• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo Switch is the fastest selling home console to reach 100 million mark

Mozza

Gold Member
Ahh, that's the problem for me though, I love Nintendo AAA games so I have little choice but to accept thier games as is. But I would love love love to see things like that great gameplay with better graphics as well as virtual console games not on subscription.
Same here I guess, I have been pretty happy with the Switch thus far, and this year is looking very good indeed. :)
 

GigaBowser

Gold Member
What totals do you expect for PS5 and Switch?
Well since you asked.......

I think this will be a very long generation because of the current shortages and PS5 will sell over 160 million with a Pro model.

Switch already seems to be slowing down so without a pro model coming so I think it reaches about 135 million before Switch 2.
 
Well since you asked.......

I think this will be a very long generation because of the current shortages and PS5 will sell over 160 million with a Pro model.

Switch already seems to be slowing down so without a pro model coming so I think it reaches about 135 million before Switch 2.

nvm, I can’t read
 
Last edited:

Mozza

Gold Member
Well since you asked.......

I think this will be a very long generation because of the current shortages and PS5 will sell over 160 million with a Pro model.

Switch already seems to be slowing down so without a pro model coming so I think it reaches about 135 million before Switch 2.
So you think Microsoft will only sell around 20 million consoles, or the core market will grow for the first time in three generations, not sure I see this happening, plus you have the Switch estimate on the low side, considering it's only mid way through it's lifespan according to Nintendo.
 

Marvel14

Member
Thanks god I found the ignore button, I'm not yet familiar with the UI of the forum.
Basically what he believe to be the "Core function" in reality is actually his own preference, What he claim how Nintendo call it its actually branding, but in the physical world its a self contained mobile gaming device with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power packaged in, and that is functionality. But somehow when he used the term "Core" or "Main" he basically confused these 3 different concept and lumped them all up in one word. And with this fundamental logical fallacy the conversation is going
Someone should share this with the handheld twins who have run for the hills:


if you're lucky they might choose to ignore you too

Marvel Studios Reaction GIF by Disney+
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Thanks god I found the ignore button, I'm not yet familiar with the UI of the forum.
Basically what he believe to be the "Core function" in reality is actually his own preference, What he claim how Nintendo call it its actually branding, but in the physical world its a self contained mobile gaming device with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power packaged in, and that is functionality. But somehow when he used the term "Core" or "Main" he basically confused these 3 different concept and lumped them all up in one word. And with this fundamental logical fallacy the conversation is going nowhere.
Again with the cherrypicking. The system comes with a dock and a controller and shell that is specifically designed to be used in both handheld mode and as a home console. Your arguments continue to be poorly thought out and are bordering on delusional. This still remains one of the best gems posted on this forum:
If Nintendo would to advertise Switch as a handheld alone it would be equally if not more successful, and it solves the Switch Lite paradox.
Completely ridiculous and delusional.
 

shenlong

Neo Member
Wow... Switch will pass PS1 in half the time the PS1 was on the market. It is the fastest selling platform in history to reach 100m. It did it in less than 5 years where as the previous fastest sellers were the PS4 (5yr 7mo), PS2 (5yr 9mo). Switch did it in 4yr 10mo
 
Again with the cherrypicking. The system comes with a dock and a controller and shell that is specifically designed to be used in both handheld mode and as a home console. Your arguments continue to be poorly thought out and are bordering on delusional. This still remains one of the best gems posted on this forum:

Completely ridiculous and delusional.
You are just confusing your personal preference, branding, and functionality again, claiming someone is delusional does not make your argument valid, I could say the same thing about you. You haven't yet proven anything, just because someone had different opinion with you doesn't mean they are cherry picking. My view on a mobile gaming device comes with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power, still stand. Company could brand it whatever they like it does not change the fact. And by saying it would be equally if not more is a estimate, its not like Nintendo is doing worst the handheld market before Switch launch.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
You are just confusing your personal preference, branding, and functionality again, claiming someone is delusional does not make your argument valid, I could say the same thing about you. You haven't yet proven anything, just because someone had different opinion with you doesn't mean they are cherry picking. My view on a mobile gaming device comes with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power, still stand. Company could brand it whatever they like it does not change the fact. And by saying it would be equally if not more is a estimate, its not like Nintendo is doing worst the handheld market before Switch launch.
You're throwing terms around that you clearly do not understand the meaning of.

You absolutely are cherry picking. When you buy a Nintendo Switch in a store, does it ONLY come with the device, a HDMI and an external power? If the answer to that is No, you are certainly cherry picking.

Functionality comes down to facts. The fact is that the Switch can both be played both as a handheld and as a home console. Its hardware, including its controller, is specifically designed to do so. Its a hybrid system. That is the functionality of the system.

Your "estimate" is not based on any facts whatsoever. The previous Nintendo Handheld only device sold significantly less than the Switch. The Switch Lite, which is both cheaper and a handheld only device, sells less than the traditional switch. You're literally trying to lecture a company that is breaking sales records. Do you have any credentials to do so? Are you a market analyst? Do you work for a console manufacturer yourself?
 
Last edited:
You're throwing terms around that you clearly do not understand the meaning of.

You absolutely are cherry picking. When you buy a Nintendo Switch in a store, does it ONLY come with the device, a HDMI and an external power? If the answer to that is No, you are certainly cherry picking.

Your "estimate" is not based on any facts whatsoever. The previous Nintendo Handheld only device sold significantly less than the Switch. The Switch Lite, which is both cheaper and a handheld only device, sells less than the traditional switch. You're literally trying to lecture a company that is breaking sales records. Do you have any credentials to do so? Are you a market analyst? Do you work for a console manufacturer yourself?
Your first point, how about you prove me "how is that I do not understand the term that I claim". What else does it include as a hardware?

Your second point, how is that I'm not based on any fact when considering the total market cap of the video game industry? Who told you sales number is the only thing determines successful? Who is being delusional here? I don't understand this mentality of downplaying Nintendo's success in handheld market in the past.

If you are trying to convince someone you have to do better than calling people delusional.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
Your first point, how about you prove me "how is that I do not understand the term that I claim". What else does it include as a hardware?

Your second point, how is that I'm not based on any fact when considering the total market cap of the video game industry? Who told you sales number is the only thing determines successful? Who is being delusional here? I don't understand this mentality of downplaying Nintendo's success in handheld market in the past.

If you are trying to convince someone you have to do better than calling people delusional.
At no point in this thread have I even hinted at the way that I personally like to play Switch games so your argument about "Confusing preference" makes no sense at all. Second, the branding and actual functionality of the switch allign one to one. The Switch is branded as a hybrid console that you can play both on a home screen as a home console and as a portable device. That's exactly what it does. There is exactly zero disconnect between the branding of the console and its functionality.

You're omitting that the system comes with a controller that is specifically designed to be used both as a handheld gaming device and a home console. The device is also designed with rails on the side so that the controllers come off and attach easily. This is exactly the reason why comparissons to something like the Steam Deck are ignorant.

Market cap? Really? And what exactly is the "Market cap" of a Nintendo handheld today, exactly?
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
What? Didn't you just make my point for me there? And what about switch light, isn't there like 20 or 30 million of them?
I never said switch was only a handheld. Ever. My point was it can't be considered a home console, and that many of its sales can be contributed to its portable nature. The only debate can really be how many.
This might surprise you but I think that It's fair enough if you want to compare Switch with Xbox/PS to subtract Switch-lite sales. You could feasibly have one console for the TV and another only for when you travel or commute so not directly substitute consumption of one with the other (in reality they ARE partially substitutable as you can also play the handheld at home so I personally wouldn't subtract them but at least there are some rational grounds for doing so)

If your point is that Switch has full handheld functionality then you're missing the argument which is people denying that it also has full home console functionality. No one here is denying that the handheld form factor is important to its success. The dodgy premise is that its home console one isn't.

So if you want to compare Nintendo with MS and Sony as hardware manufacturers you should count all Switch sales because the genius of the Switch is the existence of multiple form factors in a single hardware concept.
 
Last edited:
At no point in this thread have I even hinted at the way that I personally like to play Switch games so your argument about "Confusing preference" makes no sense at all. Second, the branding and actual functionality of the switch allign one to one. The Switch is branded as a hybrid console that you can play both on a home screen as a home console and as a portable device. That's exactly what it does. There is exactly zero disconnect between the branding of the console and its functionality.

Marketing cap? Really? And what exactly is the "Marketing cap" of a Nintendo handhelds today, exactly?
You've just dodged my question, since you are trying to convince me by saying "It does not Only include" I'm asking you prove me what else does it include. Why shift premise if you are so sure about proving me wrong?

