So...I got arguing with nintendo fanboys again. Wouldnt recommend it. They're some of the most deluded and tribalistic people I've come across outside of the republican party. But I do want to articulate some points I have regarding the switch 2, and why I find it so unattractive. None of this is new, and my opinions can be derived from previous things I said, both related to the switch 2, and other similar items like the steam deck, but I feel like it's worth discussing.
Too bulky and expensive for a handheld, too weak for a home console
The biggest critique I have in particular is that the switch 2 occupies that awkward steam deck like space of being the worst of all possible worlds. The switch 2 isn't just a home console, nor is it just a handheld, it wants to do both, and in doing so, it made design tradeoffs that make it awkward for both propositions.
First, the handheld side of things. As I said, I think if youre gonna release a handheld, it should be cheap and portable. It's not gonna be the best power wise, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, that's the ever existing tradeoff of portability. Portable consoles have always been 1-2 generations behind the home console or PC equivalent. The game boy and game gear were 8 bit SNES/master like systems when the SNES and Genesis were home consoles. The Game Boy Advance is closest to say, a genesis 32x in the gamecube era. So 1.5 generations behind. The DS was an N64. The 3DS was like a dreamcast or gamecube. The switch 1 was like an Xbox 360 or PS3. The Switch 2 now is pushing PS4 Pro type specs. But for some reason, people want the thing to compete with the PS5. And that's problematic.
It's trying to repeat the Steam Deck strategy of cramming PS4 type specs into a handheld form factor. And while due to releasing several years later the Switch 2 is stronger than a steam deck, it's still very weak compared to a PS5. A PS5 or similar computer is 4x stronger on GPU alone, ignoring other specs. So trying to run PS5 ports is not gonna be a good time. Quite frankly, people are marveling that it runs cyberpunk on minimum at like 40 FPS, but honestly, is that something we should celebrate? It's a bad experience, compare to a home console or a dedicated PC. Sure, it's portable, but at this point Id rather focus on older games that run well than newer ones that don't.
And what are the tradeoffs for this? High price, bulky, low battery life. It's the game gear all over again and the game boy beat the game gear for a reason. The point of a handheld is portability. Just because you CAN cram more power into something doesn't mean you should. And I cant imagine a parent would appreciate an expensive $450 device getting smashed because kids be kids and kids are rough with their stuff. Nintendo handhelds used to be built like tanks and we STILL managed to break them because kids are rough with each other and their stuff. But you know, something being the equivalent of $250 or less is a lot more swallowable than $450 if you gotta replace something.
A device like the switch 2 is something you wanna never take out of the house and always baby. It's not something your kid is gonna play in the grocery store while youre shopping. They're not gonna play it in a restaurant while waiting for food. For all the talk of portabiity, I NEVER see kids playing with switches in the wild. It's always phones or tablets. Because android devices are cheap and can play games too. And kids wanna play their fortnite, minecraft, and epstein forbid, roblox (seriously, if your kid plays this keep an eye on them, i'm sure youre familiar with the pedo controversies with that one). Even more so they're likely to watch pewdiepie or markiplier stream a game or something. Point is, the switch 2 isnt very portable. And I NEVER see anyone using one. It seems to be their "home handheld" due to the cost, not something you take with you literally everywhere, which is the point of these things.
So....the switch 2....bad as a portable console. But home console, again, it's still markedly weaker than the 6 year old PS5 and Xbox Series X. In all fairness to nintendo, they've played the "weaker" game for a while now. For a while, it was arguably a price point tradeoff. You can buy a more expensive console thats better, but you are paying 1.5-2x as much. And nintendo consoles always have weaker third party support as a result. Because a lot of developers dont wanna bother trying to scale down games to be a generation behind the competition. So you get a mixed bag of inferior ports with obvious compromises, if the game makes it to the older platform at all. And many don't.
But then people say....well....it seems like what you want is a phone. But the problem is that a kid can just play games on a phone. Nintendo has to innovate and do something different here. But again...maybe what I want out of a handheld IS a phone?
I mean....my main handheld is a razer edge. It's a tablet with a relatively premium chipset in it (although its aging by this point) that has a razer kishi controller attached. It runs most games in the play store, and does a lot of emulation just fine. And it IS more portable. And you know what? Because it is a tablet as well....I can talk to friends on it, surf the internet, watch videos. AND game.
Honestly, I think the primary reason this thing got a bad rap was because it was released as a premium device. It was $400 at launch, $600 if you wanted 5G, it flopped at that price point, razer never supported it well post launch. And yeah, I bought it toward the end of its life cycle in 2024 when they were discounting them to $200 just to get rid of them. By that point,, $200 was a good price point, competitive with retro handhelds with similar specs at the time. And it's a pretty nice device for $200. I can see why it flopped for $400 as that's a huge asking price, but for $200? It was a steal.
