But there's some talk of the thread that that might just be PR photoshopping to get the point across that they're all playing the same game. Grain of salt, etc.
@Thrax said:
So, like, can one of these things play 2p games? What happens for 4p? Can you even do 4p?
According to this article, it looks like eight units can be networked and each unit can handle up to eight players. Nobody knows whether the two are mutually exclusive though.
@Thrax said:
So, like, can one of these things play 2p games? What happens for 4p? Can you even do 4p?
I think that one Switch can do two players, four requires a second console. Kotaku says it can support up to 8 consoles on a local WiFi network, but I don't know if that means a total of 16 players for some titles though. Details seem to be a little sparse still.
0
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
edited January 2017
@Thrax said:
So, like, can one of these things play 2p games? What happens for 4p? Can you even do 4p?
They've highlighted a couple multiplayer stuff.
1 2 Switch - Is a party game that only uses the Joycon. Players face each other and react accordingly to what the game instructs them. main example they showed was a quick draw minigame.
Ultra Street Fighter 2 - Is 2 player versus and co-op. Includes online versus.
Mariokart 8 Deluxe - Can have up to 4 splitscreen on one console and can connect up to 8 consoles (1 player per console).
ARMS - 2 play splitscreen was shown.
Snipperclips - A nifty co-op puzzle game. Goes up to 4 player same screen if I understood them right.
So I'm guessing it's just up to the discretion of the developer on what would be appropriate for the game in certain modes. Like 4 player splitscreen when it's undocked is possible but just not gonna work out.
1
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
edited January 2017
They have more basic info on the "Online Service" out now. From the looks of it, it's modeled after Xbox Gold and PS Plus.
Subscribing to the service gets you:
Online gameplay
Online Lobby & Voice Chat app
Our new dedicated smart device app will connect to Nintendo Switch and let you invite friends to play online, set play appointments, and chat with friends during online matches in compatible games─all from your smart device. A free, limited version of this app will be available for download in summer 2017.
Monthly game download - Currently NES and SNES games. Some with online functionality.
Exclusive deals
No price yet.
A free trial of this service will begin in March and lasts until sometime in Fall 2017. The app won't be available until Summer.
The friend system is the same one that the WiiU currently uses. Which is Nintendo Network ID and not friend codes.
Price is going to be key with their online service. I'm not convinced Nintendo knows how to give a solid value proposition with their online services, and nothing they've revealed about it thus far convinces me it'll be worth it.
The Voice Chat App as a smart device application totally sucks. Unless it gives you the ability to converse with others in your party (and not just directly added friends/contacts), then it's going to be an absolute PITA to use. Sounds like it will allow you to do this from the brief description, so hopefully that is at least a thing. Using a smartphone for this is garbage no matter how you shake it, though. How do you handle the 2 different sound sources? Between game sound (coming from the TV?) and voice sound (coming from earbuds?), how do you find that balance? Also what is the battery draw going to be like on my device? Does the screen have to remain on to use the app?
I find the monthly "free" game to be a total joke. You get one NES or SNES game, that's literally just an emulated ROM that you've probably bought 2 or 3 times before already since none of Nintendo's live service ecosytems share your account's contents for whatever god forsaken reason, and then you give it back at the end of the month? What's the point? Nintendo has objectively the greatest collection of classic titles under their belt, why not make a killer on-demand service with those games?
On top of all of that, they killed of Miiverse, which as silly as it was on Wii-U, was one of the genuinely interesting platforms that Nintendo has done. It's one of the best online service examples they've had to date, and they're killing it off when it could be an additional value add to this paid service? So bizarre.
You gotta create value for users to subscribe to a live service. These kind of benefits (or lack thereof) do not convince me that the subscription will be worth it. I'm really glad they're giving the free trial period for users to test the waters, though it sucks that once the voice app is available, you'll only have a couple months with it. Lineup of online-enabled games will also be quite thin during that trial period, with Splatoon being one of the most important MP games that might actually miss the trial window.
3
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
I feel the phone app is probably aimed at portable outings with the Switch. On one hand I feel it's a bad idea unless you know for sure whatever wi-fi you're gonna be using is stable/strong enough for good online play on the go, so why even do so in the first place. On the other hand, putting those features on a separate device would help make the wi-fi connection and battery usage of the Switch more efficient.
