fumanstan

Yup, Nvidia has a blog post about it too, which matches what the rumors said a few months back - https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/1...ntendo-switch/

RichC2

I give nVidia a lot of props on that, they turned their one current failing product into a potentially huge win with this. Don't get me wrong, I like the Shield, but it never really sold that well.

The other bit of potential here is PC streaming, that would be an incredibly nice perk for a small subset of Nintendo gamers.

redrum

The problem with this system for me will be why would i want to play inferior looking/performing versions of games that i can play on the new ps4/xboxs, taking them mobile would be cool but i'm not gonna buy the same game twice

Then it boils down to do i want a system just for the few first party titles that will be coming out on it and the answer is no

mattysemo247

Now I'm really confused. People are actually excited about this? I guess I don't see the appeal. It's basically a Wii U that you can use outside of your house. But how many people would would lug around a Wii U gamepad outside of their house anyways? The scenarios in that video were hilarious (playing at the basketball court, on the roof top, in a gym, etc). Maybe I'm missing something, but usually when I leave my house, the last thing I want to take with me is a tablet. If anything, the fear of that thing breaking and they system being useless afterwards would be enough to leave it at home.

pinata242

So the mobile screen needs a cover, right? Did I miss that? I wonder if the dock will allow those to remain in place...

james2025a

I like the look of it, but its not so different from the Wii-U to make me want to go out and get it right away, especially if its on the pricey side. I don't game that much on the go, so for me that side of it is not really as appealing. But its a nice looking machine and will keep an eye on it. When the price comes to a reasonable level i will take it under more consideration.

stingermck

I agree with what a friend said, this is what the Wii U should have been 4 years ago.

bunkaroo

Looking forward to overspending on my next Zelda/Mario machine.

If the Zelda game isn't diminished in any way for the Wii U I'll probably stick with that but if there's some ability or function that is better on the Switch I'll wind up with one I'm sure.

pinata242

I don't get the WiiU comparison at all. It's a single-screen system. It just happens to have a small screen you can take away from the tv.

From the looks of what they've shown, this is a traditional console. It's a Gamecube 2.0.

No waggle. No motion. No inventory or map on your lap.

Coral

I really don't see this doing very well.

It seems to be more of a niche product. Nintendo's trying to fill a need that doesn't really exist.

It's a "me too" product that's trying to carve out a market from home console gamers, portable console gamers and phone/tablet gamers. But it doesn't appear to be offering much more than what's already out there.

They've changed their target audience based on the video. Not seeing any young kids or families... it's basically 20-somethings. Not sure they'll be all that captivated by this.

And the multi-player scenario sharing the same screen isn't a realistic. The screen is just too small to sit that far back from.

bunkaroo

The only comparison I guess would be the portable screen with the controllers attached kind of looks like the Wii U controller.