JoshuaJSlone
Member
He didn't even say that, really. He could've said "Some people think Switch will replace the 3DS, but it won't." Instead he veered off with "Some people think Switch will replace the 3DS, but the 3DS is also good."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kimishima: Switch won't replace 3DS, there's "many unannounced titles" in development
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
BlastProcessing
Member
Good companies aren't afraid of cannibalizing their own products. If you don't do it, someone else will.
Eh, it's not like they are big games. I mean, Intelligent Systems worked in two games, a 3DS game and Switch game, in secret, maybe at the same time, and the 3DS game is going to launch in April/May from this year, and the Switch game is expected to launch in 2018.
Where have they said all future games will be on 3DS? You're exaggerating wildly here. Switch early-adopters aren't the only customers they have, the 3DS install base is a much larger pool that they need to gradually coax into buying a Switch, but it's unlikely those that bought into 3DS only when it hit rock-bottom prices are going to be shelling out for the Switch at launch. A bunch of relatively-cheap-to-develop games to keep their customers engaged with Nintendo games for long enough to gradually convince them to upgrade as the Switch price drops and the software catalogue expands is the safer move, rather than offering an ultimatum of 'upgrade now or get nothing'. That is more likely to see their audience drift away than undergo a steady transition to Switch devices over the next few years.
It will be once the 3DS is no longer supported (by this time next year I imagine new 3DS announcements will be few and far between). I'm not sure why you thought that would be with immediate effect from March this year.
How is it mostly bs? I don't really understand the sentiment that they have to cut off what they already have for Switch before it even comes out. They've already abandoned Wii U because it was a failure, but 3DS is still being supported because people still buy the hardware and software. Do you think IntSys will be alone in moving to Switch with Fire Emblem?
Indeed, that's because it is replacing it as the beginning of their new ecosystem and he can't deny it without lying.
The problem in that is using a concept to oppose the idea of a replacement, if he wanted to convey the idea that 3DS is not dying yet there where multiple ways that would prevent unnecessary fears. After multiple times and with worse statements from reggie too, some harm could have been done in the perception.
anothertech
Member
Haha. Fool me once...
Yeah, honestly I don't see the point of the Switch if they aren't going to unify development
TyMiles2012
Member
I'm starting to think that the 3DS/2DS is going to stick with their much much younger fanbase, meaning the kids, and the Switch will market to the young adults since they know that's where a lot of their fan base is as well.
3DS is the cheaper system so it's more affordable to parents, and games are cheaper. Young adults are usually able to, and usually do, buy their own systems, but they go for the PS4 or Xbox One for the mature titles. At the same time, they would LOVE to get their hands on a system that can play all the Call of Battlefield Auto V games and the console quality Nintendo stuff like Zelda and Mario. Most millennials grew up playing Nintendo games as kids, and they know that they have quality. Still, Reggie said that the Switch is supposed to have a very easy development environment and supports the full console and PC versions of the latest engines. The only thing we really don't know yet is the power. Nintendo and Nvidia have been quiet about that, but seeing the jump from the Tegra K1 and X1 in a year's worth of time, I'm not saying it's double the power, but it's probably JUST powerful enough to scale down without completely turning off higher demanding developers. If the FIFA port being non-Frostbite is true, my only guess is that it's cheaper to port, so EA doesn't take a huge loss if the Switch fails.
3DS is the cheaper system so it's more affordable to parents, and games are cheaper. Young adults are usually able to, and usually do, buy their own systems, but they go for the PS4 or Xbox One for the mature titles. At the same time, they would LOVE to get their hands on a system that can play all the Call of Battlefield Auto V games and the console quality Nintendo stuff like Zelda and Mario. Most millennials grew up playing Nintendo games as kids, and they know that they have quality. Still, Reggie said that the Switch is supposed to have a very easy development environment and supports the full console and PC versions of the latest engines. The only thing we really don't know yet is the power. Nintendo and Nvidia have been quiet about that, but seeing the jump from the Tegra K1 and X1 in a year's worth of time, I'm not saying it's double the power, but it's probably JUST powerful enough to scale down without completely turning off higher demanding developers. If the FIFA port being non-Frostbite is true, my only guess is that it's cheaper to port, so EA doesn't take a huge loss if the Switch fails.
GuessMyUserName
Member
Basically the only question to ask is "will the 3DS have a different successor". Which obviously the answer should be no. 3DS ain't gonna last forever, it's already been rather abandoned on major titles for a long while now. Switch doesn't have to "replace" 3DS, it just naturally becomes *the* portable Nintendo system as 3DS fades with no other option.