With that said, what's wrong with a $200-300 phone like gaming handheld? Again, people argue it's not powerful enough or unique enough. but for me, the point of nintendo consoles is the software. You cant play nintendo games on the google play store. You cant play them on steam. You gotta buy them from them. Honestly, why not do the nvidia shield model of releasing nintendo exclusives? I mean, maybe piracy. Nintendo is very protective of their IP, but as gabe newell of valve would say, piracy is a service problem, and maybe nintendo just is out of touch with consumers here. Of course, they're very prideful and dont wanna change, and quite frankly, their Japanese company culture is stuck in the past. Which finally brings me to the other point.
Their business model is stuck in the past
So, here's a basic economic lesson I think nintendo has to learn. And it's a huge reason I struggle to justify buying nintendo consoles. For my whole life, the general economics of video games is this: you have multiple options, but you can only afford one. Sega genesis or SNES? Playstation or Nintendo 64? Gamecube, PS2, or Xbox? Wii, Xbox 360, or PS3? Etc. And PC kinda became a fourth option over time, that i trended toward after that.
But generally....I could only afford one. And that locks you into that company's eco system with the pros and cons. Nintendo's being....good exclusive franchises, you got your mario, your mariokart, pokemon, zelda, etc., but again, due to the weak/underpowered console thing, often poor third party support. You get inferior ports of games if you get ports at all. And you get locked out of the rest of the ecosystem.
This basic economic tenet is still relevant today. if you have limited money to spend, you wanna get the best bang for your buck. And thankfully, due to the proliferation of PC gaming and the digitization of everything, I feel like the rest of the industry is trending toward an "omni-ecosystem" so to speak. Console exclusivity is becoming a thing of the past. While theres still somewhat of a rivalry between sony and microsoft, I feel like as a PC gamer I get the majority of titles from both. I know Sony seems to be backtracking from this, and xbox is kinda dying because of this. But I think it's been good for consumers. Locking people into locked down ecosystems is generally limiting to consumers. releasing games on multiple platforms is good for them. And as a PC gamer, I generally go for a decent gaming PC as my "one option" to maximize my access to games, and I use an android handheld as discussed above for portability.
But that's where Nintendo falters big for me. Nintendo is stuck in the past, in an era of console exclusivity and forcing people to buy their specific hardware to run their specific software. And console exclusivity is a good strategy for getting people to invest in that ecosystem, but we have the "omni-ecosystem" now, and they're the only hold outs of the old world. And honestly? Their value aint great. Historically, you could argue the cost was low enough where some WOULD consider a wii or a switch as a second console. But for me, I always considered that to be rather borderline of a proposition. I mean, I can sustain a PC up to this point, and then spend $200 for an entry level android device for on the go. But then nintendo wants me to spend $300 to buy THEIR console, and with their new one, $450? And for what? Just to buy their games? If I only played nintendo games, that would be a good deal, but remember what I said otherwise. Their consoles are underpowered, their third party support is crap. You get inferior ports when you get ports at all. And often times you DONT get ports at all. So...nintendo is forcing me to choose between their ecosystem, and access to the larger omniecosystem of the digital age. And while I guess, if I didnt invest in such a nice PC to play games from that ecosystem I could swing it, that would inevitably cost me access to other games I care about. Battlefield games typically are rather demanding for example, and they're my main multiplayer game since around 2010ish. COD isnt on nintendo either. And while you can play them on older hardware, it's not the best experience. And I'd just fall behind on other AAA games I care about. Starfield doesnt run on weaker devices. Hell, it is barely functional on my PC. It doesnt work for compromised "steam deck" or switch 2 type experiences at all. And that's the engine a hypothetical Elder Scrolls 6 or Fallout 5 would run on. Doom the dark ages, outer worlds 2, both mediocre games, but I was into them. And they wont run on compromised hardware, they barely run on what I have (well OW2 arguably has breathing room, but Doom doesnt).
I mean, this is the bad dilemma nintendo's business model forces on me. Do really wanna pay extra just to play mariokart, the new mario game, the new pokemon game, etc? Dont get me wrong, I love those franchises, but they're not so essential to my gaming experience I HAVE to have them.