So if you want to shift the premise to "The branding and actual functionality align ONE TO ONE", this claim is also your own opinion, there are tons of people does not view it as yours, or else you wouldn't see people complaining the graphic fidelity of Nintendo Switch, just because you don't care or a few minority people here doesn't care does not mean everyone doesn't care, the Switch is not on par in the graphic department compare to other device that brand themselves as Home console, how is it one to one? Or are you saying graphic fidelity is not a function, then tell me what is the point of playing the same game let say Doom eternal or Witcher 3 on XBox or PC? Mobile device branding themselves as home console is putting themselves to the same standard as other home console, people will start to compare them I don't understand why are you trying to downplay Switch. All these Switch subpar graphic claim starts with Nintendo branding themselves as home console, you would rarely see people compare 6th console to NDS. And even if you could prove the functionality align one to one, it still does not prove my view of a mobile gaming device comes with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power is wrong, you could only claim that I do not like marketing gimmicks which I'm tired of no matter which company pulls it.

And as a extension of your one to one argument, how about I ask you a question that I've asked someone else which he completely dodged. Do you think Laptop is the same as Desktop, even Laptop could basically hook a HDMI cable to monitor, would you consider someone is having a desktop experience by connect a Laptop to monitor with a simple cable? By the way some Laptop do include a HDMI cable just in case you cherry pick some how the inclusivity of a cable invalidate the entire argument.

Lastly, are you trying to pull the same trick of misinterpretation other people? I remember I said pretty clear "Total market cap of the video game industry", or do you not understand this simple concept?
 

Marvel14

Member
Thanks god I found the ignore button, I'm not yet familiar with the UI of the forum.
Basically what he believe to be the "Core function" in reality is actually his own preference, What he claim how Nintendo call it its actually branding, but in the physical world its a self contained mobile gaming device with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power packaged in, and that is functionality. But somehow when he used the term "Core" or "Main" he basically confused these 3 different concept and lumped them all up in one word. And with this fundamental logical fallacy the conversation is going nowhere.
See Ya Goodbye GIF by The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization

Ally Love Close The Door On Your Way Out GIF by Peloton
 
You're omitting that the system comes with a controller that is specifically designed to be used both as a handheld gaming device and a home console. The device is also designed with rails on the side so that the controllers come off and attach easily. This is exactly the reason why comparissons to something like the Steam Deck are ignorant.
Hence a mobile gaming device, imaging if it comes without a controller how would you even game? How is detachable controller invalidate my claim as a mobile gaming device? Or is that your only argument that its a home console?
 
Last edited:

dvdvideo

Member
This might surprise you but I think that It's fair enough if you want to compare Switch with Xbox/PS to subtract Switch-lite sales. You could feasibly have one console for the TV and another only for when you travel or commute so not directly substitute consumption of one with the other (in reality they ARE partially substitutable as you can also play the handheld at home so I personally wouldn't subtract them but at least there are some rational grounds for doing so)

If your point is that Switch has full handheld functionality then you're missing the argument which is people denying that it also has full home console functionality. No one here is denying that the handheld form factor is important to its success. The dodgy premise is that its home console one isn't.

So if you want to compare Nintendo with MS and Sony as hardware manufacturers you should count all Switch sales because the genius of the Switch is the existence of multiple form factors in a single hardware concept.

Well with the lite it's definitely shakier ground, there is some people that have a Switch and a lite, but whole bunch that don't. I personally know 9 people with a switch, 4 of them a regular switch, 1 of them has both, the remaining 4 have just a lite. 2 have used thier switch as a home console like twice ever. I know it's annecdotle, but that's over half who basically only bought it as a portable. Zero to do with it being a home console.

Now I get what your saying, that it being a "home console" too contributed to its sales and I'll give that it's partially true for some buyers. But I would contend it's far, far less of a buying factor than the opposite.
The Nintendo die hard like us were buying it either way. (10 million of us)
I think most of the general public bought it as a portable first, with the "home console" function as a bonus feature. It helped offer a value proposition.

I think it's also safe to say that from this point on, considering the state of mobile hardware, that any portable competitor to switch will also have this value added proposition and flexibility.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
You've just dodged my question, since you are trying to convince me by saying "It does not Only include" I'm asking you prove me what else does it include. Why shift premise if you are so sure about proving me wrong?
Fair, I did forget to include this in my post initially, but I did edit my post about 15 minutes before you posted this but I'm guessing you missed it. I've actually already adressed this part in a previous reply to you so I'm not really sure why it needed to be repeated but there you go.
So if you want to shift the premise to "The branding and actual functionality align ONE TO ONE", this claim is also your own opinion, there are tons of people does not view it as yours, or else you wouldn't see people complaining the graphic fidelity of Nintendo Switch, just because you don't care or a few minority people here doesn't care does not mean everyone doesn't care, the Switch is not on par in the graphic department compare to other device that brand themselves as Home console, how is it one to one?
Now you're the one thats confusing branding and opinion. At no point has Nintendo advertised or promoted the Switch as something that it cannot do. The Switch has been shown, branded and advertised as a hybrid console from day one. It's shown that way in its initial trailer, it's shown that way in every following trailer. The name of the console is "Switch", clearly because it can Switch from handheld to home console. Show me one advertisement, interview or trailer where the Switch is wrongly advertised as something it is not.
Or are you saying graphic fidelity is not a function, then tell me what is the point of playing the same game let say Doom eternal or Witcher 3 on XBox or PC? Mobile device branding themselves as home console is putting themselves to the same standard as other home console, people will start to compare them I don't understand why are you trying to downplay Switch. All these Switch subpar graphic claim starts with Nintendo branding themselves as home console, you would rarely see people compare 6th console to NDS. And even if you could prove the functionality align one to one, it still does not prove my view of a mobile gaming device comes with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power is wrong, you could only claim that I do not like marketing gimmicks which I'm tired of no matter which company pulls it.
There's two bad arguments here. One is the "graphics" argument but this is by default a non argument. The Wii didn't offer the same graphic functionality as its competition either and neither did the Wiiu. Nobody is arguing that those two consoles aren't home consoles.

Second, The Switch isn't advertised as a home console. It never has been. Its advertised, named and promoted as a hybrid console.
And as a extension of your one to one argument, how about I ask you a question that I've asked someone else which he completely dodged. Do you think Laptop is the same as Desktop, even Laptop could basically hook a HDMI cable to monitor, would you consider someone is having a desktop experience by connect a Laptop to monitor with a simple cable? By the way some Laptop do include a HDMI cable just in case you cherry pick some how the inclusivity of a cable invalidate the entire argument.
This is a poor comparisson. A laptop is a portable variant of a desktop. It is designed specifically to be a portable variant of something that it is stationary. There's no big functional difference between a laptop and a desktop. They both run the same OS and have the exact same features. Obviously asterix's all over the place because it depends on the hardware specs of both Laptop & Desktop but this doesn't change the principal that a Laptop is designed to be a portable version of a desktop.

A laptop (Well most of them anyway) also doesn't come with a detachable keyboards or a detachable mouse. You can't easily detach the keyboard or mouse part of a laptop so in most cases, you would have to purchase additional accessories to use it similarly to a desktop. Most importantly: There's no reason to if you already own a desktop.

Now this is why the comparisson doesn't work: The Switch isn't a portable variant of anything. There is no desktop variant of the Switch. There's no other piece of hardware that runs Switch software or is compatible with Switch controllers (Legally & officially anyway).
Lastly, are you trying to pull the same trick of misinterpretation other people? I remember I said pretty clear "Total market cap of the video game industry", or do you not understand this simple concept?
What the heck does the "Total market cap of the video game industry" have to do with anything? What does that have to do with your argument that the Switch would sell better if it was promoted as primary handheld instead? And what is the actual cap you're refering to anyway? Back it up with some numbers please.

Hence a mobile gaming device, imaging if it comes without a controller how would you even game? How is detachable controller invalidate my claim as a mobile gaming device? Or is that your only argument that its a home console?
Ehh...No? If it was a mobile gaming device, it would come with an attached controller or a build in controller like the Switch Lite (Or y'know, literally any handheld device or handheldconsole ever). I'm also not saying that it's a home console. I'm saying that it's a hybrid console although if you want to get technical, it clearly leans more into the home console than a handheld for the simple fact that a large number of games can only be played in home console mode, most of which are published by Nintendo themselves.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
Well with the lite it's definitely shakier ground, there is some people that have a Switch and a lite, but whole bunch that don't. I personally know 9 people with a switch, 4 of them a regular switch, 1 of them has both, the remaining 4 have just a lite. 2 have used thier switch as a home console like twice ever. I know it's annecdotle, but that's over half who basically only bought it as a portable. Zero to do with it being a home console.