If Nintendo starts talking about a new handheld platform as a 3DS successor we can panic.
If Nintendo starts talking about a new handheld platform as a 3DS successor we can panic.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
The pillars were true when they said it, but things change.They supported the GBA alongside the DS until 2006. They even put out GBA v2 and the micro at that time.
But after the explosion that happened around DS Lite's debut they couldn't possibly support two handhelds.
Roufianos
Member
Then why not just make it a home console with the same power as PS4? At least then it would get some decent 3rd party support.
If it's not a 3DS successor then it's nothing more than a slightly more portable Wii U.
The promise of a combined 3DS / Wii U software output was the main draw of this console.
If it's not a 3DS successor then it's nothing more than a slightly more portable Wii U.
The promise of a combined 3DS / Wii U software output was the main draw of this console.
Nintendo has already killed the Wii U. They're not going to kill the 3DS until they've milked that 60+ mil install base with a few more releases while they get enough Switches out in the wild.
The 3DS is already on its farewell tour. In the meantime, Nintendo is selling meager supplies of the 2DS which will be more attractive to parents to give to their kids, and the XL which is still $200. For $100 more you might as well get a Switch.
The 3DS is already on its farewell tour. In the meantime, Nintendo is selling meager supplies of the 2DS which will be more attractive to parents to give to their kids, and the XL which is still $200. For $100 more you might as well get a Switch.
AdropOFvenom
Neo Member
None of which changes that the Bravely Default team (Project Octopath), the Fire Emblem team, and the Shin Megami Tensai team have all announced Switch projects, that Pokemon is widely rumored to be working on a Switch version of Pokemon as well (Which has literally never happened on console before).
They can say they still have projects for the works for the 3DS, but it's hard to see where it's coming from if most of their main teams are confirmed/heavily rumored to be working on Switch instead.
More likely is you'll see a continued trickle of ports, e-shop, and Virtual Console material to pad a library while dedicating very little manpower to the system. I'll believe there's some big 3DS exclusive reveal when I see it at this point.
They can say they still have projects for the works for the 3DS, but it's hard to see where it's coming from if most of their main teams are confirmed/heavily rumored to be working on Switch instead.
More likely is you'll see a continued trickle of ports, e-shop, and Virtual Console material to pad a library while dedicating very little manpower to the system. I'll believe there's some big 3DS exclusive reveal when I see it at this point.
This. Nothing so far points to the Switch not becoming Nintendo's sole focus if it isn't a complete flop. I'm willing to bet that the "unannounced titles" are simply more ports, easy sequels and small side-projects. This really just seems like hyperbole over what practically every console maker or publisher does when they're releasing something brand new whilst still selling a known success; it's like people have forgotten just how many cross-gen titles were released before it was clear the PS4 and Xbox One weren't flops.
Essentially "Not replacing" does not mean "Will never replace."
Rushersauce
Banned
Remember the GB Advance? yeah...
TwilightPrincess
Member
They will. We know Pokemon is coming to Switch, we know Fire Emblem Next is coming to Switch, they will go all out on this system. That doesn't mean they cut off 3DS support immediately. There are still games in development for 3ds, i would bet that this are mostly smaller titles and titles outsorced to other devs. 2018 most (if not all) Nintendo devs and most japanese 3DS 3rds will have relocated to Switch.
Kimishima has sales expectations for switch that are @ Wii levels (he told Nikkei), they will put everything in Switch.
LegendofLex
Member
He's not wrong.
Nintendo will continue to sell Nintendo 3DS after March 2017.
If Nintendo was replacing Nintendo 3DS with Switch, they would do what they're doing with Wii U and stop selling Nintendo 3DS and literally replace it in the "choose your product" section on the front page of their website.
Nintendo has already said that they're no longer thinking in terms of discrete handheld and console platforms for their future hardware. They've said this multiple times, and Iwata also said directly that they were designing NX to work for all of the dominant play habits in both the West and Japan before it was ever announced as Switch.
I'd want something smaller and all in one. No Joy Cons.
Movalpolos
Banned
I told you so.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
This statement always confuses me. Nintendo did publish a lot on GBA after the DS released in each region. I made a (hopefully complete) list last year:
Yes, a lot of ports, but that's nothing new, we are talking about the GBA....
The claim that Nintendo completely abandoned the GBA before 2007 does not hold water.
Rushersauce
Banned
We never got a successor, and that's what I meant.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Then I'll remove your quote because I thought you were hopping into the group pretending Nintendo didn't support the GBA after 2004.