The fact is, Nintendo tries to throw their weight around and push them into their ecosystem. And for some nintendo die hards, it works. I know some will pay whatever nintendo charges for those games because they're the franchises they grew up with and they have to have them. But I don't. My tastes have matured over the years, and yeah I grew up playing pokemon and mario like everyone else (even then, not consistently, I was a sega kid), and yeah, over time, Nintendo's franchises just started mattering less to me. Especially when given the ecosystem tradeoffs of "nintendo vs everything else" are at play. Sorry, Nintendo, you're just not that important. And for me, they gotta adjust to the market. Which means...less console exclusivity, and joining the omni-ecosystem with everyone else.
By the way, if I did have to choose of the big three, I'd easily choose microsoft. ID games (Doom/Quake), Bethesda (Fallout/TES), activision (COD), 343 (Halo), Microsoft really does have a powerhouse of games I find essential to my gaming experience these days, and I'd miss them a lot more than I'd miss mario or pokemon, believe me. But...honestly? Im fine with exclusivity just dying and everyone being in the same general ecosystem. I thought the world was ending when sega discontinued the dreamcast, but now sega has stuff on every other platform. And while their game quality has largely declined over time, I still like having the flexibility. And that's what I ultimately value. The best value for the money. The most games for the least amount of money. Nintendo wants to charge a premium for hardware and for games, they lose a lot of clout with me. And yeah, all that exclusivity stuff the fanboys seem to love for some reason ("but but, if they didn't do that, what would separate them from phones?" Exactly...maybe what I want is...a gaming phone for a handheld, or a gaming PC for a console....these devices are just PCs....just with custom hardware and OSes, that's ALL THEY ARE, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can move beyond consoles and just embrace the omni-ecosystem), I just hate. Because it's not a good value, and it feels antiquated, like the product of a past era of gaming that the digital age has allowed us to grow out of.
I want to play nintendo games on my phone or tablet. I want to play them on my PC. If nintendo wants to release some sort of specialized gaming oriented device, like a gaming phone that can do that, well, that's all well and good. But they dont wanna. Because they're stuck in the old world. And they're too prideful to change, and fear losing profits. But...as I see it, they're losing me as a customer by gatekeeping their stuff behind extra paywalls. Because that's what a console is. A paywall. And then they overcharge for their games, never put them on sale, or put them on sale with such a shallow discount I could buy a 6 month old game on steam at a similar price. And yeah. It's just unattractive.
Conclusion
And yeah, that's where I'm at with nintendo. Btw, I take more shots at them recently because on top of it all their switch 2 IS very expensive for what it is and I fear that has second order effects for the other consoles. We're talking $650-1000 for next gen consoles. $650 not TOO TOO bad, but given the PS5 currently goes for that and went UP from $500....the next gen console probably will cost close to $1k. So that's why i normally dunk on them.
But I also wanted to discuss the problems with business model they seem to have with me beyond that. The fact is, the switch 2 is an awkward value proposition. it's an oversized, overpriced, and overpowered handheld, but on the flip side, it's still underpowered for a home console.
And again, the whole "console" thing aint doing it for me any more. They're forcing exclusivity in an era where the rest of the ecosystem is more unified. And the financial barriers associated with that always leave me with the bitter pill of either buying nintendo to play the handful of franchises they make that I like, or just...playing everything else on what I'd otherwise buy. And I would literally choose "everything else" over nintendo and their exclusives, especially given their third party experience just flat out sucks. Even with the switch 2 it sucks due to the console STILL being massively underpowered vs even the 6 year old PS5 or an equivalent gaming PC. Like really, the specs are stuck in like the early to mid 2010s at best. Which...dont get me wrong, can put out decent visuals on paper, BUT...when games are designed for hardware 4-6x better than that...you're just not gonna have a good time on that tier of hardware. And given their software costs as well and the fact that unlike on steam they never seem to put things on sale, it's like, yeah, why bother?
Idk, I just can't get into nintendo. Maybe at one point I found their value proposition more attractive, but even in retrospect I often didn't. I often did buy other consoles at the time as well. Sometimes I regret it. Like...for all the talk of crapping on nintendo, honestly? I NEVER liked Sony. I think that their exclusive franchises are boring AF, and yeah. I dont even know why everyone loved the PS2. I bought one out of peer pressure and in retrospect wish i had an xbox or gamecube instead. but I digress. The point is, nintendo has been increasingly unattractive to me as we entered the digital age with us trending toward a more unified ecosystem in the 360/PS3 days. And yeah it has been that long. You could at least make an argument for them in the SNES era, the N64 era, the gamecube era, but after that it was like....okay....you got underpowered consoles, poor third party support, Im literally cutting myself off from the rest of the gaming ecosystem just to play a handful of franchises I like. I just never found it viable. Get with the digital age nintendo, it's just long enough. You guys are like the apple of gaming. And not in a good way. More in a "walled garden" kind of way.
No comments:
Post a Comment