-
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.
I do not understand the technical reason for voice chat needing an app
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
There is no technical reason.
He knows because he has common senses no, voice chat is not some kind of big hit on battery or performance. That's literally not how it works. Shit just look at literally every gaming device that has ever supported it. Are you saying that the Switch is so mindblowingly shitty that voice fucking chat impacts it in any noticeable way whatsoever?
I guess so...
First page basically called it: no good reason.
Secret sauce.
AFAIK it can be done while in handheld mode, correct?
Vital Tundra
Member
Except not everyone has a phone capable of using this app, as opposed to everyone having the console. So why not use the console so no one with the console gets left out because their phone cant use the app?
Hellsing321
Member
Yes but Sony didn't have to worry about their games looking good on a big screen with the Vita in 2011. I don't know if that's the reason Nintendo decided to use an App for voice chat. Pure speculation in my part but it could be a technical reason for the decision.
HazySaiyan
Banned
Because Nintendo. You'll send yourself mad trying to actually work out the reason, it will make some sort of weird sense to them and them alone.
primasaurus
Member
Battery power is one obvious one
Yeah there is no technical reason... definitely capable of it.
Only possible thing is needing to run a voice chat app in the background as well as a game, would take up resources? But have no idea if that would take up a significant amount of resources or not.
Just seems bizarre they would...rather develop an app and accessories instead of just pushing the functionality to the console itself.
All I know is it'll go down as one of the most stupid console accessories.
Only possible thing is needing to run a voice chat app in the background as well as a game, would take up resources? But have no idea if that would take up a significant amount of resources or not.
Just seems bizarre they would...rather develop an app and accessories instead of just pushing the functionality to the console itself.
All I know is it'll go down as one of the most stupid console accessories.
Woo-Fu
Banned
If you can transmit other multiplayer data for a game you can transmit voice data too. There aren't any insurmountable hurdles there, just some quality/rate stuff that needs to be juggled.
Other platforms have/do do this, even other Nintendo platforms.
That said, I don't think the reason needs to be technical and if a Nintendo mouthpiece said it was they're just spinning what might be an unpopular policy decision/compromise to some.
Baleoce
Member
I assume the only real answer is because it brings down the manufacturing cost per unit, and the more things they can achieve through the app the better to achieve that goal. I don't agree with that decision though. My vita can use a Bluetooth headset and I can party chat.
The one innovation I will say the phone app does that's really cool, is parental controls.
autoduelist
Member
But that is a tech issue. So if they decided upon a lean design, they're limited by the size and cost of components - both of those are tech issues.
[not defending this, by the way, I find it a bizarre choice].
Stealthcobra
Member
PandaShake
Member
It's most likely a cost issue. I doubt it's space limitation because the Switch is already at a size where it won't fit in your pocket. Having it millimeters thicker or wider to incorporate what's necessary when it's in your bag won't make a difference. I doubt it's parental control related if 3ds has it. Like another gaffer said, having a cable from the 3.5mm jack across the room when it's docked can have liability issues (but it might not be the case since consoles had wired controllers across the room for decades). Incorporating what's necessary to make both bluetooth joycon and headset work most likely pushed the Switch above a certain cost threshold they were shooting for so they made a design consideration.
"Probably" is being cheritable. There's no technological or practical consideration that made the current "solution" necessarily, so "compromise" is also a pointless word to use. Aside from not taking the time and effort to create gaming hardware/software that delivers one their own needs (let alone those for other publishers), which is their one and only business, I haven't encountered an acceptable explanation.
Wowfunhappy
Member
The problem is that too many parents simply ignore the controls—or don't seem them because the child was the one who set up the console—and Nintendo still gets blamed for it. Nintendo consoles are still largely viewed as toys, and not given the same care as something like a computer or cell phone.