Astral Dog
Member
They just announced a new FE for Switch recently,thats not a coincidence 3DS teams will have to adjust to HD development
Rushersauce
Banned
Keep it, it seems the 3DS will have a successor lol
I'm with you 100%. They need to convince us that they are doing everything they can in order for the Switch to become successful and not another dripfed Wii U. Their way of "reassuring" us that the 3DS will receive support still, for me has the opposite effect of making me worried that they have not learned their lesson with Wii U. Part of this lesson is that they should be making it attractive for people to expand their Nintendo consumption beyond the 3DS and towards the Switch instead of giving them a good reason not to just like with the Wii U (all while the Wii U owner is pretty much forced to jump ship since even wanting to get some of the new MK8 Deluxe content as DLC apparently is too much to ask and being labeled as "entitled"). In addition, the 3DS install base has (had) far less reasons to fill miffed about their purchase when there are already so many great games available for it, so why keep reassuing these customers instead of the millions of (to varying degrees disappointed) Wii U owners?
And for those reminding us of the GBA / DS "third pillar" lie, remember that pretty much no-one at that time wanted the popular GB label to die so Nintendo lying about the DS only being a third pillar made sense at that time. In this case, there are plenty of people who believed in the unified development theory and who want the Switch to avoid the software problems that the Wii U had in part because the 3DS kept "stealing" away development teams and games. So if Nintendo is repeating a similar "third pillar" lie here, what would the use of that be if they did not actually believe that people want to 3DS to stick around, just like they did with the GB(A)? That to me is the actual worrying part, i.e. not whether they are lying again or not but the fact that their story might betray a tonedeafness with regards to people's negative experiences with Wii U, their possible "jealousness" of the 3DS library, and their subsequent fears for similar situation with the Switch.
I feel that they could have chosen their words differently and still conveyed a similar message, one that would have put Wii U and future Switch owners more at ease while also throwing a bone at the 3DS install base. Something like: "the 3DS is still a valuable platform for us and we are supporting it accordingly over the next few years. Our biggest focus going forward, however, is to make the Switch an attractive platform for every Nintendo fan, including 3DS owners, so that is where we will focus our attention to the fullest in order to bring customers the best Nintendo experiences." The fact that they didn't but instead chose to go for the low hanging fruit of trying to reassure 3DS owners (who imo should already feel content to a large degree, unlike the Wii U install base) is disappointing and slightly worrying as I said above.
Another valid point of criticism. I've been thinking these last weeks and I now wonder why Nintendo did not opt to make the Switch an even more flexible platform than the one we are getting.
Warning: another long post incoming; I'll stop after this one.
Imagine being able to buy two Switch sku's, one a 200/250 console version with full 1080 support and a pro controller packed in, and the other 150/200 handheld that would be similar to the current tablet + joy-cons and minus the dock but perhaps made a bit more durable and portable so it can replace the 3DS in due time. Every game and accessory would be cross compatible and game data such as saves would be easily transferable, meaning that the actual Switch platform would be less about the two hardware sku's but more about offering a single development platform that could provide both console and handheld consumers with the best Nintendo system possible within the realms of affordability (while real diehards could simply buy both sku's and transfer their game data while using the same cartridge + profile etc.).
I mean, looking at it a bit more objectively, what is the actual benefit of the current hybrid design if both configurations leave plenty of room for improvement? Except marketability and catchiness perhaps? The console play configuration could have used a bit more power and storage arguably as well as a pro controller packed-in while the handheld configuration seems too fragile, bulky and arguably lacking in battery power to be a full-fledged portable system to replace the 3DS. So, why not offer two slightly cheaper options for each type of audience under one Switch brand (differentiated by a second name if need be) and allow each person to choose what they prefer while none of them ever has to miss out on any software or games?
It reminds me of Mario Maker and its easily marketable but rarely useful real-time style switching mechanic. This mechanic imo severly limited the editor and the implementation of things like more unique enemies, obstacles and themes from each game because it came with a requirement of needing an equivalent in each of the styles, which was not always possible without painstaklingly creating them from scratch (like with the ghost house theme in Mario 1). In contrast, if the game had offered completely separate styles that you had to choose between up front when building, that would have circumvented such a limitation and allowed some styles to have more content than others (like Mario 3 and New Mario having a desert theme). The parallel with the Switch of course is that Nintendo chose to implement a flashy feature that showed well in commercials over actual flexibility in either the building tools for MM or the capabilities for each play configuration of the Switch. In the Switch's case, finally, every consumer is also paying more than they would need to (for unused hardware functionality, essentially) if they only prefer to use one play configuration, which the option to select one of two sku's would have solved as well.
