• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Switch will not have an Internet browser (at least at launch)

This would be such a terrible look for them. Implementing a browser but not letting you actually use it would be even worse lol.

Why? It's a big resource hog and huge liability to the overall security of the OS and system. Yet it is a possible requirement for the use of the device on the go when attempting to connect to public wifi services.

Having a bare minimum solution to display webpages for public wifi authentication services without actually letting you use it to navigate is a smart way to handle things. It eliminates the only major issue lacking a browser would actually introduce, while not requiring any real system resources be reserved for it and limiting the potential vulnerabilities a browser would pose to the OS.

A browser is a feature the vast majority of people will never use, but many will complain about it because they feel they're being robbed of something regardless of that fact. Including it simply because some will make a bit to do about it, despite the vast majority of your customers likely never using it, is a terrible way to run a business. Especially when said feature has proven to be a huge vulnerability for them on every single device they've included one in.

A few things. I don't use console internet browsers, but I do use portable ones, for the hotel WiFi situation listed above. We have also had a number of threads where others have denigrated the Wii U's browsing and app capabilities, only to be responded to with folks who use the those services.

Now, in the Time interview this came from, Nintendo acknowledges that it wants to be a lifestyle device.



The issue is that Nintendo previously understood what most platform holders get. If you want to be a lifestyle device with constant use, then you need to provide the services that prevent them from going to other platforms.



For many mainstream consumers, gaming is a "good enough" situation. You may feel mobile gaming lacks depth and control, but the gaming is secondary. The point is they have a device that is always there and provides a myriad of uses. That it can also game is a value add and those experiences reflect how people game on the go.

Now, you can absolutely say "I don't particularly need that and it's not a problem for me". Rock out. To say "It's not a problem at all" is incorrect. That's not overreacting, that's not outrage, that's not rioting. It's simple criticism based on the market the Switch is launching into. If you're a Nintendo fan, you want them to succeed outside of yourself, because hard Nintendo fans carried the Wii U to 13.56 million units, which was dire. You should want Nintendo to provide a strong value to the average consumer, because this means more systems sold, which means more games sold, which means more money for Nintendo, which feeds back into the rest.

The more a consumer has to rely on a smartphone or tablet for services they expect, the more likely they will rethink a $300 purchase. Again, this isn't an iOS/Android device at the point of sale versus a Switch. They already have the other devices. (This is similar to the Switch's home console problem for many.) You're trying to convince someone to buy this in addition. And "It plays Nintendo games" isn't enough of an answer. It wasn't for the Wii U at all and it wasn't for the 3DS, which required a hefty price drop, mixed with a wider variety of software to kick off.

I have to disagree with this entire premise because the Wii U included everything, as well as the Kitchen sink. You had video chat, web browsing, TV remote functions and probably more. No one gave a shit. And the reason why, because their other devices and systems performed those functions better or we more convenient. Sure some people love the Wii U browser, good for them. But most people who own a Wii U don't use it because it's not better than what their other devices offer and the far larger segment of the population that never bought a Wii U certainly didn't care or think it was a good trade off compared to their other devices.

Nintendo cannot compete with smart devices when it comes to these services. It just isn't going to happen and chasing that white rabbit is just a recipe for disaster and wasted money.

No matter how great their Browser is, the netflix app, etc etc it's going to pale in comparison to the vast majority of people's other devices. Unless it can do everything the other devices can do and better they not going to use those features on the Switch. People will always use their phones because they can call, text, instagram, snapchat, facebook, browse the web, watch youtube, netflix, etc etc all on one device, using data and not worrying about wifi. The Switch can and will never compete with that. Tablet penetration even hasn't become as big as phones because they still fail to be as convenient as them, people don't want to care about Wifi or their size. They'll take a 6" phone that barely fits in their pocket rather than a 10" tablet that needs wifi. Even in console mode it loses out. Smart Tvs now come with many of these features and you can stream from your phone or tablet straight to the TV. I can pull a video on youtube on my phone and have it play on my TV natively. I don't even need to use something like chromecast.

The Switch is going to live and die on its ability to interest people in the things on it can do. Playing games, games at home, games on the go, games with friends. Creating those experiences regardless of where you are and with other people. The relevancy of other features that might help keep some people more connected have tremendously huge diminishing returns.
 
To be honest, I don't think NIntendo will ever have a browser on that thing. Look what happnede to the WiiU

Its a shame, homebrew would be insanely awesome in the Switch

It took like 3-4 years for Wii U homebrew to release AFAIK. Constant firmware updates kept the 3DS safe for a while too. Inability to protect your console from hacks is also not a valid excuse to be missing basic features.
 
