PixlBit

I regret my purchase of the Wii U and the Wii, and maybe even the Gamecube and N64 if I'm being honest. So I probably won't be picking this up. It's a shame, because I adored my GBA, DS, and 3DS, but the Switch on the go looks way too cumbersome for me.

When I saw this, I thought "isn't that what Wii U was supposed to be?"

That was my first thought too. Btw, good to hear from you again.

I'm concerned about the sturdiness of the thing, but other than that, I think it's too early to be speculating too much negative stuff out of it (positive stuff too, really).  The list of third party support looks cool, but if you look at the companies carefully you can tell they padded the list.  Traveller's Tales makes the LEGO games, but who publishes them?  WB Games.  But both of them are on the list.  And that's just one example.

However, I'm looking forward to heaing more announcements, especially about new games.  Nintendo generally makes most of the games I want to play, so I usually get their consoles pretty quickly because of that.

I'm optimistic for two reasons. First, while many of your points on 3rd party support are valid, you mostly approached it from the Wii U angle. From the 3DS angle on the other hand, there's going to be plenty to love. It had very strong 3rd party support there, to the point where it lived in a bubble where your otherwise valid points on Square and Capcom by some miracle somehow don't exist while Atlus, Sega, and Xseed also made top notch games for it.

Second, your points on Nintendo would be spot on if it were still splitting console and handheld development. But by focusing on one platform, this could be exactly what they needed. Think of the 3DS and Wii U in 2013 and 2014, pretty much the only two years the latter was relevant. Now imagine all those games on one machine. That's huge for two reasons. First they can put many more games on the thing to avoid droughts. Second, it means no Wii U to 3DS ports and vice versa, every game will be new. I know we'll see bumps down the road, but those factors have me optimistic until we get more info. 

But seriously, if this thing can run PS4/XB1 level games without a mandatory install that's reason enough for me to buy one.

Those are good points actually. I know I was being overly negative, but I am looking forward to it. its just from a hardware perspective, even nintendo's "hits" lately have been hugely problematic. I hope they can change that, and a console where both 3ds and console style experiences exist in unison could be that change we need.

 That said, while you may be right, I feel like part of the success of the 3ds lies in not having to render graphics past the ps2 era, which wiuld have to cut costs and allow more niche experiences like the sort atlus and Xseed specialise to thrive.

I think having one console could help that with their diminishing returns on games too, as well as their gimmick. They won't be focusing on how to change their games since this one is about convenience, not new control inputs. Look at BotW for instance, it started as a Wii U game but uses none of its gimmicks because it's on NX too. The next Mario meanwhile will be all about Mario which will mean no Star Fox Zero style disasters. Meanwhile having just one console means not just no ports but possibly fewer filler games. Just one Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Mario Sports period, which also means they can take their time more on these games. Nothing like Mario Tennis Wii U where it was beyond skimpy on features. And no putting two similar Yosh, Marioi or Kirby too close together. They can put one of those devs on those games while the other can try an older IP or something new and original. While the portability is cool, the idea of just one Nintendo console is what really has me drooling.

Business magazines have been thinking along the same lines. Nintendo have had to split their development efforts between two platforms: handheld and console. But focusing on one system (which they will do. They are dropping the 3DS and WiiU, you'll see) potentially means more software for said system.

I don't get your assertion that it's an extension of the Wii U. The Wii U was a console with a gamepad that had a low res screen. You move more than about 15 feet from the console and you lose connection to it.

The Switch is a portable that connects to your TV through a cradle. All the power is in the portable unit. The cradle is a charging station with an HDMI connection for the TV. That's all it is.

So it's really nothing like the Wii U. You can't hold the portable in your hands and have dual output on it and the TV. No dual screen capability, no wiimote/nunchuck motion control support. It also uses cartridges not disks and I'm not even sure you'll be able to use a hard drive with it. My guess is no it will be all flash memory and cartridges.

So no, nothing like the Wii U. More like a tablet that you can connect to your TV 

I said it was an expansion of the idea of the Wii-U, which is EXACTLY that, they just botched the landing with that device. I feel like the Switch is what Nintendo wanted the Wii-U to be, except weren't able to fulfill that promise.

 So, it's exactly an expansion of the Wii-U's ideas.

Here's the thing: Nintendo is looking for independence from the TV, which they feel will not be the center of media for much longer. This is their declaration. People are consuming entertainment on smartphones, tablets, and possibly through VR headsets soon. The TV will become an artifact. The Switch is a console you can play on any screen, anywhere, or on no screen (meaning, the tablet screen). The average person does not care about having the 50' screen experience. Convenience and keeping up with lifestyle trends are the top concerns.