The wording on the free NES/SNES game a month is bad. It can mean that the game is free to play for the month, or that the offer is only available for that month. They need to clarify that. If it's the latter, and the hinted online features for certian games make it in, then I think that part will work out fine.
No Miiverse on it is indeed a bizarre choice I feel. Though most games never made much more use of it other then a simple social media outlet dedicated to the games, that isn't really a bad thing. Some games made good use of it ingame, like Mario Maker or Smash Bros. And an occasional few games made exceptional use of it, like Splatoon. So much so that Splatoon 2 without Miiverse is a pretty sad prospect.
Also on the topic of phone apps, the next official Nintendo game for smart devices is Fire Emblem Heroes and it will be out Feb 2. It looks like a slightly smaller scope of Fire Emblem with some level of grind progression in some form. Free to Play but you can pay for convenience. How friendly this progression system is, is unclear at the moment.
1
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
Fire Emblem: Heroes came out today. It's a Fire Emblem take on the recent collect-a-thon RPG mobile games that have popped up relatively recently (Final Fantasy: Brave Exvius probably being the biggest one I know of at least.) If you're a fan of the series then it's much easier to get behind this game (same for the Final Fantasy one mentioned earlier,) as you'll actually know at least some of the characters you collect and train, and they are the hook for the game.
As far as collect-a-thon RPG goes, think Pokemon, you play the main gameplay loop of the game, during which you'll either collect a unit, or get resources to collect/gamble (usually gamble, makes it easier to monetize) for a unit. Sometimes the units are this resource. In FE: Heroes it's a separate resource called "orbs" you collect as you play or you buy with real world money. So far it orbs are the only thing I can buy for real money but there are a couple things that look to have the potential to be sold for real money as well. I haven't run out of 'em yet so it won't let me buy more just yet.
As far as simplified Fire Emblem gameplay goes; the main simplifications I see are the fixed map sizes (6x8 squares), at most 4 man squads, and no starting position selection. Gear and skill/ability customization is still in. And the transitive battle formula is still in. Clearly designed with quick sessions in mind.
It hasn't impeded my progress yet with bs money-grubbing tactics, nor has it prodded me into trying to buy more orbs (yet.) So its got a positive model in my opinion so far. Verdict is still in the works for the thing as a whole.
If you're a fan of any Fire Emblem game, it's worth a shot. If you like tactics based games then it may also be worth a shot.
I feel like they were careful to only include launch titles in the commercial. No Mario Odyssey, for example.
Also: I know this might seem silly but I think the Switch will do better than Wii just on the name factor alone. Switch is a simple, one syllable English word that makes sense. Think back to when "Revolution" became "Wii". People talked about the name for months, and how much they hated it.
I've been thinking a lot about the Switch, and I think I'm finally able to put words to how it unsettles me. I will preface this by saying I think the Switch's marketing position is best for Nintendo. They are wildly successful/dominant in the handheld market, and very weak in the console market. Nintendo must necessarily have people perceive the Switch as a mobile device first, and the strongest/newest entrant to that class. Their business needs this.
That said, the Switch often pretends to be a home console with the dock. But that layer of paint only seems to be a finger nail's scratch deep. It often doesn't demonstrate strong capabilities with couch multiplayer. It's a multiplayer console if you squint hard enough and buy the right accessories. The advertisement's footnote says as much: additional accessories required.
And that's not different from any other console, but I am astonished by the price of those accessories. $80 for another set of controllers! Oh my. And the games that split the Switch's OEM controllers amongst players seem to be not much more than gussied up Wii Sports clones--simple games over in a hurry. All the intensive multiplayer games, like Splatoon, show four people each with their own $300 unit. That's clearly not the same category as a traditional console.
All these things tell me that the Switch clearly wasn't designed with friends on a couch at front of mind. And that's hard for me to stomach, because anything that intends to use my TV should have ample opportunity for a social experience. But the Switch doesn't. For an engaging and social couch experience I need four consoles and a paid online service, not one console and four controllers.
All the intensive multiplayer games, like Splatoon, show four people each with their own $300 unit. That's clearly not the same category as a traditional console.
I'm not sure I agree with that, unless you're talking about pre-xbox and ps3 generation consoles as "traditional". The console experience today is far and away "single user per console" for multiplayer, with Nintendo being the exception for the last decade. I may also be uninformed here, as I was never a console gamer, but aren't multiplayer on single console the exception rather than the rule for Xbox and PS3/4 ?
