Support NeoGAF

[watershed]

Honestly, I'm liking the Switch 1st party line up for this year. Launching with Zelda is great. MK8 Deluxe is ok, Splatoon 2 to follow is gonna be amazing, then there's Arms, and of course Mario at the end of the year.

There's other stuff too but that alone is pretty sweet to me, along with unnanounced games and 3rd party games and eshop games and stuff, I think the Switch is gonna have solid software year 1.

 

[FrankWza]

Lots of businesses end their Fiscal Year in March, not just Japan. Why? I dunno.


Wise time to release Switch? Not really, but I think they are making the most of it. I think it would've been a disaster if they released it last fall or this fall. Microsoft and Sony aren't going to release new hardware in March. It's a nice try by Nintendo to try and carve out a nice, new piece of real estate.

Software wise, it's thin like Wii U was, but it's going to look less thin since it should be over a 10 month period instead of 15 months when look at the first fiscal year of it. When you get to the fall it does seem like it's picking up quite a bit, assuming a lot of those releases hold.

In the u.s. maybe 1/3 do. But in japan they all end march.

 

[coughlanio]

Ambassador programs!

This has actually got me thinking, what if the 'Ambassador Program' is actually part of a business plan now? Release the console at a higher price, so the faithful eat it up, then after 9 months, drop the price, and satiate the early adopters with exclusive content.

I'm semi-okay with it actually, if the content we're rewarded by is worth $50, or whatever amount they drop the price by.

 

[Buggy Loop]

No

Example : NES classic edition

Hate it, or love it, Switch will be hard to find in march. Having a product hard to find in peak of shopping season and holiday craze starting to affect everyone's brain, is such a bad idea. Just look at how much more NES classics they could have sold if it had enough units.

They can sell the initial batch, guaranteed, just with the fans. They need to add more peoples in fall/winter, with big guns, but more importantly, with units on the shelves. The switch will be looking mighty fine at fall too, really big lineup, big hitters.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Fall Launch Pros
E3 available for hype, announcements

E3 is still available for hype and announcements, even if it launches in Spring.

Longer dev time on several games, time for polishing

As evidenced by the launch lineup, they didn't rush games for launch

Substatially stronger launch lineup
Online at launch
Possibly media streaming and apps available at launch it at least closer to it

It's not clear to me why this matters. Is there anyone out there who is willing to buy in a hypothetical Fall launch, but not willing to buy in Fall after a spring launch and 6 months of post-launch updates?

Stronger shopping season to bolster opening sales figures

How does this help? They're going to sell all the units they have at launch. You can't sell more than you have.


This mostly seems predicated on fanxiety and emotional validation about the launch rather than an actual business case. Is there a real difference between hard launching in fall versus soft launching in spring and hard launching in fall? Maybe, maybe not, I don't think a priori it's obvious.

 

[coughlanio]

Lots of businesses end their Fiscal Year in March, not just Japan. Why? I dunno.


Wise time to release Switch? Not really, but I think they are making the most of it. I think it would've been a disaster if they released it last fall or this fall. Microsoft and Sony aren't going to release new hardware in March. It's a nice try by Nintendo to try and carve out a nice, new piece of real estate.

Software wise, it's thin like Wii U was, but it's going to look less thin since it should be over a 10 month period instead of 15 months when look at the first fiscal year of it. When you get to the fall it does seem like it's picking up quite a bit, assuming a lot of those releases hold.

I think they're going to use the launch to prop up their 2016 fiscal report, which was less than stellar due to declining Wii U sales and Switch R&D. They should see relatively steady sales of the Switch and software through fiscal 2017, so I wouldn't be too worried about their outlook over the next year. Beyond that? I'm not so sure.

 

[princemarth23]

No. I need my Zelda on Switch ASAP.