Now I get what your saying, that it being a "home console" too contributed to its sales and I'll give that it's partially true for some buyers. But I would contend it's far, far less of a buying factor than the opposite.
The Nintendo die hard like us were buying it either way. (10 million of us)
I think most of the general public bought it as a portable first, with the "home console" function as a bonus feature. It helped offer a value proposition.

I think it's also safe to say that from this point on, considering the state of mobile hardware, that any portable competitor to switch will also have this value added proposition and flexibility.
But dude...we both quoted from the same 20,000 user survey that shows that the home console form factor is the preferred form factor. And can you see how the argument is gradually receding?

Stage 1: shit on Switchs success throwing all arguments available at it.
Stage 2: deny comparability with its competition throwing all relevant arguments at it.
Stage 3: deny one of its core functions exists to land the "it's not comparable/competition " argument.
Stage 4: mental gymnastics to claim that there is only one form factor and its handheld.
Stage 5: Claim its the handheld form factor that drives all sales
Stage 6: claim that if it does have a home console form factor it has a limited/minor role in its success.

And so on...
 
Last edited:
There's two bad arguments here. One is the "graphics" argument but this is by default a non argument. The Wii didn't offer the same graphic functionality as its competition either and neither did the Wiiu. Nobody is arguing that those two consoles aren't home consoles.
How is it a non argument, are you saying the internal hardware design is a none factor? And that we should only judge a product by its external? Both Wii and WiiU does not design their internal hardware based on mobile form factor in mind, hence they are home console. By saying graphic I'm actually talking about internal design(sorry for not making it clear), yes you could make a Home console less powerful, but that is different then designing a mobile device internally which also result in less power, these are two difference things.
This is a poor comparisson. A laptop is a portable variant of a desktop. It is designed specifically to be a portable variant of something that it is stationary. There's no big functional difference between a laptop and a desktop. They both run the same OS and have the exact same features. Obviously asterix's all over the place because it depends on the hardware specs of both Laptop & Desktop but this doesn't change the principal that a Laptop is designed to be a portable version of a desktop.

A laptop (Well most of them anyway) also don't come with a detachable keyboards or a detachable mouse. You can't easily detach the keyboard or mouse part of a laptop so in most cases, you would have to purchase additional accessories to use it similarly to a desktop. Most importantly: There's no reason to if you already own a desktop.

Now this is why the comparisson doesn't work: The Switch isn't a portable variant of anything. There is no desktop variant of the Switch. There's no other piece of hardware that runs Switch software or is compatible with Switch controllers (Legally & officially anyway).
I'm not comparing them on bases of whether its a portable variant of something, I'm comparing them on the bases of: do you think gaming on Laptop with a HDMI cable to monitor is the same as gaming on a Desktop. But by your logical, Since Apple Laptop does not use the same OS as Windows Desktop thus its are not portable variant of anything, so the comparison suddenly works?
What the heck does the "Total market cap of the video game industry" have to do with anything? What does that have to do with your argument that the Switch would sell better if it was promoted as primary handheld instead? And what is the actual cap you're refering to anyway? Back it up with some numbers please.
I did not say better, I said equally if not better, these are two different meaning, stop miss misquoting my message. Comparing Nintendo current product to its past product, sales number is not the only factor determine how success it is, because the total market cap of the entire industry is different. 100 million today does not equals to 100 million in the past because the market conditioning is different. If you deny this factor, you would have to prove to me, why market conditioning is irrelevant when measure the success between product that is produced in different time period.

Ehh...No? If it was a mobile gaming device, it would come with an attached controller or a build in controller like the Switch Lite (Or y'know, literally any handheld device or console ever). I'm also not saying that it's a home console. I'm saying that it's a hybrid console although if you want to get technical, it clearly leans more into the home console than a handheld for the simple fact that a large number of games can only be played in home console mode, most of which are published by Nintendo themselves.
First of all, the title of this thread used the term Home console, my initial response was that its not, its a handheld. The initial argument was that people quoting me trying to prove its home console. And then someone brought up its a "hybrid console" which I believe its branding. I wanted to know what is this new argument that your are trying to make, do you want to prove "Its a hybrid console that leaning more to home console, simply because you has detachable controller", I just want to make clear what your argument is, no disrespect.
 
Last edited:

Mozza

Gold Member
Again with the cherrypicking. The system comes with a dock and a controller and shell that is specifically designed to be used in both handheld mode and as a home console. Your arguments continue to be poorly thought out and are bordering on delusional. This still remains one of the best gems posted on this forum:

Completely ridiculous and delusional.
I mean it's not like Nintendo have made it difficult, the device is called the Switch as a reference to it's hybrid nature, and as I said the initial console reveal showed a guy plying on Zelda on the T.V, then he walked up to the system and took it out of the dock to continue the game in handheld mode, as he was going out.

But lets be honest here, we would be having similar downplaying comments even the article said the fastest console to reach 100 million units. ;)
 
Last edited:
But lets be honest here, we would be having similar downplaying comments even the article said the fastest console to reach 100 million units. ;)
In this case, I wouldn't even appear in this post, just like someone made a post dedicated to point out that Switch Lite should not be included in the sales, which I disagree, because I think all of these product are different variant of the same device because they are all handhelds, just like how Xbox, One S, One X, PS4, Slim, Pro works. The thing I don't agree with is double standard when comparing different things, like I've mentioned in my previous thread. Claiming its a home console or even hybrid will invalidate the title of this thread.

My stance is, I'm glade that Switch sold a million copy, but I also wish if there was a competitor in handheld market, this will only make consumer experience better, for example cheaper third party games.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
How is it a non argument, are you saying the internal hardware design is a none factor? And that we should only judge a product by its external? Both Wii and WiiU does not design their internal hardware based on mobile form factor in mind, hence they are home console. By saying graphic I'm actually talking about internal design(sorry for not making it clear), yes you could make a Home console less powerful, but that is different then designing a mobile device internally which also result in less power, these are two difference things.
It is mostly a non factor, yes. The Switch is designed from the ground up to be a hybrid system that you can play at home on a TV and be played as a handheld. This means that the system must have the internals that are similar to that of a dedicated handheld device for it to function in both modes. That, however, does mean that these specs suddenly define the console its its entirety. If you were argue that the Switch has the same specs on the inside as a dedicated handheld device, I'd agree. If you were to argue that the Switch has similar performance to dedicated handheld devices, I'd also agree. But to argue that all of this makes it a dedicated handheld device is ignoring all the other aspects of the design of the console.

Further more, just having "Mobile internals" doesn't make it a handheld in itself. The Ouya had mobile chipset, that was definitely a home console. The Retro consoles (Snes Mini, Playstation Mini, NES Mini etc) all run on mobile chipsets. They are home consoles as well. Point is, discussing internals doesn't really add anything to the conversation.
I'm not comparing them on bases of whether its a portable variant of something, I'm comparing them on the bases of: do you think gaming on Laptop with a HDMI cable to monitor is the same as gaming on a Desktop. But by your logical, Since Apple Laptop does not use the same OS as Windows Desktop thus its are not portable variant of anything, so the comparison suddenly works?
Well a MacBook is not a portable variant of a PC, It's a portable variant of a Mac. But to get back to your initialial question, you can have a similar experience gaming on a laptop as a desktop (Hooked up to the same monitor and assuming they have similar specs) but it would require additional purchases and steps to make it happen. A laptop is designed to offer this functionality but it's not supported out of the box without additional purchases.
I did not say better, I said equally if not better, these are two different meaning, stop miss misquoting my message. Comparing Nintendo current product to its past product, sales number is not the only factor determine how success it is, because the total market cap of the entire industry is different. 100 million today does not equals to 100 million in the past because the market conditioning is different. If you deny this factor, you would have to prove to me, why market conditioning is irrelevant when measure the success between product that is produced in different time period.
It doesn't really change your point either way. Your point is that advertising the Switch as a handheld device would lead to equal sales or better sales. Since the only two possible outcomes in this scenario are equal sales or better sales, it would be better to present the Switch as a handheld device. I want to know why. What credentials do you have to make such a bold claim? You mentioned a hypothetical total market cap number but what is the actual market cap number that your predicition is apparently based on, if its even based on any facts at all? You're criticizing a marketing approach for what is most likely going to be the best selling or 2nd best selling video game console ever. So again, What is your claim that this console would sell equally if not better if it was advertised as a handheld based on?

