I think we all knew of the hybrid concept for a long time, so there's no surprises these, but I was kind of surprised that they went with ARM. While PS4 and Xbox One went with x86_64 to court developers, especially indie developers, does Switch want to court mobile developers? I mean by this logic they were trying this from the 3DS and earlier that also featured ARM architecture processors, but ARM was a different beast back then and so was Nintendo.

Given however their statements about getting into mobile and Pokemon Go, it sort of makes more sense for them. It could conceivably make porting their own games from phones to switch easier, or they might decide to invest more in mobile if hardware sales of the switch don't add up. If nothing else their engineers could be more easily shared on either divisions. Though Nvidia claims it's a custom Tegra, so maybe it's more of an opportunity for them to license out something that's been kind of lackluster for them.

Cross platform titles might actually make sense for them. Play the microtransaction version on your phone with inferior controls and if you want to take it to the next level, maybe buy this handheld that (hopefully) doesn't have microtransactions. I mean we've heard the phrase "just let me pay you X dollars for this freemium game" and Nintendo might give you that option, if you buy into the hardware that is.

In any case, the move away from PowerPC was smart, but that they went ARM instead of x86_64 seems like a very Nintendo decision to me.

Being in the space of mobile games seems like a more attractive position than trying to be the spare tire in the PC/XBOX/PS ecosystem. But the plan could go the other way too. Nintendo's most successful games are nearly all portable now, and if the future of portable games is in smartphone/tablet design language then owning such a platform would be preferable to going straight to third-party on someone else's platform.

I feel like Nintendo is making the exact same mistake with the Switch as they did with the Wii U. It's a fun concept for trailers and in certain situations, but they're still trying to pull consumers with innovative gadgets, like they did with the Wii. It worked back then, because it was a bulls-eye hit with what consumers (apparently) wanted. You could say that the iPad was a similar succes based on predictive development.

However, we now live in a world where tablets are commonplace; consoles are commonplace and they seem to be drilling into a non-existing segment which sort of falls in between. Some gamers seem somewhat excited - a few gamers are really excited, but I doubt there is much interest in this in the outside world. Honestly, I think Nintendo fizzled this one.

But they were not far off, strategically (I think). They realise that mobile gaming is still hot and has potential (and this has arguably been their flagship for decades), so they choose to link it up to a new console. It's a good idea, but that console will still not be powerful enough to compete in a tech-driven market; so it rides on functionality. Personally, I really don't see the point of a half-baked mobile console though; sure it's fun to play Zelda outdoors, but it's a lot more fun playing it indoors. With good graphics and at 60fps. The reason I think they're not far off is that they could have met with existing market needs much more organically if they had developed the Switch to be a gaming tablet (with a full Android-based OS) instead of a standalone device. This way you add functionality to a tablet (for which there is a market) instead of trying to create a new segment within a saturated market.

tldr: Nintendo is trying to re-invent the wheel because this has given them considerable succes in the past, but could have made a better wheel by playing to their own strengths and that of the existing market.

I just don't get it.

Well I guess it's official. They aren't going to be seriously talking about the switch until next year.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-teases-more-switch-reveals-we-havent-show/1100-6444720/

I just don't understand that strategy. Is 3 (maybe less) months really that much time to get the general public interested in this console? It's pretty scattershot I'd you ask me O.o

@giantlennonx_x: Does the general public really care about tech specs though? Sure we do, but we are the people posting on video game forums. I think it's the right move for them because it will probably be less powerful than the other consoles and this leaves less time for the internet to fill up with posts and articles focusing on that detail.

In terms of strategy I am interested to see how Nintendo treats development. They have a understanding of the difference between console and handheld gaming but I wonder if that manifests here. Do you still release a game like Picross 3D or Brain Age on this system? If you do then do those games get full $60 retail releases or cheaper digital only offerings. In a lot of cases the games Nintendo makes for 3DS and Wii U are different enough in style and design that I wonder if they can effectively unify these platforms or if this is just console style games on the go.

My guess is that they're acting on the basis that any sort of marketing between now and Christmas would just create market confusion, and potentially hamper 3DS/Wii U sales around Christmas season. Yeah, they'll basically have two-and-a-half to three months to get this console across to the public.

It's a simple enough concept of a system which should be easy to get across, and I guess for the general public maybe 2 months of marketing are more than enough. The people that care enough to know about the console's existence at this point will already be hotly anticipating it by then.

But, who knows, maybe they would thoroughly enjoy a few extra months of build-up, if only the fiscal year didn't come to an end in April or whatever it is and they didn't need to present those Switch numbers to shareholders by then. Or maybe the 2-month period is a sound marketing strategy. I don't know. I know nothing about marketing.

Has anyone given thought to the idea that there are large groups of people thinking the Switch is the follow up to the Wii?

This is completely anecdotal, but I have 3 sisters that come to me (the "cool" uncle) for gift ideas for their kids. They all bought Wiis back in the day and have all moved onto PS4s. Every one of them has asked me if the Switch is something to buy for Christmas this year because it's "been so long since Nintendo made the Wii". Now I KNOW they played the Wii U at my house and should at least recognize that big gamepad if I showed it to them, but I think that says something for the brand recognition of the Wii U. In fact, it's the number one console of choice to play for my nieces and nephews because none of them own the console.

But I wonder if the complete absence of the Wii U in their minds creates any sort of extra demand for Nintendo's next console.

Considering i have a PC, with steam gets me pretty much all good Xbox one or ps4 titles at better prices eliminates that corner of consoles for me. and my phablet of a phone is sufficient enough for at home and on the go games. I don't see the appeal in a console that runs game carts and nintendo is going to charge a crazy amount for them. the appeal isn't there. I would have bought a wii U but the cost for a nintendo game is insane, and they never go down

@beligerent_beard: i think that's what i kind of thought. Bit if that was true, they should have come out with the Wii2. No bullshit around it. Upgraded sensory tech and lots of first party exclusives. Recapture the casual crowd. The Switch doesn't seem to have a sensor bar. Also not sure that Wiimotes that pair with it.

I think they tried a bit too hard to find a new niche, but maybe it'll play out. I think we could discuss that in other threads. I started the thread to discuss how strategy informed architecture and vice versa.