 

[James Scott]

People saying the Switch has a bad line up seems a by odd. Maybe because Nintendo focused on showing their first party titles slated for the first 9 months? (All the titles are meant to come out this year with Fire Emblem being the only one for 2018 and it was shown later)
3DS had basically nothing of note first party wise with its biggest game being an old Street Fighter port.
Wii U had a lot in its first month, but nothing really big and then a 4 month drought till march.
Switch has something lined up for basically every month.
Most systems launch lacking features that get added later so that doesn't seem like a huge deal. The online is free until fall so it's not like they're charging you for unfinished online.
You can argue April or something to give them an extra month on getting launch titles ready, but I'm not sure it'll be a big issue anyways

 

[wildfire]

May would've been optimal for gamers

March is optimal for the company.

Launching in March is good when old Tvs are on sale amd the replacements are coming in.

March 3 is specifically a good time to control their message at the end of the month by ending their fiscal year with positive sold out sales instead of having only the disastrous Wii U sales to report.



May would make the current next 6 months look less sparse.

May would maintain momentum for those happy with what was said so far.


May would make the wait a lot shorter for when they announced their online pricing scheme and additional services they were ready to show off.

 

[lenovox1]

People keep talking about selling our pre-orders, but given that pre-orders keep rolling out in batches, it's entirely possible Nintendo is managing those pre-order limits to ensure maximum sales while still selling out (given recent history, some might even say that situation is likely).

There's also the undeniable fact that the Wii U sold out on pre-orders. This keeps getting hand-waved away in threads and I don't understand why.

I don't believe the basic Wii U SKU ever sold out at or before launch.

 

[koss424]

This launch is Early Access.

I honestly feel that they are only launching in March, because Zelda is done and they can't afford to sit on it any longer.

nothing wrong with that. Honestly there is enough for a successful in the the line-up they have. Everything trickling in the first few months after lunch are all quality games and will allow consumers to test out the new online platform before it goes live-paid.and the fall/winter looks promising.

 

[Astral Dog]

And wait six more months for Zelda? Hell No!

I don't understand gamers sometimes :/

 

[duckroll]

No. I want to play Zelda asap and I don't want to buy a dead console.

 

[jholmes]

Is there a real difference between hard launching in fall versus soft launching in spring and hard launching in fall? Maybe, maybe not, I don't think a priori it's obvious.

I'm just quoting this because it's a question worth asking and I don't think many people are actually asking it, we just keep talking about investors, rival hardware launches, the Wii U Breath of the Wild date as if these things necessitate a March release. I don't think any of them do, the Switch seems to have all the issues of the 3DS and Wii U launches and then some.

No. I want to play Zelda asap and I don't want to buy a dead console.

The Wii U is as much an inanimate object as the Switch will be.

 

[Vibed]

They should've delayed it like a month so that all of those March/launch window titles could be on or closer to launch and big titles like MK8D and ARMS could be not so spread out.

Zelda needs to be out, they couldn't keep delaying that. 3DS has barely any life left, and the Wii U has been dead since October. If they wanted a stronger launch, I really think a month more is all they could be given.

 

[Hattori]

Nah, I think March is perfect. Gives them time to fix whatever needs to be fixed. Have e3 be a focus on showcasing games instead of hardware. Less time for media scrutiny and customer apathy. Have a chance of actually getting games release parity (if any multiplats do release on it)

 

[James Scott]

I'm just quoting this because it's a question worth asking and I don't think many people are actually asking it, we just keep talking about investors, rival hardware launches, the Wii U Breath of the Wild date as if these things necessitate a March release. I don't think any of them do, the Switch seems to have all the issues of the 3DS and Wii U launches and then some.

3DS's biggest launch title for 3 months was a Street Fighter 4 port with the next big game being a Zelda remaster.
Wii U had a 2D Mario and then nothing for 4 months.
Switch is launching with a new Zelda followed by MK8 a bit later

The Wii U is as much an inanimate object as the Switch will be.]