I think the biggest problem for me with the switch is that I feel like it will work best for a 1 person household (or only one person who games) and far less bad for a multiple person household. If the person who owns the switch goes on a trip and takes the switch with them, everyone else in the house doesn't have a console to use? Or do you have to own multiple? (I mean, apparently you have to own two to even get 4 players on anyways....) I guess I don't feel like the price point is right if I have to own more than one for the same house.
All the intensive multiplayer games, like Splatoon, show four people each with their own $300 unit. That's clearly not the same category as a traditional console.
I'm not sure I agree with that, unless you're talking about pre-xbox and ps3 generation consoles as "traditional". The console experience today is far and away "single user per console" for multiplayer, with Nintendo being the exception for the last decade. I may also be uninformed here, as I was never a console gamer, but aren't multiplayer on single console the exception rather than the rule for Xbox and PS3/4 ?
As far as I understand it's a big "thing" to get a bunch of people on a couch and play games like Madden, FIFA, racing, shooters, etc. I'm not much of a console player, but that's the only way I enjoy console gaming. With friends in the same room, an in-person social experience (see: IC Smash or build a dick).
I think you're both right - single user per console that happens to be a big thing when friends come over with their controller for a group Madden/Fifa dickaround.
...the difference here is that the console also happens to be the controller.
If we're using the same FIFA/Madden analogy - my friends usually have both the game and the controller. Difference being that we've only spent $60 on the controller itself, not $80. Even if they didn't have the game and wanted to come play FIFA with me, you'd still need to buy the controllers to do so.
Are you comparing Nintendo's current setup of being able to "pass" the controller for group games?
All the advertisements for advanced multiplayer games (e.g. Splatoon) thus far show four people with four consoles, or two people splitting the one controller pair for a casual game. They have not shown any multiplayer scenario where four people are using the same dock on one TV. Clearer? That's $1200 in hardware.
0
RahnalH102the Green Devout, Veteran Monster Hunter, Creature EnthusiastNew MexicoIcrontian
Splatoon probably isn't the best example as it's been the exception for the exception. WiiU had a bunch of local multipalyer friendly games. Except Splatoon. Splatoon had a 2-player splitscreen mode, but that was its own watered down kinda thing. The real gameplay was purely online. In that regard it kinda matched recent shooters of other consoles. Limited, if any, splitscreen, and the meat of multiplayer was online. Halo 5 didn't even launch with any splitscreen at all for example. Gears of War 4 only has 2 player splitscreen. I wouldn't be surprised if Splatoon 2 doesn't have a WLAN mode and the splitscreen is dropped entirely.
In regards to a WLAN mode the only WiiU games that I know of with anything close to a LAN mode were Smash and Monster Hunter 3 U, and those were just connecting with the 3DS. (Fun fact: Some Gamecube games, like Mariokart Double Dash and Kirby's Air Ride, did have a LAN mode between systems that had the network accessory.)
From what I've seen and heard for Mariokart, it may do 2 player split screen when undocked, but only that far. When it is docked it can do 4 player split screen. It can have the WLAN function for up to 8 people. Arms is 2 player split, One Two Switch is 2 player, and Snipper Clips is 4 player same screen.
Still though the point is that most more-then-2-player local multiplayer modes are gonna be expensive. Switch + another set of Joycon + Mariokart = $440. If everyone wants their own screen and full controller, then they each need to bring their own Switch and copy of the game.
Big question I have is why the pro controller is so expensive for what it is? What's so special about it to make it worth double what it's competitors are priced at, when so far it just seems to be a regular controller? One could argue that the extra set of Joycon are roughly $40 per controller and that is with all this particular tech in them. If the price on the pro controller was lower, it might help to ease these multiplayer issues.
@Thrax said:
All the advertisements for advanced multiplayer games (e.g. Splatoon) thus far show four people with four consoles, or two people splitting the one controller pair for a casual game. They have not shown any multiplayer scenario where four people are using the same dock on one TV. Clearer? That's $1200 in hardware.
Yar, clearer. Though I feel like that's kind of the point - IMO consoles, now, are more driven to be used as personal devices these days though so I think it's an interesting twice to make the console itself portable enough to bring to the multiplayer party.
I guess I must be a better target demographic for this system. Parent born into original nintendo gaming that now has children that are gaming age.
Personally I am very excited for the portability of the system and the fact that it comes with two controllers for local multiplayer out of the box.