The 3DS, Nintendo's last handheld console, sold about 75m units in 10 years. The Switch has so far sold 100m in about 4 - 5 years. For the sake of argument, lets say the Switch sales are double that of the 3DS. This means that Nintendo's Hybrid approach has sold double that of Nintendo's last dedicated (and advertised as) handheld device. While total market cap probably has grown, its unlikely that it has grown to twice the size since 2017. Honestly, I find your claim that the Switch would have sold as well if not better if it was promoted as a dedicated handheld device to be completely baseless, especially in a world where smartphones exist and where 3DS sales already were only half that of the original DS. The handheld market in general has been in an enormous decline since 2010 and the total amount of handheld console sales are but a fraction of what they once were. In no world would a system promoted as a dedicated handheld device sell better or even similar than the Switch does now.
First of all, the title of this thread used the term Home console, my initial response was that its not, its a handheld. The initial argument was that people quoting me trying to prove its home console. And then someone brought up its a "hybrid console" which I believe its branding. I wanted to know what is this new argument that your are trying to make, do you want to prove "Its a hybrid console that leaning more to home console, simply because you has detachable controller", I just want to make clear what your argument is, no disrespect.
I agree that the term Home console in the title is inappropriate. Obviously because a certain percentage of Switch sales are Switch Lite sales but mostly because I don't see any reason to pigeon hole the Switch into a home or handheld console when it's clearly designed to do both. My argument that the switch is a hybrid console (and not a handheld console that happens to support HDMI out) is two fold with the 2nd point being more important than the first.

1. No other console has made switching to TV input as seemless as the Switch. We've had other systems do this before, like the PSP, but none do it like Switch. You can simply put down your console and it automatically switches to your TV mode. You can even do this while you're playing. No cables to insert, no controllers to hook up. Just put it down and play.

2. The Joycons are specifically designed to be used as a handheld and a home console experience. Attach them to the console and it becomes a handheld device. Remove them from the console and the switch becomes a home console (Provided its in the dock, ofcourse) The Joycons are what make the Switch a Switch. They are as vital to the core functionality of the Switch as the Wii remote was for the Wii. It's what defines the console. It HAS to be included in the conversation.

If pressed, while I still think Switch is best labeled as a hybrid system, it shares more similarities to a home console for the simple fact that a large number of titles require the system to be docked.
 
Last edited:

Mozza

Gold Member
In this case, I wouldn't even appear in this post, just like someone made a post dedicated to point out that Switch Lite should not be included in the sales, which I disagree, because I think all of these product are different variant of the same device because they are all handhelds, just like how Xbox, One S, One X, PS4, Slim, Pro works. The thing I don't agree with is double standard when comparing different things, like I've mentioned in my previous thread. Claiming its a home console or even hybrid will invalidate the title of this thread.

My stance is, I'm glade that Switch sold a million copy, but I also wish if there was a competitor in handheld market, this will only make consumer experience better, for example cheaper third party games.
Was not suggesting you.
 

Woopah

Member
I don't know about overall totals, and I don't even think the PS5 will beat Switch sales, but I do expect Switch sales are going to start dropping fairly quickly. Only because they've sold it to so many people already. I can't imagine there are 100 million more people trying to snag one. I could be wrong though.
It's definitely passed its peak and it won't reach 28 million in a single fiscal year ever again. But it's going to do 20+ million in this current fiscal year and, supply and logistics allowing, will probably do at least 20 million in the next fiscal year too.

I agree that 200 million in total seems very unlikely.
Well since you asked.......

I think this will be a very long generation because of the current shortages and PS5 will sell over 160 million with a Pro model.

Switch already seems to be slowing down so without a pro model coming so I think it reaches about 135 million before Switch 2.
135m is certainly possible if Switch gets a successor in holiday 2023 that cuts off its legs.

I think PS5 would need a 10 year lifespan to reach 160 million. And while it probably will be a long generation, I don't believe it will be that long.
 
It is mostly a non factor, yes. The Switch is designed from the ground up to be a hybrid system that you can play at home on a TV and be played as a handheld. This means that the system must have the internals that are similar to that of a dedicated handheld device for it to function in both modes. That, however, does mean that these specs suddenly define the console its its entirety. If you were argue that the Switch has the same specs on the inside as a dedicated handheld device, I'd agree. If you were to argue that the Switch has similar performance to dedicated handheld devices, I'd also agree. But to argue that all of this makes it a dedicated handheld device is ignoring all the other aspects of the design of the console.
So do you agree, that classify Switch Lite into Home console or even Hybrid console is inappropriate? Thus the title 100 million is misleading? Because that is my initial stance, you either classify as a handheld, or comparing 100 million combined in either all three space is invalid. And I'm ok with both, like how I stated initially. What I don't like is double standard, but again I'm not trying to convince anyone, if double standard is what they like that's their freedom
Further more, just having "Mobile internals" doesn't make it a handheld in itself. The Ouya had mobile chipset, that was definitely a home console. The Retro consoles (Snes Mini, Playstation Mini, NES Mini etc) all run on mobile chipsets. They are home consoles as well. Point is, discussing internals doesn't really add anything to the conversation.
The problem is Ouya does not have a self contained system, It cannot be played by itself. I also didn't say that Mobile internal was the only factor, I was saying it should not be completely ignored.
Well a MacBook is not a portable variant of a PC, It's a portable variant of a Mac. But to get back to your initialial question, you can have a similar experience gaming on a laptop as a desktop (Hooked up to the same monitor and assuming they have similar specs) but it would require additional purchases and steps to make it happen. A laptop is designed to offer this functionality but it's not supported out of the box without additional purchases.
But the problem is I'm not comparing a portable variant to its home version, or else this conversation would be about comparing Switch Lite to the original Switch, which I'm not. I'm comparing Desktop to Laptop in the sense of a Handheld device compare to a Home Console device, and I have yet seen a valid reason to prove that I'm wrong. Its the comparison in question that you are mistaken. If you are comparing Switch to other Console, that is like comparing Laptop to Desktop. But since you bring up the argument of OS, I would have to counter that argument by mention a Mac Laptop vs Windows Desktop, because that is literally what you are saying, Switch had an OS different than that of a Xbox or Playstation, it was design in a portable fashion with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power, that's what it is in our physical world, Hybrid console is a brand and/or even preference, its not a physical property of the product. Connecting Mac Laptop playing the same game as using a Windows Laptop, do you think its a same experience, you have yet to answer this specific question.
It doesn't really change your point either way. Your point is that advertising the Switch as a handheld device would lead to equal sales or better sales. Since the only two possible outcomes in this scenario are equal sales or better sales, it would be better to present the Switch as a handheld device. I want to know why. What credentials do you have to make such a bold claim? You mentioned a hypothetical total market cap number but what is the actual market cap number that your predicition is apparently based on, if its even based on any facts at all? You're criticizing a marketing approach for what is most likely going to be the best selling or 2nd best selling video game console ever. So again, What is your claim that this console would sell equally if not better if it was advertised as a handheld based on?

The 3DS, Nintendo's last handheld console, sold about 75m units in 10 years. The Switch has so far sold 100m in about 4 - 5 years. For the sake of argument, lets say the Switch sales are double that of the 3DS. This means that Nintendo's Hybrid approach has sold double that of Nintendo's last dedicated (and advertised as) handheld device. While total market cap probably has grown, its unlikely that it has grown to twice the size since 2017. Honestly, I find your claim that the Switch would have sold as well if not better if it was promoted as a dedicated handheld device to be completely baseless, especially in a world where smartphones exist and where 3DS sales already were only half that of the original DS. The handheld market in general has been in an enormous decline since 2010 and the total amount of handheld console sales are but a fraction of what they once were. In no world would a system promoted as a dedicated handheld device sell better or even similar than the Switch does now.
You can't make this up... The current and past market cap is not something you predict, if you wish to know for example the video game industry market cap of 2022, go search for yourself on google or anywhere, you would be surprised. Compare the success of a device without taking the market cap into consideration that is a bold claim to me, but again you are always entitled to your opinion, I've already agree to disagree in the past. And I don't know where is this obsession of only bringing up 3DS came from, as if that is their only handheld, do you know there was a System call GB and GBA or even NDS? and how these device selling close or even better than Switch with only marketed as Handheld? And consider how small the video game industry is NDS alone sold 125.13 million by the end of 2009 (exactly 5 years after its release), how is it a not viable argument? Why do have to downplay Nintendo's influence in the handheld market?
I agree that the term Home console in the title is inappropriate. Obviously because a certain percentage of Switch sales are Switch Lite sales but mostly because I don't see any reason to pigeon hole the Switch into a home or handheld console when it's clearly designed to do both. My argument that the switch is a hybrid console (and not a handheld console that happens to support HDMI out) is two fold with the 2nd point being more important than the first.

