I don't think the NES was a monopoly.
There were several other 8-bit systems.
Almost twice as many hardware sales and three times the software sales does not a rival make.
Only way I can ever see them getting dethroned is if Apple or Google ever decide to make a serious effort to push a standard for physical controllers and push for developers to have higher priced games with traditional development cycles.
Europe is a proud Master System land.OP, what are you smoking?
Are you from outside the US? In the US, it was pretty much just the NES.
Yes, Nintendo has a monopoly on the mobile gaming market as long as you ignore 95% of the mobile market. Nintendo could disappear overnight and nobody would notice the loss of revenue made in mobile games.
Nintendo has a monopoly on hybrid console gaming.... But is that a monopoly people want considering their third party support will be incredibly lacking as a result of ARM-based hardware? So far, everyone I know that has or wants a Switch was a Nintendo fan that buys their hardware as "Nintendo boxes"
Uggggggggghhh.
ARM has absolutely nothing to do with porting. It's about as ubiquitous as x86 these days due to mobile development, every modern game engine has support for both, especially both Unreal and Unity. Hell, power really isn't a massive hurdle either, the gap between the Switch and the Xbone/PS4 is much smaller than the gap between the Wii and the 360/PS3 in practical terms. Even Snake Pass, a UE4 game that was based around animation and physics too intensive for the PS4 to handle at native res, plays and looks fine on Switch at just lower res and a couple of missing effects.
If the system sells well, third parties will come. The problem is, publishers are skittish after the Wii U failed, the Switch is a mid-gen emergency reboot, and western AAA devs tend to avoid handhelds like the plague because reasons.
Nintendo has had experience with ARM based CPU's going all the way back to the Game Boy Advance. The GBA line, DS, 3DS and now Switch. Using ARM benefits Nintendo in a big way, as it is something their teams are all familiar with and already have development environments set up for it.
And yeah, so many third party publishers have teams specialized in making ARM powered mobile games, and have engines that support ARM architectural. The popular third party engines (Unity, UE4, GameMaker, etc...) all support ARM as well. Nintendo using ARM going forward could benefit them.
I'm not saying it has anything to do with porting but when you're dealing with an architecture that is significantly less powerful than the consoles that released in 2013, it's not reasonable to expect third parties to target Switch performance or make all sorts of concessions to get it functioning on Switch. Especially when talking about games that have lots and lots of simulation (open worlds). I'm a believer in ARM but it's just a fact that ARM processing is several generations behind X86 processing performance.
will shit all over it when the inevitable Pokemon and Monster Hunter games come out), I sincerely doubt there hasn't been discussions on the notion in Sony's boardrooms.
Have you compared the Tegra X1 and the chips used in the Xbone/PS4? Jaguar is so shit that the X1 CPU is actually pretty close, albeit with a few less cores, but multicore processing only gets you so far with gaming. Open worlds are another matter entirely, but not everything is going open-world, and more modern architecture helps bridge the gap. Again, devs have released PS4 games without sacrificing much in terms of visual fidelity, and the most prominent example was a two-month porting effort using UE4, and Epic claims there's a lot more where that came from.
The next Tegra SoC, Xavier, is gonna be a proper octo-core device, likely with at least 2.0GHz processing frequency, and basically double the GPU power of the X1 at least, and probably is what is gonna be in the Switch 2. The Switch is already an absolute beast for a handheld, I can envision the Switch 2 being a PS4+ device. "Several generations behind", my ass.
an architecture that is significantly less powerful
This gets said a lot, but NO 80s home computing platform came anywhere close to the NES worldwide. Even the Master System sold more than the C64 IIRC.For consoles perhaps, since C64 was popular in Europe in the 8-bit days. That's also why the crash of 1983 didn't affect Europe as much as it did America.
Lol whatever you say. MHP5 or some equivalent will come to the Switch in Japan, lock it in.No, the next MH isn't gonna come out on the Switch specifically MH World. It's already confirmed.
Lol whatever you say. MHP5 or some equivalent will come to the Switch in Japan, lock it in.
This gets said a lot, but NO 80s home computing platform came anywhere close to the NES worldwide. Even the Master System sold more than the C64 IIRC.
Europe was just a much more immature, fragmented, hobbyist market, it didn't crash because there was nothing much to crash, not because of home computers.
Lol whatever you say. MHP5 or some equivalent will come to the Switch in Japan, lock it in.
whatever you say. The facts can speak for themselves. Unless proven otherwise.
Lol 'facts'. So games that haven't been announced will never exist, got it. There will never be another Mario after Odyssey because none have been announced yet I guess.Monster Hunter 5 is Monster Hunter World. World isn't coming to the Switch.
Will Switch get a Monster Hunter? Obviously. MHXX is already confirmed.
Will it get Monster Hunter World? No.
Monster Hunter 5 is Monster Hunter World. World isn't coming to the Switch.
Will Switch get a Monster Hunter? Obviously. MHXX is already confirmed.
