Support NeoGAF

[sanstesy]

Your answer didn't address the question either.

I guess there's enough wrong to go round.

My edited rhetorical question addressed your answer which I pointed out was not getting the point across before. Your "rhetorical question" literally doesn't add any point of argument which technically makes it a simple question.

I even feel dumb having to point this out.

 

[CarbonFire]

People aren't talking about the same device but with no included dock.

They are talking about a different smaller device, with a somewhat lower resolution screen, therefore less GPU grunt required for the same games, less thermal output, less power draw etc. Also possibly no removable parts and HDMI out and no compatibility with a dock. Also cheaper.

Essentially a device designed to be a portable rather than a hybrid.

Something way more in line with the existing DS/3DS lines, but with a single software library shared across devices. One platform, multiple devices.

Games that will be coming out for Switch will be designed with 720p at minimum in mind. To then offer a 540p or even 480p screen later on down the line would introduce a lot of problems, as those UIs and gameplay elements would not be designed for readability at such a low resolution. Other than a die-shrink, reducing the size of the Switch will do little to save on power, but it will make even less room for a battery, making such a move counter-productive.

You could make a slightly smaller version without the modularity (and keeping the same 720p resolution), but then you'd completely lose the dock functionality because the dock is made for the specific width of the Switch. It's a doable move, but it only REALLY makes sense once Nvidia can move production of the Switch APU to a smaller lithographic process, either 10nm or 7nm. Which isn't likely to happen until sometime in 2018.

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

My edited rhetorical question addressed your answer which I pointed out was not getting the point across before. Your "rhetorical question" literally doesn't add any point of argument.

Not sure where you're going with this.

It adds the point of asking where the figure of "at least $50" originated. My question was who introduced it, and your reply began "because".

Originally, I was suggesting that the dock and controller, as well as associated costs, would increase the price, and therefore could potentially push it beyond £200. You said "it doesn't" (I'm assuming you meant it wouldn't).

Then, when picked up on your defintive assertion, your reply was to introduce the figure of "at least $50" as a threshold for the price increase, hence my question. No one else mentioned that amount, and it seems like when pushed on whether the price could be bumped due to more items being manufactured and packaged, rather than simply accept that prospect as a mere possibility, you began retrofitting your argument around an arbitrary amount you'd decided upon.

As I said before, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but stating things as definite seems presumptuous.

Edit - nice edit. Again.

 

[sanstesy]

It adds the point of asking where the figure of "at least $50" originated. My question was who introduced it, and your reply began "because".

Originally, I was suggesting that the dock and controller, as well as associated costs, would increase the price, and therefore could potentially push it beyond £200. You said "it doesn't" (I'm assuming you meant it wouldn't).

Then, when picked up on your defintive assertion, your reply was to introduce the figure of "at least $50" as a threshold for the price increase, hence my question. No one else mentioned that amount, and it seems like when pushed on whether the price could be bumped due to more items being manufactured and packaged, rather than simply accept that prospect as a mere possibility, you began retrofitting your argument around an arbitrary amount you'd decided upon.

As I said before, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but stating things as definite seems presumptuous.

Should have asked a normal question then because that was a very poorly worded rhetorical question.

I don't state things as definite, but I'm stating things as very likely considering market conditions and past products involving simple & these days cheap to produce technology as plastic docks or controllers like the Wiimote and Nunchuck, which the Joy-Cons are essentially a dumbed down & cheaper version of.

You can just disagree I guess, but that doesn't make things any more likely than my suggestion without further backing up where a dock and simple (detachable) controllers make up a even solid amount of production costs.

Also not sure what the problem with using the edit option is, especially after you responding 20 minutes later. Oh shit, I used it again!

 

[ggx2ac]

Yeah and why does anyone think a portable with an even lower resolution screen and an even smaller screen is something people specifically want?

Anyway, when this thing comes out hopefully the myth that there is this audience waiting for a "portable" small-screen sized handheld will be put to an end.