Wii U's last game is Switch's first. It's dead...unless you're talking about it being literally an inanimate object which is dumb

 

[Mushroomer25]

People keep talking about selling our pre-orders, but given that pre-orders keep rolling out in batches, it's entirely possible Nintendo is managing those pre-order limits to ensure maximum sales while still selling out (given recent history, some might even say that situation is likely).

There's also the undeniable fact that the Wii U sold out on pre-orders. This keeps getting hand-waved away in threads and I don't understand why.

The WiiU also had a completely barren first nine months of software, while the Swtich has no less than four major first-party Nintendo games. Unlike the WiiU, there's an incentive for hardware sales to bumped up shortly after release.

 

[Bear Force One]

Nah, the Switch would have to compete with the Scorpio if it launched during the Holidays.

It will now too. But it would have an actual library then. And online. Etc etc.

 

[Shikamaru Ninja]

Nintendo isn't going to publish more than 2 games a month. So no. Waiting for Fall doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have published 10 launch games.

 

[John Harker]

No they need the money this fiscal.

And better to not be compared power wise to scorpio

 

[One Eyed Willy]

Nah

 

[Astral Dog]

No. I want to play Zelda asap and I don't want to buy a dead console.

You have your choice between two dead consoles.only one of them is portable

 

[killatopak]

I trust that it is rushed indeed .

Lack of titles, online in beta, what sounds like a half baked OS, etc...

It's rushed but what can they do? It's the most optimal time to release it. Any later and they suffer sales.

 

[jholmes]

The WiiU also had a completely barren first nine months of software, while the Swtich has no less than four major first-party Nintendo games. Unlike the WiiU, there's an incentive for hardware sales to bumped up shortly after release.

The Switch has nine months of Zelda, Splatoon and Mario Kart 8, and the people who didn't want those games on the Wii U aren't going to want them on more expensive hardware.

And in the first nine months of the Wii U I bought 12 retail games, six of them launch games. No way do I think I'd do that with the Switch. Your experience may differ (not everyone wanted late ports of NFS Most Wanted or Arkham City in the Wii U) but I think some people are viewing the Wii U launch through the lens of hindsight. Things looked pretty rosy there two months before launch.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Without question. No one wants to pay $300 for a gimped console in the middle of March with only one interesting game out there. All of these bugs wouldn't even be an issue if they just took their time instead of trying to rush this out.

 

[Compsiox]

I'd say its better to get out before Scorpio.

If it were to release in Fall moms or kids would go to get a Switch and some rep/employee would convince them to get the Scorpio.

 

[AwShucks]

That was my first thought when I saw the lineup for the year.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

That was my first thought when I saw the lineup for the year.

Aw shucks.

 

[duckroll]

You have your choice between two dead consoles.only one of them is portable

Lol okay.

Without question. No one wants to pay $300 for a gimped console in the middle of March with only one interesting game out there. All of these bugs wouldn't even be an issue if they just took their time instead of trying to rush this out.

No one? We'll find out in a month and a half how many "no ones" there are in the world. Haha.

 

[James Scott]

The Switch has nine months of Zelda, Splatoon and Mario Kart 8, and the people who didn't want those games on the Wii U aren't going to want them on more expensive hardware.

And in the first nine months of the Wii U I bought 12 retail games, six of them launch games. No way do I think I'd do that with the Switch. Your experience may differ (not everyone wanted late ports of NFS Most Wanted or Arkham City in the Wii U) but I think some people are viewing the Wii U launch through the lens of hindsight. Things looked pretty rosy there two months before launch.

Switch is the same MSRP as Wii U after its price drop while being more compelling hardware.
We also only had games announced for this year (first 9 months) at the event. Unless you think no more games are going to be announced for release from no till next March then I don't think it's an issue.
Wii U's biggest game at its time, Mario 3D World, was a Month 12 game. Odyssey is a month 9 game (assuming November)

 

[New002]

I'm just quoting this because it's a question worth asking and I don't think many people are actually asking it, we just keep talking about investors, rival hardware launches, the Wii U Breath of the Wild date as if these things necessitate a March release. I don't think any of them do, the Switch seems to have all the issues of the 3DS and Wii U launches and then some.