1. No other console has made switching to TV input as seemless as the Switch. We've had other systems do this before, like the PSP, but none do it like Switch. You can simply put down your console and it automatically switches to your TV mode. You can even do this while you're playing. No cables to insert, no controllers to hook up. Just put it down and play.
Look I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean you have convinced me, and I'll give you a reason, because seamless a subjective term, for me I do believe the experience of connect any mobile device to monitor seamless but I still wouldn't call them hybrid. Plugging one side of a cable is not much harder than putting the entire Switch into a Dock.
2. The Joycons are specifically designed to be used as a handheld and a home console experience. Attach them to the console and it becomes a handheld device. Remove them from controller and the switch becomes a home console (Provided its in the dock, ofcourse) The Joycons are what make the Switch a Switch. They are as vital to the core functionality of the Switch as the Wii remote was for the Wii. It's what defines the console. It HAS to be included in the conversation.
I like the Joy-con, to me this is one of the better innovation in the game industry, lets agree on that part, like I've stated in previous page, I love the detachable controller, but that alone does not changes its handheld property to me
If pressed, while I still think Switch is best labeled as a hybrid system, it shares more similarities to a home console for the simple fact that a large number of titles require the system to be docked.
From what you've described seems to me it shares more similarities to the handheld than home console. Am I'll give you my reasons
1. Self contained system with a screen
2. Internal mobile form factor as well as external
3. A HDMI+USB adapter with external power alone will not change the fact that its a Handheld factor.
But again, I've concluded my stance a long time ago, and agree to disagree, and I think calling people delusional is kind of rude don't you think?
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
So do you agree, that classify Switch Lite into Home console or even Hybrid console is inappropriate? Thus the title 100 million is misleading? Because that is my initial stance, you either classify as a handheld, or comparing 100 million combined in either all three space is invalid. And I'm ok with both, like how I stated initially. What I don't like is double standard, but again I'm not trying to convince anyone, if double standard is what they like that's their freedom
It depends on the context of the conversation. In strictly the context of this thread title, yes it is inaccurate as the Switch isn't exclusively a home console and a number of Switch sales don't offer home console functionality at all.
The problem is Ouya does not have a self contained system, It cannot be played by itself. I also didn't say that Mobile internal was the only factor, I was saying it should not be completely ignored.
No. It either defines the console in its entirety or it has no relevance to the discussion. You can't say "Well a mobile chipset makes it a handheld in this case but not in that particular case" or "it matters only a little bit". The Switch can be used as a self contained handheld system because that is the nature of hybrid design. It has to be able to be used as both a self contained handheld system and home system. Saying "Well that proves that it's a handheld system" is a cop out and ignores the fact that it functions as a home system just as easily. That it doesn't provide the same graphical benchmarks as other systems is completely besides the point and and irrelevant.
But the problem is I'm not comparing a portable variant to its home version, or else this conversation would be about comparing Switch Lite to the original Switch, which I'm not. I'm comparing Desktop to Laptop in the sense of a Handheld device compare to a Home Console device, and I have yet seen a valid reason to prove that I'm wrong. Its the comparison in question that you are mistaken. If you are comparing Switch to other Console, that is like comparing Laptop to Desktop. But since you bring up the argument of OS, I would have to counter that argument by mention a Mac Laptop vs Windows Desktop, because that is literally what you are saying, Switch had an OS different than that of a Xbox or Playstation, it was design in a portable fashion with a HDMI+USB adapter with external power, that's what it is in our physical world, Hybrid console is a brand and/or even preference, its not a physical property of the product. Connecting Mac Laptop playing the same game as using a Windows Laptop, do you think its a same experience, you have yet to answer this specific question.
I have no idea where you're trying to go with this comparisson. You can't compare the argument by mentioning a mac laptop vs a windows laptop because that doesn't change the fact that an Apple Laptop, which is called a MacBook, is intended and designed to be a portable version of an already existing stationary device, the Mac (Or iMac, if you will). Just like a windows laptop is a portable version of another stationary device, a desktop PC. The Switch is not a portable version of a stationary anything. It is its own device. There's no "Stationary" Switch.

The Switch doesn't have a design in a portable fashion. It has a design that enables portable play alongside standard home centric play with a controller that is designed to do both. Hybrid console is a brand or preference..Eh..No it isn't? A brand is something like Playstation or Xbox. Hybrid is a design. It means that the system is designed to do two seperate things. Whether you prefer to play in handheld or as a home console or a mix of both, that is preference, but hybrid is just the design of the console.

Connecting a Mac Laptop playing the same game as using a windows laptop is it the same experience? Ehh...Sure? I'm not sure where you're going with this? That doesn't change the fact that they're intended to be portable versions of stationary devices and though the games might play the same, they're not the same versions.
You can't make this up... The current and past market cap is not something you predict, if you wish to know for example the video game industry market cap of 2022, go search for yourself on google or anywhere, you would be surprised. Compare the success of a device without taking the market cap into consideration that is a bold claim to me, but again you are always entitled to your opinion, I've already agree to disagree in the past.
No dude, that's not how this works. You can't bring "Video game industry market cap" as a defense of your argument and when pressed to provide numbers you respond with "Here's Google, go search for yourself." This is the "Look it up,I won't do your research for you!" of discussions and it basically means you don't have an actual argument. The reality is that "Video Game Industry Market Cap" has no bearings on this discussion at all because the entire video games market isn't Nintendo's Market Cap nor is it the Switches market cap. It includes literally everything including other consoles, PC, Webgames and mobile games. Most of which are not at all relevant to this discussion or your previous claim that Switch would sell equally or better

And I don't know where is this obsession of only bringing up 3DS came from, as if that is their only handheld, do you know there was a System call GB and GBA or even NDS? and how these device selling close or even better than Switch with only marketed as Handheld? And consider how small the video game industry is NDS alone sold 125.13 million by the end of 2009 (exactly 5 years after its release), how is it a not viable argument? Why do have to downplay Nintendo's influence in the handheld market?
Sorry to be harsh, but this shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The reason why I'm not talking about the GB, GBA or original Nintendo DS is simple: Because none of those numbers are relevant anymore for one reason and one reason only: Mobile Gaming. The entire casual market that flocked to the Nintendo DS is almost entirely gone. The iPhone was originally released in 2007 and as Smartphones (And with it free smartphone games) rose in popularity, hardware sales of dedicated handheld consoles went down. Let me show you just how drastic of a decline this was:

From 2004 until 2011, a total of 155 million Nintendo DS devices and 82 Million Playstation Portable devices were sold.

So in 7 years, a total of about 237 Million Handheld devices were sold.

From 2011 until 2018, a total of 76 Million Nintendo 3DS devices and an estimate of 15 million Playstation Vita's were sold. I say estimate, because the sales of the device are so low that Sony won't publish the official numbers.

so in 7 years, a total of about 91 million handheld devices were sold.

Hopefully these figures make you understand how completely ridiculous it is to suggest that the Switch would have sold as good or better if it was promoted as a handheld only device. There is no world in which a handheld only video game system is ever going to reach Nintendo DS numbers again. That market share is simply gone and lost to mobile phone devices.

Look I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean you have convinced me, and I'll give you a reason, because seamless a subjective term, for me I do believe the experience of connect any mobile device to monitor seamless but I still wouldn't call them hybrid. Plugging one side of a cable is not much harder than putting the entire Switch into a Dock.
Okay but what meaningful functionality does having a phone attached to your TV give you? You're still going to have to control it by looking at your phones screen and taping on the screen.
I like the Joy-con, to me this is one of the better innovation in the game industry, lets agree on that part, like I've stated in previous page, I love the detachable controller, but that alone does not changes its handheld property to me

From what you've described seems to me it shares more similarities to the handheld than home console. Am I'll give you my reasons
1. Self contained system with a screen
2. Internal mobile form factor as well as external
3. A HDMI+USB adapter with external power alone will not change the fact that its a Handheld factor.
But again, I've concluded my stance a long time ago, and agree to disagree, and I think calling people delusional is kind of rude don't you think?
I'll continue to label this as a cop out and a weak argument. It's a hybrid console so naturally it must have the components to support both modes. That doesn't mean it prioritizes one and if it did, it's a bit strange to pick the mode that doesn't support all games.

I think calling people delusional is appropriate when the arguments are as bizar as yours were when it came to saying Switch should be promoted as a handheld. I kinda see your point when you say you consider it a handheld, even though I don't think your points were very good ones, but suggesting Switch should be promoted as a handheld just shows a clear lack of knowledge on what the handheld market looks like. Sorry if you experienced that as harsh. Welcome to GAF.
 