Newsflash, the claims that the Switch is not going to sell as a portable because it's size prevents it come from people that have never owned 3DS XL, 2DS or a Vita.

They are just looking for something to downplay the system, once the "portability" downplay is over, it's going to switch to, "My phone has a display resolution of 4K, Switch 720p lol!" or, "It doesn't have Android, why would I use this over my own tablet?"

 

[sanstesy]

Newsflash, the people claiming that it's not going to sell because it's size prevents it from being a portable have never owned 3DS XL, 2DS or a Vita.

They are just looking for something to downplay the system, once the "portability" downplay is over, it's going to switch to, "My phone has a display resolution of 4K, Switch 720p lol!" or, "It doesn't have Android, why would I use this over my own tablet?"

I'm not sure about that, seems more like some people here are just too caught up in their superficial gaming traditions.

 

[Rappy]

A dock and detachable controllers will more than likely not make an at least $50 difference which is all that is important & relevant in this discussion.

And the handheld, while packaged, will most likely already be in the dock, so at least a 50% smaller box size is a pretty heavy overestimation.

The cost of shipping it has a factor in its retail price (cargo ship, freight trucks, how much they can fit on a single pallet, etc.). I don't see how it's irrelevant. Also, IMO I think it's unlikely the Switch will be packaged already in the dock. But if you look at the picture of the dock with your eyes, you can see that even inside the dock it takes up more than twice the space as with just the tablet alone. Now maybe this doesn't alter the price significantly or maybe it does, because you know what? I haven't looked at specifics on the shipping rates Nintendo gets from their shipping partners and you haven't either. But to say it's not a factor in pricing this product for MSRP? I'll just stop here.

 

[ggx2ac]

I'm not sure about that, seems more like some people here are just too caught up in their superficial gaming traditions.

If you're referring to the people that want a Nintendo home console that is a clone of a PS4 Pro, Nintendo has ignored them since the Wii since the GameCube showed that the audience isn't there.

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

Should have asked a normal question then because that was a very poorly worded rhetorical question.

I don't state things as definite, but I'm stating things as very likely considering market conditions and past products involving simple & these days cheap to produce technology as plastic docks or controllers like the Wiimote and Nunchuck, which the Joy-Cons are essentially a dumbed down & cheaper version of.

You can just disagree I guess, but that doesn't make things any more likely than my suggestion without further backing up where a dock and simple (detachable) controllers make up a even solid amount of production costs.

Well then perhaps we can both accept we've misinterpeted one another or spoken poorly during this exchange, as your previous statement of "it doesn't" didn't reflect the flexibility claimed in your post here.

I never said it would make up a solid amount, a figure, or any metric other than I think the additional items (as perceived by a handheld only gamer) could theoretically be the difference between hitting sub £200 and not. I stand by that. You disagree, and I'll happily accept that.

If it's alright by you, I'll leave this discussion here as it's getting late and I think we've both said our piece and understand one another now?

Oh, and my issue with edits is that I'm replying rather laboriously on a tablet, and when edits change the tone of a post it throws the conversation off a tad.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

A dock and detachable controllers will more than likely not make an at least $50 difference which is all that is important & relevant in this discussion.

And the handheld, while packaged, will most likely already be in the dock, so at least a 50% smaller box size is a pretty heavy overestimation.

The Switch dock is not the same as the Wii U dock or 3DS dock. It is the power supply, a USB hub and also the audio and video output of the tablet. It's not just the dock though. The tablet has to interface with the dock, probably through proprietary connectors. Omitting this whole set up will cut manufacturing costs.

IIRC, according to the patent, the joy-cons may use infra-red to communicate to the tablet as well as the cradle. If this is the case, then each joy-con will have a transmitter and both the tablet and the cradle will a receiver/sensor. In addition, each joy-con can act as their own independent controller. That means each joy-con likely has built into it as well. The joy-cons also have to be powered, so there's a good chance each one will have a battery. As plain as they look, the joy-cons may actually be quite expensive to make.