When I see games like http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/snipperclips-switch , it makes me excited. Looking forward to having a portable for the kids and I to play together.
"Brian we are selling a new Zelda game. It is a single-use console that is a plastic shell around Zelda. It is literally the only way to play the new Zelda."
Comments
From reddit this morning:
But there's some talk of the thread that that might just be PR photoshopping to get the point across that they're all playing the same game. Grain of salt, etc.
According to this article, it looks like eight units can be networked and each unit can handle up to eight players. Nobody knows whether the two are mutually exclusive though.
I think that one Switch can do two players, four requires a second console. Kotaku says it can support up to 8 consoles on a local WiFi network, but I don't know if that means a total of 16 players for some titles though. Details seem to be a little sparse still.
They've highlighted a couple multiplayer stuff.
1 2 Switch - Is a party game that only uses the Joycon. Players face each other and react accordingly to what the game instructs them. main example they showed was a quick draw minigame.
Ultra Street Fighter 2 - Is 2 player versus and co-op. Includes online versus.
Mariokart 8 Deluxe - Can have up to 4 splitscreen on one console and can connect up to 8 consoles (1 player per console).
ARMS - 2 play splitscreen was shown.
Snipperclips - A nifty co-op puzzle game. Goes up to 4 player same screen if I understood them right.
So I'm guessing it's just up to the discretion of the developer on what would be appropriate for the game in certain modes. Like 4 player splitscreen when it's undocked is possible but just not gonna work out.
They have more basic info on the "Online Service" out now. From the looks of it, it's modeled after Xbox Gold and PS Plus.
Subscribing to the service gets you:
Online gameplay
Online Lobby & Voice Chat app
Monthly game download - Currently NES and SNES games. Some with online functionality.
Exclusive deals
No price yet.
A free trial of this service will begin in March and lasts until sometime in Fall 2017. The app won't be available until Summer.
The friend system is the same one that the WiiU currently uses. Which is Nintendo Network ID and not friend codes.
Out of the box it can do 2 player games, it supports up to 8 player.
Edit- oops responded on page 3 didn't realize i wasn't on the latest... whoops
The only thing I'm excited about for the Switch is Splatoon 2.
The Switch pre-orders have already sold out on Amazon, Gamestop, and Best Buy.
Price is going to be key with their online service. I'm not convinced Nintendo knows how to give a solid value proposition with their online services, and nothing they've revealed about it thus far convinces me it'll be worth it.
The Voice Chat App as a smart device application totally sucks. Unless it gives you the ability to converse with others in your party (and not just directly added friends/contacts), then it's going to be an absolute PITA to use. Sounds like it will allow you to do this from the brief description, so hopefully that is at least a thing. Using a smartphone for this is garbage no matter how you shake it, though. How do you handle the 2 different sound sources? Between game sound (coming from the TV?) and voice sound (coming from earbuds?), how do you find that balance? Also what is the battery draw going to be like on my device? Does the screen have to remain on to use the app?
I find the monthly "free" game to be a total joke. You get one NES or SNES game, that's literally just an emulated ROM that you've probably bought 2 or 3 times before already since none of Nintendo's live service ecosytems share your account's contents for whatever god forsaken reason, and then you give it back at the end of the month? What's the point? Nintendo has objectively the greatest collection of classic titles under their belt, why not make a killer on-demand service with those games?
On top of all of that, they killed of Miiverse, which as silly as it was on Wii-U, was one of the genuinely interesting platforms that Nintendo has done. It's one of the best online service examples they've had to date, and they're killing it off when it could be an additional value add to this paid service? So bizarre.
You gotta create value for users to subscribe to a live service. These kind of benefits (or lack thereof) do not convince me that the subscription will be worth it. I'm really glad they're giving the free trial period for users to test the waters, though it sucks that once the voice app is available, you'll only have a couple months with it. Lineup of online-enabled games will also be quite thin during that trial period, with Splatoon being one of the most important MP games that might actually miss the trial window.
I feel the phone app is probably aimed at portable outings with the Switch. On one hand I feel it's a bad idea unless you know for sure whatever wi-fi you're gonna be using is stable/strong enough for good online play on the go, so why even do so in the first place. On the other hand, putting those features on a separate device would help make the wi-fi connection and battery usage of the Switch more efficient.