No. It either defines the console in its entirety or it has no relevance to the discussion. You can't say "Well a mobile chipset makes it a handheld in this case but not in that particular case" or "it matters only a little bit". The Switch can be used as a self contained handheld system because that is the nature of hybrid design. It has to be able to be used as both a self contained handheld system and home system. Saying "Well that proves that it's a handheld system" is a cop out and ignores the fact that it functions as a home system just as easily. That it doesn't provide the same graphical benchmarks as other systems is completely besides the point and and irrelevant.
You've miss read my statement again, A mobile design both internally or externally, that is what the device objectively is, just because a detachable controller or a include HDMI+USB adapter with external power does not change its design. Sure you could think its a Home console (which is your preference) when you plug it to the monitor, but that does not changed the fact I could also do the same with other mobile device, the way we connect might be different, either through dock(which there is third party dock for other mobile device too), or simply a cable. And don't forget hybrid console is branding by Nintendo, before that, there is no standard for this term, since there is no standard everyone basically could call everything hybrid which IMO consider meaningless. Without a standard Steam deck could be call hybrid with a third party dock or simply a cable, but in reality its not. No one had the right to define what hybrid is, the only thing that is mandatory for it to function as a hybrid are 1. Ability to connect to external screen 2. With a self contained screen 3. A game controller (or other peripheral depend on personal preference). third party or not does not invalidate the argument, some one could buy a Mobile phone and a controller holder, and a Type C to screen cable and calling it hybrid experience, that's their opinion.

Lastly the mobile form factor that determined its less power nature thus less graphic benchmark does matter, just because you think its irrelevant does not mean everybody else is. You don't make up the comparison rule, its not like a buffet you pick whichever you want to compare, other people also compare the aspect they think it matters, you either compare everything or you compare none.
I have no idea where you're trying to go with this comparisson. You can't compare the argument by mentioning a mac laptop vs a windows laptop because that doesn't change the fact that an Apple Laptop, which is called a MacBook, is intended and designed to be a portable version of an already existing stationary device, the Mac (Or iMac, if you will). Just like a windows laptop is a portable version of another stationary device, a desktop PC. The Switch is not a portable version of a stationary anything. It is its own device. There's no "Stationary" Switch.

The Switch doesn't have a design in a portable fashion. It has a design that enables portable play alongside standard home centric play with a controller that is designed to do both. Hybrid console is a brand or preference..Eh..No it isn't? A brand is something like Playstation or Xbox. Hybrid is a design. It means that the system is designed to do two seperate things. Whether you prefer to play in handheld or as a home console or a mix of both, that is preference, but hybrid is just the design of the console.
You keep on introducing new concept and premise without addressing my previous response to you, are you sure we are still on the same page? Isn't my previous reply pretty much answered you?

By claim something is a hybrid you have to define what a hybrid is don't you think? Switch does not has to be a portable version of anything since that is not the argument to begin with. Saying its a hybrid meaning it's both Handheld or Console don't you agree? But when I question this concept by asking you would you consider MacBook to be hybrid since by your standard it could basically accomplish both as a Laptop and Desktop, its that only when you are throw new premise around such as OS, when this conversation became complicated, but then you are not discussing the same thing, and dodged my question. So why not just address my question first? Its a pretty simple one, do you think A Laptop that plays the same game as Desktop by connecting to a monitor somehow make it a hybrid device? Look carefully I'm not asking you experiences, hybrid experiences is a different concept as hybrid device, one is personally opinion, the other is functionality.
Connecting a Mac Laptop playing the same game as using a windows laptop is it the same experience? Ehh...Sure? I'm not sure where you're going with this? That doesn't change the fact that they're intended to be portable versions of stationary devices and though the games might play the same, they're not the same versions.
I'm not asking MacBook vs Window Laptop, I'm asking MacBook vs Windows Desktop or Windows Laptop vs Windows Desktop, why do you have to change my question? What are you even talking about?

No dude, that's not how this works. You can't bring "Video game industry market cap" as a defense of your argument and when pressed to provide numbers you respond with "Here's Google, go search for yourself." This is the "Look it up,I won't do your research for you!" of discussions and it basically means you don't have an actual argument. The reality is that "Video Game Industry Market Cap" has no bearings on this discussion at all because the entire video games market isn't Nintendo's Market Cap nor is it the Switches market cap. It includes literally everything including other consoles, PC, Webgames and mobile games. Most of which are not at all relevant to this discussion or your previous claim that Switch would sell equally or better


Sorry to be harsh, but this shows that you don't know what you're talking about. The reason why I'm not talking about the GB, GBA or original Nintendo DS is simple: Because none of those numbers are relevant anymore for one reason and one reason only: Mobile Gaming. The entire casual market that flocked to the Nintendo DS is almost entirely gone. The iPhone was originally released in 2007 and as Smartphones (And with it free smartphone games) rose in popularity, hardware sales of dedicated handheld consoles went down. Let me show you just how drastic of a decline this was:

From 2004 until 2011, a total of 155 million Nintendo DS devices and 82 Million Playstation Portable devices were sold.

So in 7 years, a total of about 237 Million Handheld devices were sold.

From 2011 until 2018, a total of 76 Million Nintendo 3DS devices and an estimate of 15 million Playstation Vita's were sold. I say estimate, because the sales of the device are so low that Sony won't publish the official numbers.

so in 7 years, a total of about 91 million handheld devices were sold.

Hopefully these figures make you understand how completely ridiculous it is to suggest that the Switch would have sold as good or better if it was promoted as a handheld only device. There is no world in which a handheld only video game system is ever going to reach Nintendo DS numbers again. That market share is simply gone and lost to mobile phone devices.
No I did give you a link, which shows you multiple result since you are claiming past market cap are something that's need to be predicted, which is completely ridiculous

How is past market cap not relevant when my initial argument was Nintendo had a good record in the handheld department, why are you changing the definition of my statement?

And the new premises that you introduced to the table, the number you've provided proves nothing, you failed to provide any proof that The reason 3DS only sold 76 million was solely due to mobile device. There is multitude of reason why a device doesn't sell well (Although I believe 76 million is nowhere near as not selling well). And you failed to provide any proof that most people bought Switch use it as a home console and not a handheld, until you provide the statistics that how much time people spent are using it as handheld or how much time they spent are using it as Home console, its just your opinion.
Okay but what meaningful functionality does having a phone attached to your TV give you? You're still going to have to control it by looking at your phones screen and taping on the screen.

I'll continue to label this as a cop out and a weak argument. It's a hybrid console so naturally it must have the components to support both modes. That doesn't mean it prioritizes one and if it did, it's a bit strange to pick the mode that doesn't support all games.

I think calling people delusional is appropriate when the arguments are as bizar as yours were when it came to saying Switch should be promoted as a handheld. I kinda see your point when you say you consider it a handheld, even though I don't think your points were very good ones, but suggesting Switch should be promoted as a handheld just shows a clear lack of knowledge on what the handheld market looks like. Sorry if you experienced that as harsh. Welcome to GAF.
No just because you have a different opinion does not mean your opinion is true and other people are delusional. But what is delusional is when I literally said that I consider it a handheld device from a functionality point of view, and when I mentioned Switch branding as a handheld in a if scenario, you have to quote it "should be promoted" and have yet to provide me any proof to your claim that this If scenario could never exist. I don't think blame on the forum for your own rudeness is a valid argument, there are plenty of people here that respects other people even if they don't agree, including in this post, for example I've been discussing with Mozza for almost three pages, we agree to disagree, neither of us are trying to insert dominance over another like what you are doing right now.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

Gold Member
Just bought my second Switch - an OLED from Very for £244. Can’t fucking wait :messenger_beaming: does game/online sharing work just like PS/Xbox?
 

Mozza

Gold Member
I've only recently started playing Shin Megami Tensei V in earnest, and it REALLY has it's claws in me; I hear the roaming around soundtrack in my DREAMS.
Had a go at the Switch sports beta play test today, the motion controls are great and it's sucking me in like Wii sports did all those years ago.
 

Mozza

Gold Member
Just bought my second Switch - an OLED from Very for £244. Can’t fucking wait :messenger_beaming: does game/online sharing work just like PS/Xbox?
It quite a simple process, but Animal crossing is a little more hard work, even with the Island transfer tool it's confusing, the OLED is awesome though.
 

Mozza

Gold Member
Interesting article about the Nintendo Switch passing the 100 million mark, and it states the following.

"Although Switch is a hybrid console that is also capable of being used as a portable, Nintendo classifies it as “a home console that you can take with you on the go”."