Nintendo has already said they are debating on whether or not to include the cradle with the system. There is only one reason they would be questioning that - to keep the price down. That alone should tell you that these parts aren't as cheap as some would think. The Wii U gamepad and Gamecube component video cables are two more examples though. Both were expensive and both were not easy to come by - they have to be ordered directly from Nintendo. I think a replacement gamepad is around $100 and it basically a dumb terminal. IIRC, the Gamecube cable were around $50 at the time due to the proprietary connector. We don't have enough information to know for sure, but based on all the evidence I think it's foolish to assume these parts have such little impact on the price of the system.

 

[sanstesy]

The cost of shipping it has a factor in its retail price (cargo ship, freight trucks, how much they can fit on a single pallet, etc.). I don't see how it's irrelevant. Also, IMO I think it's unlikely the Switch will be packaged already in the dock. But if you look at the picture of the dock with your eyes, you can see that even inside the dock it takes up more than twice the space as with just the tablet alone. Now maybe this doesn't alter the price significantly or maybe it does, because you know what? I haven't looked at specifics on the shipping rates Nintendo gets from their shipping partners and you haven't either. But to say it's not a factor in pricing this product for MSRP? I'll just stop here.

I never said that, though. I'm saying this thing will be packaged with the handheld being docked and why shouldn't it? It saves a lot space. Overall you're just overestimating the box size difference with or without dock because as you said the dock is maybe 2-3 times thicker but that is not saying much when the handheld part is pretty thin. If the dock would be especially wide you would have a small point here, but that's not the case.

If you're referring to the people that want a Nintendo home console that is a clone of a PS4 Pro, Nintendo has ignored them since the Wii since the GameCube showed that the audience isn't there.

No, I mean the fact that people some people think small-screen sized portables is a specific desire people have when the opposite is the case.

Well then perhaps we can both accept we've misinterpeted one another or spoken poorly during this exchange, as your previous statement of "it doesn't" didn't reflect the flexibility claimed in your post here.

I never said it would make up a solid amount, a figure, or any metric other than I think the additional items (as perceived by a handeld only gamer) could theoretically be the difference between hitting sub £200 and not. I satnd by that. You disagree, and I'll happily accept that.

If it's alright by you, I'll leave this discussion here as it's getting late and I think we've both said our piece and understand one another now?

Okay.

Nintendo has already said they are debating on whether or not to include the cradle with the system.

Where? Otherwise, what a load of nonsense. This is not expensive tech by any means, even when adding it all up.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

This is what I expected.

 

[Cday]

If it can't connect to a proper display without lugging around the dock then they're already failing with it.

 

[Nostremitus]

Next year, Nintendo announces a smaller, handheld only variant of the Switch called the Gameboy NS.

 

[Allforce]

If it can't connect to a proper display without lugging around the dock then they're already failing with it.

This is what I don't get, the dock apparently isn't providing any additional substance to this thing other than being a glorified HDMI-out cable (and charging port).

Why not just pair the thing with a proprietary cable you can take anywhere? It'd cost pennies to manufacture.

 

[Rappy]

Where?

They haven't said they are still considering it. But if you read the report/OP, they considered having a dockless SKU and the only reason they have stated why is because of brand confusion. The fact that they even considered it means they see some value in selling it without the dock.

This is what I don't get, the dock apparently isn't providing any additional substance to this thing other than being a glorified HDMI-out cable (and charging port).

Why not just pair the thing with a proprietary cable you can take anywhere? It'd cost pennies to manufacture.

USB connections/storage.

 

[Strimei]

Hm. Well I was intending to only buy a handheld version of it.

So looks like I'm waiting a while. Fine by me.

 

[Matt]

This is what I don't get, the dock apparently isn't providing any additional substance to this thing other than being a glorified HDMI-out cable (and charging port).