Will it get Monster Hunter World? No.
whatever you say. The facts can speak for themselves. Unless proven otherwise.
He never mentioned the next MH. He specifically was talking about an hypothetical MH5.
Do you believe Capcom will never return to a number-based sequel?
Monster Hunter 5 is Monster Hunter World. World isn't coming to the Switch.
Will Switch get a Monster Hunter? Obviously. MHXX is already confirmed.
Will it get Monster Hunter World? No.
Ever heard of a little something called smartphones, OP?
iOS/Android has the handheld monopoly, not Nintendo
Monster Hunter 5 is Monster Hunter World. World isn't coming to the Switch.
Will Switch get a Monster Hunter? Obviously. MHXX is already confirmed.
Will it get Monster Hunter World? No.
Almost twice as many hardware sales and three times the software sales does not a rival make.
They're squandering the first year hype and success of this thing so far, IMO. Nintendo Direct needed soon. The shine is wearing off the initial software slate for me.
The Gameboy number also includes Gameboy Color.OK thanks for that, didn't realize GB sold that much. Still though, for someone to enter that space at that point and put up those numbers was impressive.80 million is nothing to sneeze at...
How will they be more competitive with ARM CPU?Yeah, pretty much what I'm saying. ARM is slowly catching up to x86, and in the long run is more power-efficient and far more portable. I could actually see Microsoft and Sony switching to ARM at some point to stay competitive in the long term, even if that doesn't necessarily mean making hybrid consoles of their own, but considering the Switch is eating the PS4's lunch in Japan (and will shit all over it when the inevitable Pokemon and Monster Hunter games come out), I sincerely doubt there hasn't been discussions on the notion in Sony's boardrooms.
No, the next MH isn't gonna come out on the Switch specifically MH World. It's already confirmed.
I don't know what you believe in, but you, sir, exhibit flamboyant ignorance of what an architecture entails (hint: an ISA is an instruction set). ARM are not just in Japanese hybrid consoles, but soon in Japanese supercomputers: https://www.top500.org/news/fujitsu...-k-supercomputer-will-ride-arm-into-exascale/I'm not saying it has anything to do with porting but when you're dealing with an architecture that is significantly less powerful than the consoles that released in 2013, it's not reasonable to expect third parties to target Switch performance or make all sorts of concessions to get it functioning on Switch. Especially when talking about games that have lots and lots of simulation (open worlds). I'm a believer in ARM but it's just a fact that ARM processing is several generations behind X86 processing performance.
I don't know what you believe in, but you, sir, exhibit flamboyant ignorance of what an architecture entails (hint: an ISA is an instruction set). ARM are not just in Japanese hybrid consoles, but soon in Japanese supercomputers: https://www.top500.org/news/fujitsu...-k-supercomputer-will-ride-arm-into-exascale/
I mean, it's hard to ignore his point though. Unless the Switch continues to sell like hotcakes, I doubt most developers will spend what's required to downport their games to Switch, especially now with PS4Pro and X1X out there.
Simple math: The Switch so far sold only 5m units. Even if you make a game that 10% of the entire Switch install-base buys (which would be a massive hit), you'll only have sold 500k copies. So it's just a question of: Can you make a port that'll become profitable even if you 'only' sell 100-200k units? And downporting to Switch is no easy feat at all due to hardware limitations. I highly doubt that most big AAA games will get a proper port before the Switch hasn't broken through 20+m units sold.
I mean, it's hard to ignore his point though. Unless the Switch continues to sell like hotcakes, I doubt most developers will spend what's required to downport their games to Switch, especially now with PS4Pro and X1X out there.
Simple math: The Switch so far sold only 5m units. Even if you make a game that 10% of the entire Switch install-base buys (which would be a massive hit), you'll only have sold 500k copies. So it's just a question of: Can you make a port that'll become profitable even if you 'only' sell 100-200k units? And downporting to Switch is no easy feat at all due to hardware limitations. I highly doubt that most big AAA games will get a proper port before the Switch hasn't broken through 20+m units sold.
Why would switch suddenly stop selling? And are you implying devs will stop supporting ps4 OG and xb OG?I mean, it's hard to ignore his point though. Unless the Switch continues to sell like hotcakes, I doubt most developers will spend what's required to downport their games to Switch, especially now with PS4Pro and X1X out there.
Why are you making projections based on a 5M install base? By that logic, no game for a new console should ever be developed.Simple math: The Switch so far sold only 5m units. Even if you make a game that 10% of the entire Switch install-base buys (which would be a massive hit), you'll only have sold 500k copies.
I agree in principle, but your figures are rather arbitrary.So it's just a question of: Can you make a port that'll become profitable even if you 'only' sell 100-200k units? And downporting to Switch is no easy feat at all due to hardware limitations.
So once switch hits 20M ARM will suddenly stop being the 'underperforming architecture' by Alexander DeLarge's metric? You do realise his point and what you're arguing are orthogonal things, right?I highly doubt that most big AAA games will get a proper port before the Switch hasn't broken through 20+m units sold.