Others will disagree surely, possibly because they feel that the hybrid nature of the Switch is exactly what makes it attractive in the first place, but those are my thoughts on the matter after some weeks of mulling things over while listening to what must be countless impression videos and podcasts that contained plenty of valid criticisms.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
What was the point of 3DS if they were still making DS games?
What was the point of DS if they were still making GBA games?
What was the point of GBA if they were still making GBC games?
AnimaOnline
Member
... On phone
Post error
Post error
Wrong thread
AnimaOnline
Member
Haha yeah realised as soon as I posted. Not even sure how I got here. Anyway, sorry bout that.
I think that the answer to this lies in the market realities that Nintendo has to deal with. The first is that they can't compete in the home console space. There are only so many Nintendo fans and there's not that much likelihood of a non-competitive console getting many AAA multiplatform ports. Next, the handheld market is Nintendo's lifeblood, but it's also a steadily shrinking market. Nintendo can't rely on it forever, but they definitely don't want to abandon it either.
This brings us to how to reconcile both these challenges. Nintendo decided that by making a hybrid of the two markets they would create enough uniqueness to move them away from direct competition. The problem with this idea though is that I imagine that most users are only going to use one of the two modes so they would have been way better served by dedicated devices instead.
So here is the exchange this thread is based on. Imo this is a non answer, and we should stop making threads like this before the official translation is out.
Q4 How do you plan to make it so that Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo Switch will coexist in the marketplace? And, if the users start recognizing Nintendo Switch as a portable gaming device and using it as such, will it make sense for the company to release a next-generation portable game device?
Kimishima: As for your question on the Nintendo 3DS, we believe it can coexist with Nintendo Switch for the time being. Nintendo 3DS is a different system from Nintendo Switch in terms of its shape, weight, price and the types and number of available software titles. From this perspective, I believe parents will opt to choose Nintendo 3DS as their childrenʼs first video game system. So we recognize that Nintendo 3DS as a portable game device meets different needs and fits different markets than Nintendo Switch, and we will keep this recognition in mind as we consider the future of our dedicated portable video game business.
Takahashi: We have been developing new software titles for Nintendo 3DS, so please look forward to them. As for your question about a next-generation portable game system, because Nintendo never stops thinking about and researching potential future video game systems, it is not a question of whether it may make sense to release some specific product in the future. We are always engaged in researching and considering our next video game system.
Q4 How do you plan to make it so that Nintendo 3DS and Nintendo Switch will coexist in the marketplace? And, if the users start recognizing Nintendo Switch as a portable gaming device and using it as such, will it make sense for the company to release a next-generation portable game device?
Kimishima: As for your question on the Nintendo 3DS, we believe it can coexist with Nintendo Switch for the time being. Nintendo 3DS is a different system from Nintendo Switch in terms of its shape, weight, price and the types and number of available software titles. From this perspective, I believe parents will opt to choose Nintendo 3DS as their childrenʼs first video game system. So we recognize that Nintendo 3DS as a portable game device meets different needs and fits different markets than Nintendo Switch, and we will keep this recognition in mind as we consider the future of our dedicated portable video game business.
Takahashi: We have been developing new software titles for Nintendo 3DS, so please look forward to them. As for your question about a next-generation portable game system, because Nintendo never stops thinking about and researching potential future video game systems, it is not a question of whether it may make sense to release some specific product in the future. We are always engaged in researching and considering our next video game system.
Skittzo0413
Member
So we're now 3/3 on threads based on super misleading translations from this meeting. Sounds like GAF!
Switch is obviously 3DS successor, thing is that it's not in their interest to say it right now for a couple of reasons.-
* 3DS is performing quite nice right now.
* 3DS covers a different price range.
* Nintendo still has to see if Switch takes off.
So from a financial point of view they don't want to undermine 3DS right now.
Once Switch takes off and 3DS slows down they will be in a better spot to release the portable only Switch Mini.
Of course the main arguing point is if Nintendo should be using all their cards to push Switch right now instead of following this more conservative path.
* 3DS is performing quite nice right now.
* 3DS covers a different price range.
* Nintendo still has to see if Switch takes off.
So from a financial point of view they don't want to undermine 3DS right now.
Once Switch takes off and 3DS slows down they will be in a better spot to release the portable only Switch Mini.
Of course the main arguing point is if Nintendo should be using all their cards to push Switch right now instead of following this more conservative path.
DrROBschiz
Member
I figured they werent going to go cold turkey on their top platform
Just a bummer since I would rather see all resources put into the Switch right now
Just a bummer since I would rather see all resources put into the Switch right now
Similar threads
- Poll