Why not just pair the thing with a proprietary cable you can take anywhere? It'd cost pennies to manufacture.

For a lot of reasons, the dock is an essential part of the overall system.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "travel cable."

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Games that will be coming out for Switch will be designed with 720p at minimum in mind. To then offer a 540p or even 480p screen later on down the line would introduce a lot of problems, as those UIs and gameplay elements would not be designed for readability at such a low resolution. Other than a die-shrink, reducing the size of the Switch will do little to save on power, but it will make even less room for a battery, making such a move counter-productive.

You could make a slightly smaller version without the modularity (and keeping the same 720p resolution), but then you'd completely lose the dock functionality because the dock is made for the specific width of the Switch. It's a doable move, but it only REALLY makes sense once Nvidia can move production of the Switch APU to a smaller lithographic process, either 10nm or 7nm. Which isn't likely to happen until sometime in 2018.

I know it isn't the same chipset, but the original Nvidia Shield Portable had a 720p screen, 4-5 hour battery life while gaming and launched at $200. It had all the connectivity too. If Nvidia did it, why can't Nintendo?

You're right about the screen. It's too late to change that now, so 720p will have to be a baseline going forward to ensure compatibility. Regardless, I have little doubt they could release a dedicated handheld at a lower price - again $200 seems like the logical price - but the question is when. My concern is that if they wait too long, they may end up losing their handheld support.

 

[ShadowFox08]

Again, someone mentioned it before...it doesn't split the install base if they're playing the exact same games. People talk about the Pro or Scorpio splitting the install base in fear of if they start offering exclusive games to those systems.

Its not going to make it easy for online multiplayer games when the battery is rumored to be 3 hours max. Online multiplayer will take even more energy than usual, so it could be less than 3 hours. Games like CoD come to mind. I fear the casuals will stick more to the handhelds and not touch online multiplayer.

 

[sanstesy]

They haven't said they are still considering it. But if you read the report/OP, they considered having a dockless SKU and the only reason they have stated why is because of brand confusion. The fact that they even considered it means they see some value in selling it without the dock.

Yeah and I am not believing that one bit. She has credible sources, but not ones that are privy to such information. Like Matt said, the dock is an essential part of the system and more importantly the key part of the overall concept. It wouldn't make sense at all.

 

[DarkConfidant]

They call it a Home Console on their website. Makes sense.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

Where? Otherwise, what a load of nonsense. This is not expensive tech by any means, even when adding it all up.

Took me awhile to find this. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1297684

 

[sanstesy]

Took me awhile to find this. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1297684

I don't see it, where does it say this?

 

[Alchemy]

That kinda sucks, I was hoping to get one full bundle with the dock and one handheld so me and my wife each had one. We don't really need two docks :/

 

[Lakershead22]

Honestly, Nintendo not having a handheld only version at launch was a given.

 

[CarbonFire]

I know it isn't the same chipset, but the original Nvidia Shield Portable had a 720p screen, 4-5 hour battery life while gaming and launched at $200. It had all the connectivity too. If Nvidia did it, why can't Nintendo?

You're right about the screen. It's too late to change that now, so 720p will have to be a baseline going forward to ensure compatibility. Regardless, I have little doubt they could release a dedicated handheld at a lower price - again $200 seems like the logical price - but the question is when. My concern is that if they wait too long, they may end up losing their handheld support.

If they did a portable only SKU with no modularity, I have little doubt they could hit the $200 or less pricepoint. That said, I see little sense in jumping headlong into the shrinking mobile market with 2 similar SKUs until the Switch proves to be a solid platform. And as for a "true" portable, again we're waiting for either a miracle breakthrough in battery tech (which is probably still the eternal 5 years off), or the die shrink to squeeze more out of what is available.