Again, look at what happened with Swapnote. It only takes one story about a child having sex because of a Nintendo product...
stan423321
Member
This. They clearly went this way due to Swapnotegate. This whole conundrum prevents parents from claiming a Nintendo device opened a venue for their kids to talk with unwanted individuals, because now to chat you need a phone, continuously (as opposed to borrowing parents' one for a minute). Note that we don't know who's buying Switches for whom, but 3DSes were somewhat popular with parents who did not want their kid to have a phone.
An additional element is Nintendo going full appliance on Switch, no music player, no (user-accessible without shenanigans) Web browser, and also no communication services either.
It doesn't help that with everyone's focus on party chat as opposed to server chat nothing really should stop you from using regular communication services instead.
But the real reason is clearly Swapnote affair. They just nuked the thing overnight.
Velocity:Design:Comfort
Banned
Not trying to defend the voice chat BS, but this is pretty disingenuous (or you had unrealistic expectations). Pick up ARMS or MK8D if you want to see how the HD rumble works.
Why the fuck would I use my smartphone when I'm using my console? It makes no fucking sense at all. You can't even have the fucking game audio coming through the app. So the only way you are going to be able to both voice chat and use headphones is by buying a dumb bulky ass adapter that doesn't need to exist. And you'll still be using a extra device where there is no actual good reason to use it.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Perfect response. Nintendo does what Nintendo wants to do and after all these years, we will never be able to understand why. Its stuff like this that just turn me off with them...
JinjoUnchained
Member
Another possible reason is free advertising. If the online system is run through the console, then only Switch owners can see it. Now I don't know if the Switch online app actually does this, but in theory, because it's an app on devices that everyone owns, then Nintendo could let non-Switch owners download the app and get a taste of the Nintendo ecosystem/user experience. Maybe let those people watch some matchesin real time so that they can see what they're missing. It would be like going around Twitch, if you will.
From a design standpoint, it just got the axe probably to cut costs and keep the design as slim/small as possible. In theory, you could use a Bluetooth headset with the Switch without a cumbersome workaround (the Switch supports Bluetooth 4.1), but the functionality hasn't been implemented from the software side.
Maybe this changes in the future. I dunno. We can only hope.
I'll try the app with Splatoon 2 and see how I like it. I'm currently not a fan, but who knows...I've played plenty of console games using Skype and Discord, so this is basically the same thing I guess.
Maybe this changes in the future. I dunno. We can only hope.
I'll try the app with Splatoon 2 and see how I like it. I'm currently not a fan, but who knows...I've played plenty of console games using Skype and Discord, so this is basically the same thing I guess.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I don't either and I think it's stupid.
They're not streaming from the Switch or to the app. Also, every other system lets you stream to people who don't own the system.
yongeandcollege
Member
There is no technical reason; its a baffling design decision.
As someone who doesn't work at Nintendo, here's some insider info made up by an outsider.
It's the result of a bet gone wrong.
But when someone says they bet you £5 you can't annoy the entire fanbase with one decision, sometimes you're wanting of that £5 and winning the bet comes before any logical business sense.
It's the result of a bet gone wrong.
But when someone says they bet you £5 you can't annoy the entire fanbase with one decision, sometimes you're wanting of that £5 and winning the bet comes before any logical business sense.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Signs have always pointed to Nintendo not liking how the internet and online messaging is beyond their total control for content and appearance. Shoving all that off onto a smartphone app developed by a partner seems perfect for them, if not the end user.
They can say they have competitive online features but their actual first-party devices are free of services they don't want to deal with.
They can say they have competitive online features but their actual first-party devices are free of services they don't want to deal with.
I hope that post you replied to was sarcasm...
Reading thru the Switch Online app thread its a mess even as an app....for phones that explicitly handle communication.
Even as a launch app, some things should have been done before any updates, fixes.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
I really don't think that is the reason.
Shiggy's just making fun of what a stupid idea that was that a bunch of diehards ginned up inside their ass.
flamesofchaos
Member
My assumption is that the RAM use at an OS level is very small and Nintendo delegated almost all the RAM available to games especially if its true that Capcom and others requested more RAM to be available for games.