Full article below, but there you have it from the horses mouth as it were.

 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
Interesting article about the Nintendo Switch passing the 100 million mark, and it states the following.

"Although Switch is a hybrid console that is also capable of being used as a portable, Nintendo classifies it as “a home console that you can take with you on the go”."

Full article below, but there you have it from the horses mouth as it were.

If you think this will convince the unconvinceables...

the lord of the rings pippin GIF
 

Rykan

Member
You've miss read my statement again,
I haven't misread your statement at all. The issue is that your arguments are extremely poor and very easily defeated. You leave out important details to suit your own agenda and that is why your statements fall apart at even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
A mobile design both internally or externally, that is what the device objectively is, just because a detachable controller or a include HDMI+USB adapter with external power does not change its design.
Yes it does change its design. The fact that the system is provided with both a dock and a very specific controller system that changes the way you play based on whether you have the controller attached to it or not changes it design completely. It's like Saying "Just because the Wii remote has motion sensor in it doesn't mean that the Wii is a motion based console.". It literally defines the entire console. You want to claim it has a "Mobile design"? Really? Which mobile video game system does not come with the controller attached? None of them do. All of them have the controller attached. The controller isn't this "optional accessory" that you're trying to make it out to be.
Sure you could think its a Home console (which is your preference)
I've already mentioned this before, at no point in this thread have I stated my preference.
when you plug it to the monitor, but that does not changed the fact I could also do the same with other mobile device, the way we connect might be different, either through dock(which there is third party dock for other mobile device too), or simply a cable.
Non argument, define which "Mobile device" you are refering to. If you can't detach the controller and use it in the same way that you can use it in a similar way that other home consoles are used, it's not the same thing. If it requires additional purchases to have the same functionality, it's not the same thing.
And don't forget hybrid console is branding by Nintendo, before that, there is no standard for this term, since there is no standard everyone basically could call everything hybrid which IMO consider meaningless.
No. The term Hybrid has a very clear and defined meaning. The only person that is confused by this terminology is you.
Without a standard Steam deck could be call hybrid with a third party dock or simply a cable, but in reality its not. No one had the right to define what hybrid is, the only thing that is mandatory for it to function as a hybrid are 1. Ability to connect to external screen 2. With a self contained screen 3. A game controller (or other peripheral depend on personal preference). third party or not does not invalidate the argument, some one could buy a Mobile phone and a controller holder, and a Type C to screen cable and calling it hybrid experience, that's their opinion.
It's clear that you're falling apart here and that you're now grasping at straws. When you purchase a system, what comes with the system is the actual product. Any functionality that requires additional hardware purchases is optional and not at the core of the design. You can turn the system into a hybrid, sure, but that requires additional purchases and the fact that it requires additional purchases shows that it's not a core funcitonality of the system but rather an optional one. This is why it differs from the Switch. When you buy a Switch, it comes with all the components to function as a hybrid. The Steamdeck does not.
Lastly the mobile form factor that determined its less power nature thus less graphic benchmark does matter, just because you think its irrelevant does not mean everybody else is. You don't make up the comparison rule, its not like a buffet you pick whichever you want to compare, other people also compare the aspect they think it matters, you either compare everything or you compare none.
This is downright hilarious. You're the one that is acting like it's a buffet where you can pick what you want to compare, not I.

This is your argument:
"It has mobile components so this (partly) proves that its primary function is a handheld device"
"Actually, several consoles that have no handheld capabilities at all have similar mobile components inside them"
"No, wait! That doesn't count!".

There is no middle ground here. Functionality defines the use of the console, not the hardware specs. Having mobile components in a Snes mini or an Ouya does not make them handheld systems. It doesn't make them "A little bit of a handheld system". It doesn't even make them "1% handheld system". The inside components have nothing to do with it being a handheld system or not. What defines a system is its functionality and the Switch, directly out of the box, offers the exact same functionality when used as a handheld or as a home console. Yes it works as a dedicated handheld system because its SUPPOSED TO as a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that becomes its single primary function.
You keep on introducing new concept and premise without addressing my previous response to you, are you sure we are still on the same page? Isn't my previous reply pretty much answered you?

By claim something is a hybrid you have to define what a hybrid is don't you think? Switch does not has to be a portable version of anything since that is not the argument to begin with. Saying its a hybrid meaning it's both Handheld or Console don't you agree? But when I question this concept by asking you would you consider MacBook to be hybrid since by your standard it could basically accomplish both as a Laptop and Desktop, its that only when you are throw new premise around such as OS, when this conversation became complicated, but then you are not discussing the same thing, and dodged my question. So why not just address my question first? Its a pretty simple one, do you think A Laptop that plays the same game as Desktop by connecting to a monitor somehow make it a hybrid device? Look carefully I'm not asking you experiences, hybrid experiences is a different concept as hybrid device, one is personally opinion, the other is functionality.

I'm not asking MacBook vs Window Laptop, I'm asking MacBook vs Windows Desktop or Windows Laptop vs Windows Desktop, why do you have to change my question? What are you even talking about?
I'm not going to continue to play this extremely dumb game with you where I'm supposed to omit basic facts about the systems you're trying to compare just so that it fits into your extremely specific comparisson. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the MacBook isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a Mac or that a windows Laptop isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a windows PC, none of which apply to the Switch. You can hook up a laptop to a monitor but you can NOT detach the keyboard or mouse from a laptop like you can with the Switch. In nearly every scenario, in order for a laptop to offer the same functionality as a desktop, it requires you to purchase additional components to make it work. It is not the same as the Switch.
No I did give you a link, which shows you multiple result since you are claiming past market cap are something that's need to be predicted, which is completely ridiculous
Are you joking? "You gave a link?" You gave a fucking Google search. Get the fuck out of here.
How is past market cap not relevant when my initial argument was Nintendo had a good record in the handheld department, why are you changing the definition of my statement?
You don't HAVE a statement. You're literally talking about a "track record" with devices released in the 90's and early 2000's in a completely different market.
And the new premises that you introduced to the table, the number you've provided proves nothing, you failed to provide any proof that The reason 3DS only sold 76 million was solely due to mobile device. There is multitude of reason why a device doesn't sell well (Although I believe 76 million is nowhere near as not selling well). And you failed to provide any proof that most people bought Switch use it as a home console and not a handheld, until you provide the statistics that how much time people spent are using it as handheld or how much time they spent are using it as Home console, its just your opinion.
How do I put this nicely...If you look at a total sales decline of over 60% in just 7 years for the dedicated handheld gaming together with the significant rise of mobile gaming and market share and then unironically say "This proves nothing!" then you are straigth up in reality denial and possibly an idiot.

Yes 76M is a good number in a vaccuum, But it's still sold only 50% of its predecessor and it also sells significantly less than the Switch does now. The Switch Lite also sells much less than the original Switch despite being significantly cheaper. Again, what is your claim that the Switch would have sold equally well or better if marketed as a handheld only device even based on? All the facts point that Nintendo took the right approach with its marketing.

Also, we do actually have statistics on this. Official numbers from Nintendo report that about 30% of players primarily play in Handheld, about 18% primarily play in docked and that the rest plays the system in both modes.
No just because you have a different opinion does not mean your opinion is true and other people are delusional. But what is delusional is when I literally said that I consider it a handheld device from a functionality point of view, and when I mentioned Switch branding as a handheld in a if scenario, you have to quote it "should be promoted" and have yet to provide me any proof to your claim that this If scenario could never exist. I don't think blame on the forum for your own rudeness is a valid argument, there are plenty of people here that respects other people even if they don't agree, including in this post, for example I've been discussing with Mozza for almost three pages, we agree to disagree, neither of us are trying to insert dominance over another like what you are doing right now.
You're trying to beat around the bush again. I called you delusional because you claimed that a system should have a different marketing approach and be promoted as a handheld first and still sell equally well if not better.

I've asked you several times to back up this statement. I've asked you for your credentials and if you have none, I've asked you to provide facts or figures as to what this "opinion" is based on. Instead, you've tried to turn the tables and put the burden of proof on me for calling your nonsense what it is: Nonsense.

I have provided several figures that show that sales of dedicated handheld game consoles has shrunk by over 60% in just 7 years. I've provided you statistics from Nintendo that show that only 30% use the system as a dedicated handheld device and I believe this isn't the first time figures were posted in this thread that show that handheld exclusive Switch players are a minority. When asked to do the same , you mention "Total video game market cap" and when asked what the number on that cap is and how this has any relevance in a discussion about handheld gaming devices only, you respond with a fucking Google search.