The wording on the free NES/SNES game a month is bad. It can mean that the game is free to play for the month, or that the offer is only available for that month. They need to clarify that. If it's the latter, and the hinted online features for certian games make it in, then I think that part will work out fine.
No Miiverse on it is indeed a bizarre choice I feel. Though most games never made much more use of it other then a simple social media outlet dedicated to the games, that isn't really a bad thing. Some games made good use of it ingame, like Mario Maker or Smash Bros. And an occasional few games made exceptional use of it, like Splatoon. So much so that Splatoon 2 without Miiverse is a pretty sad prospect.
Also on the topic of phone apps, the next official Nintendo game for smart devices is Fire Emblem Heroes and it will be out Feb 2. It looks like a slightly smaller scope of Fire Emblem with some level of grind progression in some form. Free to Play but you can pay for convenience. How friendly this progression system is, is unclear at the moment.
Fire Emblem: Heroes came out today. It's a Fire Emblem take on the recent collect-a-thon RPG mobile games that have popped up relatively recently (Final Fantasy: Brave Exvius probably being the biggest one I know of at least.) If you're a fan of the series then it's much easier to get behind this game (same for the Final Fantasy one mentioned earlier,) as you'll actually know at least some of the characters you collect and train, and they are the hook for the game.
As far as collect-a-thon RPG goes, think Pokemon, you play the main gameplay loop of the game, during which you'll either collect a unit, or get resources to collect/gamble (usually gamble, makes it easier to monetize) for a unit. Sometimes the units are this resource. In FE: Heroes it's a separate resource called "orbs" you collect as you play or you buy with real world money. So far it orbs are the only thing I can buy for real money but there are a couple things that look to have the potential to be sold for real money as well. I haven't run out of 'em yet so it won't let me buy more just yet.
As far as simplified Fire Emblem gameplay goes; the main simplifications I see are the fixed map sizes (6x8 squares), at most 4 man squads, and no starting position selection. Gear and skill/ability customization is still in. And the transitive battle formula is still in. Clearly designed with quick sessions in mind.
It hasn't impeded my progress yet with bs money-grubbing tactics, nor has it prodded me into trying to buy more orbs (yet.) So its got a positive model in my opinion so far. Verdict is still in the works for the thing as a whole.
If you're a fan of any Fire Emblem game, it's worth a shot. If you like tactics based games then it may also be worth a shot.
Super Bowl commercials... 3 days before the game...
Those are Apple-grade commercials, especially the longer one. Really well done.
I feel like they were careful to only include launch titles in the commercial. No Mario Odyssey, for example.
Also: I know this might seem silly but I think the Switch will do better than Wii just on the name factor alone. Switch is a simple, one syllable English word that makes sense. Think back to when "Revolution" became "Wii". People talked about the name for months, and how much they hated it.
I've been thinking a lot about the Switch, and I think I'm finally able to put words to how it unsettles me. I will preface this by saying I think the Switch's marketing position is best for Nintendo. They are wildly successful/dominant in the handheld market, and very weak in the console market. Nintendo must necessarily have people perceive the Switch as a mobile device first, and the strongest/newest entrant to that class. Their business needs this.
That said, the Switch often pretends to be a home console with the dock. But that layer of paint only seems to be a finger nail's scratch deep. It often doesn't demonstrate strong capabilities with couch multiplayer. It's a multiplayer console if you squint hard enough and buy the right accessories. The advertisement's footnote says as much: additional accessories required.
And that's not different from any other console, but I am astonished by the price of those accessories. $80 for another set of controllers! Oh my. And the games that split the Switch's OEM controllers amongst players seem to be not much more than gussied up Wii Sports clones--simple games over in a hurry. All the intensive multiplayer games, like Splatoon, show four people each with their own $300 unit. That's clearly not the same category as a traditional console.
All these things tell me that the Switch clearly wasn't designed with friends on a couch at front of mind. And that's hard for me to stomach, because anything that intends to use my TV should have ample opportunity for a social experience. But the Switch doesn't. For an engaging and social couch experience I need four consoles and a paid online service, not one console and four controllers.
I'm not sure I agree with that, unless you're talking about pre-xbox and ps3 generation consoles as "traditional". The console experience today is far and away "single user per console" for multiplayer, with Nintendo being the exception for the last decade. I may also be uninformed here, as I was never a console gamer, but aren't multiplayer on single console the exception rather than the rule for Xbox and PS3/4 ?