Let's talk about next gen consoles: The hardware is selling, the games are not. PS4 has a horrible software attach rate. Even the WiiU has games closer to the double digit millions mark. The indsutry thrives on software, not hardware. Nintendo is abandoning the ship of status quo.

Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Their marketing after the Wii has been weak. With a strong enough marketing assault, you can sell dogshit to people who don't want it. And their software approach is also weak. 2D Mario is the Mario that sells, pushes hardware, yet they keep trying to lead with 3D Mario. This is stubborn and stupid. Where is their cool action/shooter game, like Metroid. Oh, that's right, they don't know what the fuck to do with that series. They think "narrative" or cuddly are the way to go. It's insane. It's a bunch of old and effeminate, milquetoast men calling the shots over there.

In regards to 2D vs 3D Mario, 3D Land and World both topped NSMB2/U. Granted Land and 2 were by a small margin, but I feel that may be telling of the NSMB longevity. People bought the DS one because of how long it had been since a 2D Mario while the Wii one offered something new with 4 player co-op. 2 and U didn't have anything new while 3D Land offered a new take on the series and World offered 4 player co-op with different characters each with their own strengths and weaknesses. I think the real key is a balance between accessibility and freshness. I love the Galaxy games, but they were hard for younger and more casual gamers to wrap their heads around as opposed to NSMBW, which is why I think that game did better. Same goes for why Sunshine is one of the lower selling Mario games. I feel if the new Mario can have a very simple yet fresh new mechanic, then it will succeed.

Besides, Mario Kart vastly outsells both 2D and 3D Mario on average so them getting one of those out quick matters more.

I just checked. NSMBU is the second highest selling game on Wii U. And it wasn't even a very good effort. They saddle these 2D games with inferior production values and uninspired design. Miyamoto, who has a personal disdain for working on 2D Mario, has been trying to push 3D for the longest time. It hasn't worked. They keep coming up with every excuse in the book. Except the posibility that: Mario games work better and are more fun to more people as side-scrollers. Just like Sonic games work better. Maybe it has nothing to do with the conditions you mentioned, maybe it's just better or more fun (well, if NSMB were SMB3 level, I'd say it's definitley because it's better AND more fun). But note that 3D World and Land both have significant side-scrolling portions. 3D World is great and I believe it's in no small part to the deft combination of perspectives, and production values that outshined NSMBU.  But the question is why keep prioritizing 3D over 2D when 2D is the odds on sales favorite? Why insist upon this? It's the same mindset that came about with the PSX. Everything had to go 3D, whether it was sensible for that particular game/franchise/genre or not. 

 Well, they'll never top SMB3 and World anyway, so maybe it's for the better...

The reason 2D Mario sells so well is because it's easier to understand. Nintendo has a problem selling 3D Mario because it's harder for non gamers to pick up and play, which is why Super Mario Galaxy 2 came saddled with an insulting dvd tutorial on how to make mario move and jump.

 And I disagree that 3D Mario doesn't work. While SMB3 is my favourite Mario game, Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a very close second. World... really doesn't hold up as well on repeat playthroughs.

 I remember the tutorial DVD for SMG2. Here's the thing though: where is the evidence that people had a hard time grasping the controls, or that that was the reason? There was none that I saw. This was complete speculation on Nintendo's part, and a rather arrogant one. They can't come to terms with the possibility that the majority just don't like 3D as much for reasons of design and appeal and suitability. All things cannot be equal. First person Metroid sells more than side scrolling. No one questions it. It seems there is bias towards 3D, some assumption that it's superior (I know you don't think that way, but many do I believe) or that it's the evolutionary path that 2D should take by default.

 For the record, I think the Galaxies and 3D World are better than NWMB2 and U, but not because of technology or some inherent superiority of 3D perspectives.

But again, why not lead with your proven sellers instead of your second placers? That's the main point. They're doing it with Mario Kart. This is symptomatic of Nintendo's stubborness and lack of business acumen, especially now that Iwata is not around. He had to force Miyamoto to make NSMB basically.

Ah, got the facts wrong for U. But still, it wasn't that much higher than 3D World while 3D Land edged NSMB2 by about the same amount. And I agree with Blake, World might be my favorite, but 3D Mario works and fills a niche 2D doesn't. A niche that other games like Rayman Legends are filling better now. It's not like Sonic which has never had a 3D entry as a GOTY contendor.

Also their attitude towards 2D Mario might have something to do with how U and 2 were half assed. If they don't want to make 2D Mario games or feel they've done everything they can with the formula, we're not going to get as high quality games as we get with 3D Mario. Mario Maker felt like them putting the 2D Mario to rest for a while, let them focus on 3D where we can get some real creativity.