If that's true then the options for voice chat would be to either build it per game (and not at an OS level) like Wii U did, at an OS level (which might not be possible on Switch if the OS has very low RAM delegated to it), or offload it to a smartphone app.
If that's true then the options for voice chat would be to either build it per game (and not at an OS level) like Wii U did, at an OS level (which might not be possible on Switch if the OS has very low RAM delegated to it), or offload it to a smartphone app.
boneyjangles
Member
The switch is too versatile for there to be a good solution to this outside of the app.
Wii-U had voice chat without an app, but then you didn't dock the screen-controller, that jack will always be right next to your head(phones).
Switch has too many configurations -
*both joycons attached in hand
*both joycons, separated and switch propped up
*both joycons, docked
*single joycon, docked
*signle joycon, separated and switch proped
*pro controller docked
*pro controller, propped
So although there is a jack 3.5mm jack on the switch, it's often going to be either slightly or completely out of reach.
Common forum solution - "3.5mm jack all the things!" (both joycons, pro-controller, switch), A bit silly, that would mean a switch by default (with two joyons attached) would have 3 x 3.5mm jacks on it. Completely crap solution fundamentally. Never mind fitting them on joycons, engineering and usability for which jack to use by default, increased battery use for sending audio as data and fitting that (and battery) on a little tiny joycon.
Another common forum solution - "just use BT audio" - even though in 2017 BT audio still stinks. One directional stereo is 'acceptable', but 2-way with mic it horrible quality mono sound, completely unsuitable for games, especially if your game sound is coming over that too. No PS4 or Xbox wireless headset is BT audio for this exact reason, propriety shit with dongles. Likewise PS4/Xbox controllers don't fuck with BT audio when sending your 3.5mm port data over the controller wireless.
So yeah, you get an app, I guess that works OK in certain switch configurations, and if you aren't using TV speaker or switch speaker for game sounds, you can get a little adapter for your headphones to get switch/phone sounds at once. It is what it is. It's fine to be honest. Phone/discord/headset is already thing anyway.
Wii-U had voice chat without an app, but then you didn't dock the screen-controller, that jack will always be right next to your head(phones).
Switch has too many configurations -
*both joycons attached in hand
*both joycons, separated and switch propped up
*both joycons, docked
*single joycon, docked
*signle joycon, separated and switch proped
*pro controller docked
*pro controller, propped
So although there is a jack 3.5mm jack on the switch, it's often going to be either slightly or completely out of reach.
Common forum solution - "3.5mm jack all the things!" (both joycons, pro-controller, switch), A bit silly, that would mean a switch by default (with two joyons attached) would have 3 x 3.5mm jacks on it. Completely crap solution fundamentally. Never mind fitting them on joycons, engineering and usability for which jack to use by default, increased battery use for sending audio as data and fitting that (and battery) on a little tiny joycon.
Another common forum solution - "just use BT audio" - even though in 2017 BT audio still stinks. One directional stereo is 'acceptable', but 2-way with mic it horrible quality mono sound, completely unsuitable for games, especially if your game sound is coming over that too. No PS4 or Xbox wireless headset is BT audio for this exact reason, propriety shit with dongles. Likewise PS4/Xbox controllers don't fuck with BT audio when sending your 3.5mm port data over the controller wireless.
So yeah, you get an app, I guess that works OK in certain switch configurations, and if you aren't using TV speaker or switch speaker for game sounds, you can get a little adapter for your headphones to get switch/phone sounds at once. It is what it is. It's fine to be honest. Phone/discord/headset is already thing anyway.
You know what else switch owners always have with them? A switch. Lol.
Still haven't heard a single convincing argument for why locking chat to a phone app is good.
This.
This was a business decision, not a technical limitation. That much is certain. As everyone already knows, lots of gaming platforms (including all other consoles) provide integrated voice chat, implemented well.
The reasoning behind the decision is unknown and will probably remain so.
Kamina
Golden Boy
This. There is no 'technical' reason. Nintendo just doesnt want to administrate and maintain such a service.