I think the biggest problem for me with the switch is that I feel like it will work best for a 1 person household (or only one person who games) and far less bad for a multiple person household. If the person who owns the switch goes on a trip and takes the switch with them, everyone else in the house doesn't have a console to use? Or do you have to own multiple? (I mean, apparently you have to own two to even get 4 players on anyways....) I guess I don't feel like the price point is right if I have to own more than one for the same house.
As far as I understand it's a big "thing" to get a bunch of people on a couch and play games like Madden, FIFA, racing, shooters, etc. I'm not much of a console player, but that's the only way I enjoy console gaming. With friends in the same room, an in-person social experience (see: IC Smash or build a dick).
I think you're both right - single user per console that happens to be a big thing when friends come over with their controller for a group Madden/Fifa dickaround.
...the difference here is that the console also happens to be the controller.
But the gist is that everyone needs their own (Splatoon in the ad shows that) Switch, or their own $80 extra controllers.
I think I'm missing something...sorry :/
If we're using the same FIFA/Madden analogy - my friends usually have both the game and the controller. Difference being that we've only spent $60 on the controller itself, not $80. Even if they didn't have the game and wanted to come play FIFA with me, you'd still need to buy the controllers to do so.
Are you comparing Nintendo's current setup of being able to "pass" the controller for group games?
All the advertisements for advanced multiplayer games (e.g. Splatoon) thus far show four people with four consoles, or two people splitting the one controller pair for a casual game. They have not shown any multiplayer scenario where four people are using the same dock on one TV. Clearer? That's $1200 in hardware.
Splatoon probably isn't the best example as it's been the exception for the exception. WiiU had a bunch of local multipalyer friendly games. Except Splatoon. Splatoon had a 2-player splitscreen mode, but that was its own watered down kinda thing. The real gameplay was purely online. In that regard it kinda matched recent shooters of other consoles. Limited, if any, splitscreen, and the meat of multiplayer was online. Halo 5 didn't even launch with any splitscreen at all for example. Gears of War 4 only has 2 player splitscreen. I wouldn't be surprised if Splatoon 2 doesn't have a WLAN mode and the splitscreen is dropped entirely.
In regards to a WLAN mode the only WiiU games that I know of with anything close to a LAN mode were Smash and Monster Hunter 3 U, and those were just connecting with the 3DS. (Fun fact: Some Gamecube games, like Mariokart Double Dash and Kirby's Air Ride, did have a LAN mode between systems that had the network accessory.)
From what I've seen and heard for Mariokart, it may do 2 player split screen when undocked, but only that far. When it is docked it can do 4 player split screen. It can have the WLAN function for up to 8 people. Arms is 2 player split, One Two Switch is 2 player, and Snipper Clips is 4 player same screen.
Still though the point is that most more-then-2-player local multiplayer modes are gonna be expensive. Switch + another set of Joycon + Mariokart = $440. If everyone wants their own screen and full controller, then they each need to bring their own Switch and copy of the game.
Big question I have is why the pro controller is so expensive for what it is? What's so special about it to make it worth double what it's competitors are priced at, when so far it just seems to be a regular controller? One could argue that the extra set of Joycon are roughly $40 per controller and that is with all this particular tech in them. If the price on the pro controller was lower, it might help to ease these multiplayer issues.
Really, it should just support the use of all the WiiMotes we all already have.
Yar, clearer. Though I feel like that's kind of the point - IMO consoles, now, are more driven to be used as personal devices these days though so I think it's an interesting twice to make the console itself portable enough to bring to the multiplayer party.
I guess I must be a better target demographic for this system. Parent born into original nintendo gaming that now has children that are gaming age.
Personally I am very excited for the portability of the system and the fact that it comes with two controllers for local multiplayer out of the box.
When I see games like http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/snipperclips-switch , it makes me excited. Looking forward to having a portable for the kids and I to play together.
"Brian we are selling a new Zelda game. It is a single-use console that is a plastic shell around Zelda. It is literally the only way to play the new Zelda."
"Okay, Nintendo. How much for this new Zelda?"
"$400"
"Sounds good. Here you go."
I have the new Zelda game preordered for the WiiU.
Somebody messed up and this guy got his pre-order.
World first? unboxing of the switch
@Ryder That unit was actually a stolen prototype. The guy had to hand it back over to Nintendo.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/19/14661982/nintendo-switch-leak-video-stolen-device