The Wii U is as much an inanimate object as the Switch will be.

I guess the answer would be perception? Do you launch it early and run the risk of dealing with a negative reaction because the whole thing is seen as rushed and incomplete? Or do you sacrifice those months of sales for a more stable launch? I don't know what the right answer is, but personally I'd prefer they way wait. As we've seen with the Xbox One a bad launch/start can haunt you for the life of the system.

I can't help but get the impression that they're launching the console now because they are under pressure to hit a date, and not necessarily because it's ready to go. Admittedly I'm not following the thing as closely as many of you are so this is just the sense I get from what I've read and the reactions I've seen.

 

[lenovox1]

The Switch has nine months of Zelda, Splatoon and Mario Kart 8, and the people who didn't want those games on the Wii U aren't going to want them on more expensive hardware.

And in the first nine months of the Wii U I bought 12 retail games, six of them launch games. No way do I think I'd do that with the Switch. Your experience may differ (not everyone wanted late ports of NFS Most Wanted or Arkham City in the Wii U) but I think some people are viewing the Wii U launch through the lens of hindsight. Things looked pretty rosy there two months before launch.

No.

 

[family_guy]

I think they are giving the perception of a rushed and unpolished product so yeah I think they should have waited. They focused too much on controller tech and hardly have any games to show that utilize it. I just don't get why they seem so unprepared. It's embarrassing. They claimed to push back the hardware launch to have more games so what happened?

 

[jholmes]

Switch is the same MSRP as Wii U after its price drop while being more compelling hardware.
We also only had games announced for this year (first 9 months) at the event. Unless you think no more games are going to be announced for release from no till next March then I don't think it's an issue.
Wii U's biggest game at its time, Mario 3D World, was a Month 12 game. Odyssey is a month 9 game (assuming November)

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but again, I have to bring up the example of the Wii U -- in September 2012, Rayman Legends was still an exclusive launch window title. Xenoblade Chronicles X looked like it would be along shortly. Zelda looked playable! Given Nintendo's recent history, if the game doesn't have so much as a month on its name, I'm expecting a delay. I'll be shocked if Xenoblade 2 is close to a 2017 game.

But agree or disagree, the question is whether Nintendo is right to do a spring launch rather than, say, November. Wouldn't it be better to launch with Mario during the holidays?

I guess the answer would be perception? Do you launch it early and run the risk of dealing with a negative reaction because the whole thing is seen as rushed and incomplete? Or do you sacrifice those months of sales for a more stable launch? I don't know what the right answer is, but personally I'd prefer they way wait. As we've seen with the Xbox One a bad launch/start can haunt you for the life of the system.

I can't help but get the impression that they're launching the console now because they are under pressure to hit a date, and not necessarily because it's ready to go. Admittedly I'm not following the thing as closely as many of you are so this is just the sense I get from what I've read and the reactions I've seen.

My only real guess, based on the Wii U launch and the 3DS launch, is the hardware is ready, so they figure it might as well hit the market and let the software and OS catch up later. Maybe they're still smarting from getting the GameCube on the market last. I agree with you though.

I'd say its better to get out before Scorpio.

If it were to release in Fall moms or kids would go to get a Switch and some rep/employee would convince them to get the Scorpio.

I'm not saying you're wrong (it's a popular enough position) but if I'm working at Nintendo and the whole point is to avoid launching against Scorpio, I'd say it's time to get out of hardware. Isn't the idea that they're offering the best thing out there? Nintendo has to have more confidence in what they're offering than that, don't they?

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but again, I have to bring up the example of the Wii U -- in September 2012, Rayman Legends was still an exclusive launch window title. Xenoblade Chronicles X looked like it would be along shortly. Zelda looked playable! Given Nintendo's recent history, if the game doesn't have so much as a month on its name, I'm expecting a delay. I'll be shocked if Xenoblade 2 is close to a 2017 game.

