Great, insightful, and fascinating post, thank you! (And sorry it wound up on the end of the last page, more people should read it)
Ha, cheers, but I think it being a 'last on page post' is pretty much reflective of my posts on Neogaf no matter where they are on the page
I tend to lurk more than post, anyway. In any case, thanks again for your input on these threads, especially the dialogue you sometimes have with Thraktor (another good poster), which tends to yield really interesting angles and info.
It is quite apparent that Nintendo has the utmost confidence in this thing. Renting out the biggest convention center in Japan for 3 days (I think?) says so much about what they have to show off in January. I'm very excited to see whats coming.
It's a fascinating approach given the limited time frame of announcement to this event to launch. Of all first parties, Nintendo would be the last I'd expect to attempt this, but here we are. And it's a very strong signal of how the company has changed. No games company can effectively 'do an Apple' and launch out of nowhere due to the logistical complications and importance third parties play on launch day (Apple can launch a phone by itself, but no first party games company can realistically launch without decent third party backing, effective unit quantity/size, established internet and OS infrastructure set up and so on) - at least not yet.
So for Nintendo - often seen as the stuffy Japanese company, set in its ways - this is
very surprising. I think we're all judging Nintendo as if it were the same company which launched Wii U. It's clearly not.
People "concerned" about cards or storage limiting what third parties will be capable of doing on the machine are being very narrow-minded. Nintendo is a billion dollar company and by all accounts has created the Switch with more third party feedback than we saw their past two generations, so this strange narrative that they've somehow handicapped the device before it's even been fully revealed needs to go.
True. I mean, I understand why - it's easier to judge a new machine based on previous input, history and expectation, and while it's harder to take these factors and inform them with current knowledge, it's the only way to get a better, potentially more accurate viewpoint of the possible reality. There were lots of clues that Zelda were was going to be a Switch game before it was announced, regardless of it maybe having a single screen, portability and so on, but some were shouting this down this because "Nintendo doesn't work that way", "Nintendo won't abandon two screens", "Nintendo wouldn't sacrifice Zelda to an underpowered machine". Same, "Nintendo can't have good third party support", and so on.
Since the SNES, Nintendo has reacted in the home console market whenever it's taken what it could consider a 'loss' by its competitors. The N64's issues resulted in the Gamecube, which was disc based (propriety, yes, but still better than carts), easier to develop for and more physically modern and compact. The Gamecube's issues resulted in the Wii, which adopted Blue Ocean strategy, new control methods, and the best third party support since the SNES on a Nintendo home format (it had a Rockstar open world game!). Complacency resulted in Wii U, which was muddled from marketing conception to execution...
...Which has led us to Switch.
Which, funnily enough, has clear marketing so far, clear conception and very clear support from third parties, even if we're being skeptical of their intentions.