I read something a while back about how the bosses had to force Miyamoto to work on NSMB. Since when do employees get to choose what they want to work on. The game wound up reversing the fortunes of the DS. I didn't care much for it, seemed like a step backwards, bland.

I mean, it's no sweat off my back. They can cut off their noses to spite their face if they want,by half assing one of their top sellers because the employees aren't 'in the mood.'

3D Mario games are my favorite and generally are much more interesting than their 2D counterparts. Very excited to see a new one coming despite the sales. Rather have games that do different stuff than games that just sell well. That mentality is part of the reason the console game market has gotten so safe and boring.

Yep, 3D Mario for me too. I find 2D Mario too boring and repetitive. I'd like a new 3D Mario with massive worlds to explore.

I'm looking from a business perspective.  I can make several arguments why 3D Mario is less interesting than the best of the side scrollers, but that matters little in the context of a business perspective. We are talking about the practical here, not the emotional. You may think novelty is great, but that's not going to get 3D Mario to do 2D business or push hardware, which is what Nintendo has trying to attain. And there is no reason that different stuff can't be done with a side scroller, any less so than 3D. Nintendo just don't have the imagination to do so, apparently.

Are we forgetting that the N64 was pushed with only 3d games and was massively successful? I don't think it's a clear-cut 2d/3d split dictating success. What will be successful isn't always based off of what is successful now. The 3D Land/World titles don't really seem like real 3d mario titles in the same way 64/Sunshine/Galaxy do to me. I think Nintendo needs something expansive and visually fresh and interesting to really hook people on to the "mobile powerhouse" they're looking to promote.  A siddescroller may get more short-term sales, but it's not going to convince anyone that this is the console they need, and Super Mario Run is already going to fill that niche. Mario has enough clout to sell well regardless of the format, though, and especially with Run coming out, 2D isn't really going to be a viable system seller.

N64 wasn't a massive success. Nintendo lost the market.  Nintendo is and has always been about expanding the market. On the home console front, they've been in tailspin mode ever since, with a brief reprieve with the Wii, which was ideologically opposed to the N64 mindset that resulted in the GC, Wii U, two other relative failures. Every attempt since then has been an effort to recover from the N64 disappointment.

 As far as 2D Mario not convincing people to buy hardware, history shows otherwise. NES, SNES,DS, GB,Wii - all of their top devices, all with a side scrolling Mario at or near the top of the sales chart. GC and N64, their "losing" consoles: absent. Sunshine and Mario 64 didn't do much for them, regardless of their novelty at the time. The outliers are 3DS and WiiU, with unremarkable NSMB reduxes...that were stilll among their top 3 sellers and pushed hardware; both with 2D/3D hybrid games (right now, their best bet to appease the "3D is more interesting crowd" while not driving off everyone else). They made instructional DVD just to convert people over to Galaxy. If it was such a viable system seller, why would they need to do this? Outside of the media echo chambers and "hardcore" gamer minds, caught up in production values and technological prowess as they are, no one thinks 3D Mario is the more vital design. They just know what is fun to them. These games are slow and steady sellers, that don't drop off the charts like other big releases do.

 And we're not talking about A sidescroller, but a Nintendo one. Even the less popular Donkey Kong Country Returns rules over the platforming competition.

 The market has spoken so far, and the evidence points to classic Mario being a safe bet to get the masses. I don't see why there is resistance to the idea. Should they make another F-Zero instead of Mario Kart? No, no one would suggest this in a business/success potential discussion. Well, maybe if MK used sprites... . That Nintendo doesn't see or want to strategize accordingly, along with other poor software decisions they've made (Federation Force. Really? An HD remake of one of their least popular Zelda games?), explains their woes.

Here's the thing: I feel like 3D Mario is a safer option to get people to adopt the console while 2D Mario is a safe option to sell a ton of games. The first three NSMB games were on well established successful consoles when they arrived and merely capitalized on their enormous user base while the Wii U one failed to convince people to adopt one. Meanwhile 64, 3D Land, and (to a much lesser extent) 3D World sold many people on the hardware, 64 and 3D Land especially. I feel a 3D Mario early would get many hardcore gamers to adopt a Switch early while the masses would be better sold on a Mario Kart, Smash Bros, or Pokemon game. Those tend to be Nintendo's real reliable hardware sellers.

EXACTLY. Nobody's gonna buy a system just for a 2D Mario game if they can get (close to) the exact same thing on their phones, especially if it's the same thing that has been rehashed for years at this point.

No like button so Five F'in Stars!

The portability of this full console experience is neat but not essential to me. I got my 3DS/Vita and they are both more reasonable in size. Also, those detatchable controllers seem really small removed from the screen. It'll come down to games, not hardware features, that'll get me to buy one.