Xenoblade Chronicles X hadn't even been announced yet in 2012 and I'm not sure what you mean by "Zelda looked playable", as no Zelda game for Wii U had been announced yet either.

 

[jholmes]

Xenoblade Chronicles X hadn't even been announced yet in 2012 and I'm not sure what you mean by "Zelda looked playable", as no Zelda game for Wii U had been announced yet either.

There was a Zelda trailer.

And maybe Xenoblade X was part of the January 2013 reveal but there's a larger point here.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Fall Launch Pros
E3 available for hype, announcements

They had last year's E3 to do this. Instead, they hid it under the excuse Sony and MS would copy it, which was dumb. They lost a big opportunity to mass advertise it, but their lame and unnecessary over secrecy policy might harm their marketing strategy.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

There was a Zelda trailer.

And maybe Xenoblade X was part of the January 2013 reveal but there's a larger point here.

There was no Zelda trailer. If you're referring to the Zelda tech demo from E3 2011, well....that was a tech demo. It was explicitly stated by Nintendo that it wasn't an actual game.

And yes, Xenoblade Chronicles was announced in January 2013.

I agree that Xenoblade 2 probably won't launch this year, but the current state of Switch is very different than Wii U at a similar point in time.

 

[James Scott]

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but again, I have to bring up the example of the Wii U -- in September 2012, Rayman Legends was still an exclusive launch window title. Xenoblade Chronicles X looked like it would be along shortly. Zelda looked playable! Given Nintendo's recent history, if the game doesn't have so much as a month on its name, I'm expecting a delay. I'll be shocked if Xenoblade 2 is close to a 2017 game.
But agree or disagree, the question is whether Nintendo is right to do a spring launch rather than, say, November. Wouldn't it be better to launch with Mario during the holidays?

XCX didn't have footage till months after the system launched. And no, it didn't have a date or look like it was out soon. Xenoblade 2 has a name, voice acting (Japanese at least) and a release date. Maybe it won't launch
Zelda Wii U didn't have gameplay footage till e3 2014.
While I get releasing a month or so later might make some sense, releasing 6 months later is just an awful idea to suggest. Mario is nearly done according to rumors and the developers so they could launch it in the summer if they wanted to most likely but they need a more stable release schedule.
They have around 9 games for the first 9 months announced 8 are set between Zelda and Mario, Xeno 2 might slip but it's far along if they think it can release this year in Japan at least.
Again, don't delaying the release of the system is really necessary. There aren't these massive gaps in the release schedule like Wii U and 3DS

There was a Zelda trailer.

And maybe Xenoblade X was part of the January 2013 reveal but there's a larger point here.

Your recollection of the events are muddled at best. Only Zelda footage we saw was an tech demo that was labeled as such. If you thought that looked playable then I'm not sure what to say.
WWHD was also not announced till January

 

[BigTuna109]

I honestly think they just don't want to sit on Zelda. They wanna go ahead and cash in on the die-hard fans who are gonna buy it no matter what state the console is released in. I mean, the thing doesn't even have Netflix. Even some freaking microwaves and toilets have Netflix now....but it's still not ready on the Switch..... the online service isn't ready. Zero details on the state of the VC. Of course it's not really ready, but they know it doesn't matter until fall/holidays anyway.

they can cash in now on their core fans and get them to pay high prices, and then they can still draw in a bigger audience during holidays when there are more games, features, and better bundles. Early adopters are gonna get screwed really hard just like with 3DS, new 3DS, and Wii U. I know early adopters always kinda get the short end, but it seems worse with Nintendo hardware.

 

[jholmes]

Your recollection of the events are muddled at best. Only Zelda footage we saw was an tech demo that was labeled as such. If you thought that looked playable then I'm not sure what to say.
WWHD was also not announced till January

Look, I said in conflated the date of the Xenoblade trailer. That doesn't change the fact that the game was announced and then delayed. And Zelda was shown running on Wii U hardware almost six years before the game is actually due to release -- just think about that, Nintendo showed a new Zelda game running on new hardware on the biggest stage possible and it took six years to make that actually happen. Criticize my memory if you want but it doesn't change the fact that Nintendo as of late has made big promises before a hardware launch only for major delays to slip in.