Think about it this way: The Shield Portable had Tegra 4 with graphics performance rated just under 100 gigaflops. With the Switch, you're looking at a portable with probably 5-6 times the performance (possibly more when docked), but with a battery that's only slightly bigger and probably no more dense. Improvements in CPU efficiency aside, there's just no magic bullet to making these things small, light, and most of all, cheap with anything approaching good battery life.

The Switch is the best Frankenstein's monster Nintendo could put together, and besides the dumb removable joycons also being tiny Trump hand-sized controllers of their own, I think they did an admirable job catering to very disparate markets. Now hopefully they did all this while still keeping the price reasonable.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I don't get this either. Tablets are a thing people carry around and use and are popular. This is no different.

Nintendo isn't fighting for pocket space with this anymore, which I think is smart.

Still fighting for bag space though. I'll rarely take mine with me since I don't game on the go much and my iPad Pro 9.7 is much more useful. Switch will only go on trips with long flights and what not where I may want to game.

If there was a console only option that was enough cheaper I'd probably go that way since 99% of my gaming will be on the TV and with the Pro controller.

Conversely, for others, especially in Japan, they'll use it as a portable the majority of the time and some of those probably wish there was a cheaper portable only version--and maybe one a bit smaller to be more portable.

In any case, I'll buy day one as long as it's not more than $300 (and hopefully more like $250) and just leave it docked with the joycons attached and play with a pro controller. Then I can at least grab it quickly if I want to play while taking a dump or whatever without having to attach the controllers.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I don't see it, where does it say this?

I don't know where the discussion was specifically, but the thread I linked to had all the pertinent links. Here is a summary:

1. The price hasn't been announced and it sounds like Nintendo haven't determined what it will actually be.
2. Nintendo had an article calling the "grip" an accessory.
3. Famitsu had an article that was translated and it sounded like multiple SKU's were being discussed. This could mean a lot of things; a dedicated handheld, a dedicated console or a barebones Switch and a premium Switch - think Wii U basic and deluxe.
4. When asked what will be bundled with the system, the WSJ reporter confirmed that the tablet, dock and two joy-cons are included. The "grip" or "cradle" as I was calling it, is unclear.
5. Nintendo CEO just said they were thinking about price and won't take a loss.

I thought there was an actual Nintendo rep or someone who would know that specifically mentioned that the decision to include the grip in the bundle was still being discussed, but I can't find the where I saw it, so I could be mistaken about that.

Here is another article that has a lot of info about the price though: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/gaming/556892/Nintendo-Switch-Price-Release-Date-Specs-NX-news-update

Although I can't find the specific link, when you look at all the evidence what other conclusion is there? Nintendo won't confirm if the grip is bundled, they are still deciding on a price and they won't take a loss on the system.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

If they did a portable only SKU with no modularity, I have little doubt they could hit the $200 or less pricepoint. That said, I see little sense in jumping headlong into the shrinking mobile market with 2 similar SKUs until the Switch proves to be a solid platform. And as for a "true" portable, again we're waiting for either a miracle breakthrough in battery tech (which is probably still the eternal 5 years off), or the die shrink to squeeze more out of what is available.

Think about it this way: The Shield Portable had Tegra 4 with graphics performance rated just under 100 gigaflops. With the Switch, you're looking at a portable with probably 5-6 times the performance (possibly more when docked), but with a battery that's only slightly bigger and probably no more dense. Improvements in CPU efficiency aside, there's just no magic bullet to making these things small, light, and most of all, cheap with anything approaching good battery life.

The Switch is the best Frankenstein's monster Nintendo could put together, and besides the dumb removable joycons also being tiny Trump hand-sized controllers of their own, I think they did an admirable job catering to very disparate markets. Now hopefully they did all this while still keeping the price reasonable.

My concern is that Nintendo may price it out of the realm of being a solid handheld gaming platform. As far as battery life goes, yes I know the chipset in the Shield Portable is less powerful than the one in the Switch, but isn't the X1 supposed to be more efficient and thus require less power?