There is not much to downplay. Switch is a device for video games, not more not less. WiiU had the best console browser ever, an own social network, video apps, even a specialised Google maps, other apps and some third party support in the beginning... nonetheless it was Nintendos most badly sold console.

They fully concentrate on the gaming aspect with Switch, and regarding the (social) media they have much more positive echo this way than they ever had with WiiU.

Times changed anyway. People have already many devices for apps and browsing, adding another would simply not make a difference in perception of the Switch. The games will make people buy this thing or not.

By the way I think the mobile app is free with an Nintendo account. ;)

There's no evidence that Nintendo is focusing on games either, though. Their launch game is a Wii U up-port. There isn't a full-priced built from the ground up Switch game coming until Mario. The Wii U had some great fucking games. It sold like garbage. The games aren't enough.
 
Any mobile device needs a browser so you can at least login to WiFi captive portals.

Anyway they'll probably release it within the first six months, no need to panic.
 
So to be able to play this online at a hotspot that requires a browser, you will need an additional access point/switch and laptop?
A few things. I don't use console internet browsers, but I do use portable ones, for the hotel WiFi situation listed above.
Any mobile device needs a browser so you can at least login to WiFi captive portals.
Yeah, this is how it goes from supposed "non-issue" to "can't be used as a wifi device while out and about" in a flash. If it has some pop up mini-browser to get into public wifi stuff, then its just Nintendo being lazy with features because if there's access, there's access.

By the by, how many "non-issues" does it take to fuse together to make an issue? Asking the very vocal experts from the last month on what is and isn't an issue.
 
I don't understand how "you can use other devices" is a good argument. With each feature that you can do on other devices you reduce the potential audience for Switch. With each device that you need to have around or with you to complement Switch's basic functionalities you add another layer of inconvenience.

Sure, if you're a squid, there's no issue, you can hold a Switch, a phone, a tablet and a laptop all at once and still be able to do other things.
 
*at launch

Considering all of the account services Nintendo has been building now are web based, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to assume it is coming eventually. Even the DS had a browser.
 
What about choice? what about value? There is nothing bad about services improving for their consumers, or adding features that are standard, thad adds value or even add new innovative feautures. I want the choice or option to do the most basic of tasks in this era. Yes i could just have 1 dedicated device for every single task i had to do, but i don't want to, and neither want to feel restricted or limited by them. And It's fine if it doesn't bother you, but it bothers me, especially since it isn't free.
 
A browser is a feature the vast majority of people will never use, but many will complain about it because they feel they're being robbed of something regardless of that fact. Including it simply because some will make a bit to do about it, despite the vast majority of your customers likely never using it, is a terrible way to run a business. Especially when said feature has proven to be a huge vulnerability for them on every single device they've included one in.

I would have zero problem with no browser if Nintendo was selling just a box to plug into the TV for 150 dollars.

But paying 300 dollars because its a mobile device with a screen and removable controllers and a bunch of other features and compromises due to the portable nature makes it a hard sell if its useless for literally anything else when on the go.
 
If you ever used any other Nintendo console/Wii U/Vita to web browse you're in a tiny minority.

I have to use the sign in page to connect my Vita to the Wifi here at work, let alone in public settings or hotels. I think even Nintendo World's wifi has a sign on page. There's not even an ethernet jack on the dock, and all of the unis I work with here have sign on pages for every WiFi device

The 3DS/Wii U hacks must have Nintendo shook.
 
People who believe an expensive gaming tablet with expensive games could seriously compete with the likes of iPad and Android on the mass market because of some traditional tablet functionality like a browser are overestimating their own bubble.

That's a very specific use case.
 
splatoon 2 and arms? what the fuck are you arguing?

Wait, arms is $60?

pTnFr8j.gif
 
I don't like how dismissive people are of this. I mostly plan to use the Switch as a home console when I eventually get one, but given its nature as a piece of mobile hardware it's silly that it doesn't have basic, standard functionality. If I took it outside somewhere I would expect it to have some of the standard features of devices you take out with you.

"Just pull out another tablet"

I don't have a tablet and I'm not made of money. And I wouldn't want to carry around a ton of different devices anyways.

"People would just pull out their phone anyways"

Why? The Switch is basically a tablet, why would I put it away to use my smaller phone to web browse? Continuing to use the Switch would be more convenient than putting it away and pulling out another device. Plus, the Switch is much nicer than my phone and I would rather browse the web on it than my phone *any* time. Not all of us have iPhones or high end Android devices. I only have a Blu R1 HD from Amazon, and while its nice for what it cost, it pales in comparison to the Switch.