LordRaptor
Member
No. There are plenty of reasons why moving communications to the device explicitly designed for that purpose makes a lot of sense.
Its moot though, because how Nintendo executes it is the single most important thing, not the potential that may or may not be met and GAF are inherently reluctant to want anything more than faster horses in the first place.
*sigh*
At a technical level there are tons of devices that do something similar to the switch. Most mobile devices (especially tablets) are comparable, have similar battery concerns, and don't decide to throw voice communication out for the 5 extra minutes of Zelda that you may possibly gain from it.
It didn't need to be restricted to the Pro controller. It could have been included in the grip controller also (along with fucking battery charging, holy shit...). Yes, you would have use cases where you wouldn't realistically have a headset connected, but that's when either a Bluetooth connection to the console, or the current mobile device makes sense. This one use-case should not have resulted in in a phone being required at all times. If I'm using PlayStation Moves, then I don't have my headset connected to them, that doesn't mean it should be removed from the DualShock also, it's a stupid argument.
It's a "solution" to a problem they've uniquely created for themselves. Sure if it was the only feasible way to have voice chat on a portable gaming device, then it would make sense... but it isn't. It should be an additional option, not the only option.
At a technical level there are tons of devices that do something similar to the switch. Most mobile devices (especially tablets) are comparable, have similar battery concerns, and don't decide to throw voice communication out for the 5 extra minutes of Zelda that you may possibly gain from it.
It didn't need to be restricted to the Pro controller. It could have been included in the grip controller also (along with fucking battery charging, holy shit...). Yes, you would have use cases where you wouldn't realistically have a headset connected, but that's when either a Bluetooth connection to the console, or the current mobile device makes sense. This one use-case should not have resulted in in a phone being required at all times. If I'm using PlayStation Moves, then I don't have my headset connected to them, that doesn't mean it should be removed from the DualShock also, it's a stupid argument.
It's a "solution" to a problem they've uniquely created for themselves. Sure if it was the only feasible way to have voice chat on a portable gaming device, then it would make sense... but it isn't. It should be an additional option, not the only option.
Imagine attaching earphones while using the detached joycons control scheme.
Man the original Xbox should have ran games at one digit framerates if so. 64mb of ram and yet handled voice chat pretty darn well.
CloudyTuba
Member
How I imagine it went was that a few top management were grumbling about how much work/money it would be to set up their own voice chat considering they hadn't even finished their online switch infrastructure yet and hadn't make proper preparations for it when designing the hardware like they should have. With release too soon to implement in time, the tech guys were saying "please understand."
Then, as one looked with scorn at the intern in the corner playing on his phone more than working, he got a twinkle in his eye. "Let's just make an app! Kids love apps." Then everyone nervously golf clapped because it sounded like shit but they didn't have any better ideas themselves.
Reggie was not present at the meeting, but upon sensing such an asinine and frustrating decision being made within his organization, started Agent Smith laughing.
Then, as one looked with scorn at the intern in the corner playing on his phone more than working, he got a twinkle in his eye. "Let's just make an app! Kids love apps." Then everyone nervously golf clapped because it sounded like shit but they didn't have any better ideas themselves.
Reggie was not present at the meeting, but upon sensing such an asinine and frustrating decision being made within his organization, started Agent Smith laughing.
For a device thats designed around portability....it doesnt make sense.
Its why we saw, see the rise of smaller tablets, bigger tablets, phablets (phone, tablet hybrids) Bigger screen phones in general.
Each one designed to allow the person to only need one device. Whatever that choice may be.
Its why years ago before the rise of smartphones some cellphones could play .mp3's. Despite the success of iPods. Their status changed from cell phone to feature phone. At one point the line between feature phone and smartphone was blurred.
I dont even know if they make iPods anymore. Its kind of a waste IMO when you could just get some smartphone, not activate it and use that instead. iPod nano, thats different..
Its also the reason why you see Sony and MS design their consoles to be media hubs. Why have a separate dvd, blu ray player. Why use your PC for web browsing. Why use your cable, satellite, PC for content viewing.