 

[Gaspard]

Waiting that much longer for Zelda would have broke my heart.

 

[killatopak]

I'm not saying you're wrong (it's a popular enough position) but if I'm working at Nintendo and the whole point is to avoid launching against Scorpio, I'd say it's time to get out of hardware. Isn't the idea that they're offering the best thing out there? Nintendo has to have more confidence in what they're offering than that, don't they?

Wat. Having no competitor is better than having one.

 

[Jintor]

The only thing I'm sure about is they want splatoon 2 out before Japan school summer holidays

 

[James Scott]

Look, I said in conflated the date of the Xenoblade trailer. That doesn't change the fact that the game was announced and then delayed. And Zelda was shown running on Wii U hardware almost six years before the game is actually due to release -- just think about that, Nintendo showed a new Zelda game running on new hardware on the biggest stage possible and it took six years to make that actually happen. Criticize my memory if you want but it doesn't change the fact that Nintendo as of late has made big promises before a hardware launch only for major delays to slip in.

...Zelda Wii U was shown off with footage less than 3 years ago.
Wii U itself isn't even 5 years old
Also, you're asking them to push it back further.

 

[jholmes]

Wat. Having no competitor is better than having one.

The Switch is still launching against competition in March though. It's not like the PS4 and Xbone just don't exist.

 

[KneehighPark]

I like the Switch's March release date. I know a ton of people who can afford to buy it at that time due to tax refunds.

 

[AgeEighty]

No. If they delayed any longer they risk running into the start of the main period of rumors and speculation about PS5 and Xbox 4, at which point more people start taking a "wait and see" attitude toward buying a new console.

 

[RibMan]

No. I honestly don't believe that the console would have been more 'fleshed out' had it been given more time. Would more time improve their messaging? Well, yes, and it's why people were suggesting -- months and months and months ago -- that they should have unveiled more about the Switch sooner rather than later. It's common sense; confusion thrives in the absence of information, so if you don't want your potential customers to be wondering about the validity of information provided on the product page vs the validity of information provided by a company exec, you show and tell sooner rather than later.

I disagree with the idea that the March sales will or would be lower than the Fall sales. Remember: the people who buy consoles at launch are people like us, aka the same people who would be able to tell you what this is. First and early console adopters are people who don't need or rely on word of mouth to purchase the product, because these are folks who have -- to use a marketing term -- extremely low uncertainty avoidance when it comes to consoles. If you want more proof of this, look at the launch sales vs life sales of products that ended up underperforming. In the console space, the most recent example of a strong launch that wasn't indicative of the wider market is the Xbox One's launch. Millions at launch, but the high launch sales did not translate to high console sales throughout the product's lifespan, and it's now 30 million consoles behind the PS4. With that in mind, even with the confusing messaging and dislikes around the pricing + lineup + online, the Switch March sales are going to look good because it's selling to an established base rather than a potential base. Hopefully that makes sense.

Note: I expect to see one of the craziest three-way console competitions in the history of gaming* this Fall. I think each company has an incredibly strong motivation to retain and acquire as much market share as possible, specifically because of the proximity to mass market pricing, effectiveness of bundles and pack-ins, and the launch of a successor product. Oddly enough, I think Nintendo could benefit a lot this Fall, because they're going to be out of the inevitable Destiny 2/Red Dead 2 marketing shenanigans (e.g. PS4 bundles, Microsoft perfume ads) and retail price wars. Or I could be wrong and Nintendo could actually lose a lot of mind share as they won't be part of the billion ads, marketing shenanigans, and $50 Target gift cards. Only time will tell.

*In North America. I don't expect the upcoming price wars and Scorpio release to have a discernible effect in EU and JP.