"It would probably be a bad browser anyways"

Why? The Wii U has a good browser and given that it's a piece of mobile hardware like all our phones/tablets it could just use one of them anyways and it's unlikely it would be any worse.

I certainly don't expect it to have the Android App store, but Netflix/Youtube and a Web Browser are absolutely features/programs that I do expect from *any* hardware now. At launch. There is no reasonable explanation that a ready-to-market $300 piece of tech is not ready to roll out the most basic of basic shit at launch.

So yeah, this is disappointing to me. I hope by the time that I'm ready to buy a Switch that this nonsense will be sorted out, especially if it has problems with logging into web-based wifi.

Basically doesn't confirm it's a tablet. Nintendo has not advertised it as such. I haven't even seen any heavily advertised touch screen only games yet (I expect world of goo to be one though).

I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I can understand if you used a browser daily on another console often. It can be disappointing. If it's that important i would keep the older console. I think of it as what exactly am I getting this for, the games or a web browser? If it's a browser first, games second...there are other alternatives.

For the switch, I rather Nintendo focus on what the device is made for; gaming. They can worry about having a web browser for the 2-5 percent of the population that will utilize that functionality
(for porn likely)
later.
 
People who believe an expensive gaming tablet with expensive games could seriously compete with the likes of iPad and Android on the mass market because of some traditional tablet functionality like a browser are overestimating their own bubble.

That's a very specific use case.

But people thinking an expensive handheld with expensive games that doesn't have those features is a better sell? How?
 
No biggie, who doesn't have a smartphones nowadays?
People not privileged enough to find one affordable... like me o.o!

This is why PS3 / 3DS having browsers is nice for if I'm sick in bed or otherwise can't get to my computer yet still wanna do some readin' around on GAF an such.
 
It will probably be part of a bigger update in the fall that will include the new online service and whatever they want to implement. Maybe the video-sharing they promised to implement with a future update.
 
Whether the Switch qualifies as a tablet or not is mostly semantic, and I don't really think it's relevant. What is relevant is the perceived importance of a web browser to the audience, and apparently Nintendo's marketing and UR departments are confident that the consumer base for which the Switch is designed have no intention of using their home console to browse the web.
 
Yeah, this is how it goes from supposed "non-issue" to "can't be used as a wifi device while out and about" in a flash. If it has some pop up mini-browser to get into public wifi stuff, then its just Nintendo being lazy with features because if there's access, there's access.

By the by, how many "non-issues" does it take to fuse together to make an issue? Asking the very vocal experts from the last month on what is and isn't an issue.

Just to answer your question. It's different for every potential customer. The one thing that would make it a no go for everyone is if it couldn't do what it was built to do, play games.

Everything else is supplementary, and it's up to you whether you personally feel like those features are worth waiting for before making a decision to purchase it.

Some people don't care about a lot of this, because it's a gaming device first and foremost. I'm sure supplementary features will be added over time, as they are on all consoles. Whether the features that are added appeal to you or not is an individual decision, but the market that they're aiming for at launch is the market that's buying it for Nintendo's games,or those willing to overlook missing features that they understand will be added in time.
 
The mad man actually did it, they made an entire early access console.

What was the last console that you would say launched fully formed? The Gamecube or PS2?

I'm not saying that people should ignore the feature set the Switch launches withm if you don't like it then it's fine to criticize it, but I think, historically speaking, the quality of a console's launch doesn't have a perfect correlation with it's future success.

The Dreamcast had a near perfect launch, with a stacked lineup and a ton of bells and whistles and features, including a web browser. None of that saved it. If Sega had a time machine, do you think they would have opted to leave some of that stuff out and launch earlier? They would have had a steady ramp of games instead of an amazing launch then a drought and they would have been able to put more distance between their launch and the launch of the PS2 which put them in the ground.

The PS4 came in hot and not quite ready. Things like rest mode (something I would say is core to my experience with the console) weren't ready. The game lineup was thin. But, imagine what would have happened if they held the console back for 6 months and let Xbox One launch well ahead of them. How different would that have played out? Would they be in the same position now if they delayed until they had a fully featured console?

Again, I'm not saying that you can't criticize the choices Nintendo made with the Switch, I just wish more people would acknowledge that they were choices. I would argue that the Switch is Nintendo's most ambitious and complex gaming system that they have ever made. When you do something like this, you do need to be willing to confidently make difficult choices.
 
Top Bottom