I have no idea why you insist on having this debate with me. You are way out of your league here. You have no facts or figures to back up your opinion. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your desire to consider Switch a handheld first and foremost, it's not actually based on any logic or facts at all.
 
Last edited:

Darryl

Banned
It's interesting that it's sold so much since there's really no good games on it that weren't on the Wii U. I guess everyone is bored due to COVID?
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
It's interesting that it's sold so much since there's really no good games on it that weren't on the Wii U. I guess everyone is bored due to COVID?
??????? Shin Megami Tensei 5, Monster Hunter Rise, No More Heroes 3, Mario Odyssey, Mario + Rabbits, Xenoblade 2, Astral Chain, Fire Emblem Three Houses, Bravely default 2, Octopath Traveler, Luigi's Mansion 3.....none of them were on WiiU.....What the hell are you talking about!?
 

Mozza

Gold Member
It's interesting that it's sold so much since there's really no good games on it that weren't on the Wii U. I guess everyone is bored due to COVID?
No really interesting or indeed surprising, the Wii U only sold around 13 million consoles so the ports are new games to the majority of Switch owners, plus the console has tonnes of games, maybe you are not interested in them, but the fact remains for most it's a cool piece of kit with loads of content.

Guessing you are just trolling, or ignoring a load of games. ;)
 
Last edited:
I haven't misread your statement at are. The issue is that your arguments are extremely poor and very easily defeated. You leave out important details to suit your own agenda and that is why your statements fall apart at even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

Yes it does change its design. The fact that the system is provided with both a dock and a very specific controller system that changes the way you play based on whether you have the controller attached to it or not changes it design completely. It's like Saying "Just because the Wii remote has motion sensor in it doesn't mean that the Wii is a motion based console.". It literally defines the entire console. You want to claim it has a "Mobile design"? Really? Which mobile video game system does not come with the controller attached? None of them do. All of them have the controller attached. The controller isn't this "optional accessory" that you're trying to make it out to be.

I've already mentioned this before, at no point in this thread have I stated my preference.

Non argument, define which "Mobile device" you are refering to. If you can't detach the controller and use it in the same way that you can use it in a similar way that other home consoles are used, it's not the same thing. If it requires additional purchases to have the same functionality, it's not the same thing.

No. The term Hybrid has a very clear and defined meaning. The only person that is confused by this terminology is you.

It's clear that you're falling apart here and that you're now grasping at straws. When you purchase a system, what comes with the system is the actual product. Any functionality that requires additional hardware purchases is optional and not at the core of the design. You can turn the system into a hybrid, sure, but that requires additional purchases and the fact that it requires additional purchases shows that it's not a core funcitonality of the system but rather an optional one. This is why it differs from the Switch. When you buy a Switch, it comes with all the components to function as a hybrid. The Steamdeck does not.

This is downright hilarious. You're the one that is acting like it's a buffet where you can pick what you want to compare, not I.

This is your argument:
"It has mobile components so this (partly) proves that its primary function is a handheld device"
"Actually, several consoles that have no handheld capabilities at all have similar mobile components inside them"
"No, wait! That doesn't count!".

There is no middle ground here. Functionality defines the use of the console, not the hardware specs. Having mobile components in a Snes mini or an Ouya does not make them handheld systems. It doesn't make them "A little bit of a handheld system". It doesn't even make them "1% handheld system". The inside components have nothing to do with it being a handheld system or not. What defines a system is its functionality and the Switch, directly out of the box, offers the exact same functionality when used as a handheld or as a home console. Yes it works as a dedicated handheld system because its SUPPOSED TO as a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that becomes its single primary function.

I'm not going to continue to play this extremely dumb game with you where I'm supposed to omit basic facts about the systems you're trying to compare just so that it fits into your extremely specific comparisson. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the MacBook isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a Mac or that a windows Laptop isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a windows PC, none of which apply to the Switch. You can hook up a laptop to a monitor but you can NOT detach the keyboard or mouse from a laptop like you can with the Switch. In nearly every scenario, in order for a laptop to offer the same functionality as a desktop, it requires you to purchase additional components to make it work. It is not the same as the Switch.

Are you joking? "You gave a link?" You gave a fucking Google search. Get the fuck out of here.

You don't HAVE a statement. You're literally talking about a "track record" with devices released in the 90's and early 2000's in a completely different market.

How do I put this nicely...If you look at at at total sales decline of over 60% in just 7 years for the dedicated handheld gaming together with the significant rise of mobile gaming and market share and then unironically say "This proves nothing!" then you are straigth up in reality denial and possibly an idiot.

Yes 76M is a good number in a vaccuum, But it's still sold only 50% of its predecessor and it also sells significantly less than the Switch does now. The Switch Lite also sells much less than the original Switch despite being significantly cheaper. Again, what is your claim that the Switch would have sold equally well or better if marketed as a handheld only device even based on? All the facts point that Nintendo took the right approach with its marketing.

Also, we do actually have statistics on this. Official numbers from Nintendo report that about 30% of players primarily play in Handheld, about 18% primarily play in docked and that the rest plays the system in both modes.

You're trying to beat around the bush again. I called you delusional because you claimed that a system should have a different marketing approach and be promoted as a handheld first and still sell equally well if not better.

I've asked you several times to back up this statement. I've asked you for your credentials and if you have none, I've asked you to provide facts or figures as to what this "opinion" is based on. Instead, you've tried to turn the tables and put the burden of proof on me for calling your nonsense what it is: Nonsense.

I have provided several figures that show that sales of dedicated handheld game consoles has shrunk by over 60% in just 7 years. I've provided you statistics from Nintendo that show that only 30% use the system as a dedicated handheld device and I believe this isn't the first time figures were posted in this thread that show that handheld exclusive Switch players are a minority. When asked to do the same , you mention "Total video game market cap" and when asked what the number on that cap is and how this has any relevance in a discussion about handheld gaming devices only, you respond with a fucking Google search.

I have no idea why you insist on having this debate with me. You are way out of your league here. You have no facts or figures to back up your opinion. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your desire to consider Switch a handheld first and foremost, it's not actually based on any logic or facts at all.
All I could say to you is that you should learn how to read, and have a good faith when you are trying to convince anyone, most of your point had already been address by either me or IFireflyl IFireflyl or some of the other member in the previous few pages multiple times. When you are dodging questions and don't care about what the person your are trying to convince is even talking about, the conversation is going nowhere. First of all you are the one quoting me multiple time first without even reading my point, second I've told you agree to disagree at least twice, but you still insist on forcing your opinion on to me without even understanding where I came from. Telling people to "get the fuck out" "delusional" "out of your league" does not make your point valid. With all that been said, I don't understand how do you come to the conclusion of me "insist on have debate with you". With this kind of attitude, no one would want to have a conversation with you. You could cling on to your imaginary victory if you are only argue to win. from now on you are not going to get any response from me until you precisely addressed all the question that I've asked you first without changing or altering my question or taking words out of context to fit your narrative. Its simply not worth while wasting my time with you anymore.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
I haven't misread your statement at are. The issue is that your arguments are extremely poor and very easily defeated. You leave out important details to suit your own agenda and that is why your statements fall apart at even the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

Yes it does change its design. The fact that the system is provided with both a dock and a very specific controller system that changes the way you play based on whether you have the controller attached to it or not changes it design completely. It's like Saying "Just because the Wii remote has motion sensor in it doesn't mean that the Wii is a motion based console.". It literally defines the entire console. You want to claim it has a "Mobile design"? Really? Which mobile video game system does not come with the controller attached? None of them do. All of them have the controller attached. The controller isn't this "optional accessory" that you're trying to make it out to be.

I've already mentioned this before, at no point in this thread have I stated my preference.

Non argument, define which "Mobile device" you are refering to. If you can't detach the controller and use it in the same way that you can use it in a similar way that other home consoles are used, it's not the same thing. If it requires additional purchases to have the same functionality, it's not the same thing.

No. The term Hybrid has a very clear and defined meaning. The only person that is confused by this terminology is you.

It's clear that you're falling apart here and that you're now grasping at straws. When you purchase a system, what comes with the system is the actual product. Any functionality that requires additional hardware purchases is optional and not at the core of the design. You can turn the system into a hybrid, sure, but that requires additional purchases and the fact that it requires additional purchases shows that it's not a core funcitonality of the system but rather an optional one. This is why it differs from the Switch. When you buy a Switch, it comes with all the components to function as a hybrid. The Steamdeck does not.

This is downright hilarious. You're the one that is acting like it's a buffet where you can pick what you want to compare, not I.

This is your argument:
"It has mobile components so this (partly) proves that its primary function is a handheld device"
"Actually, several consoles that have no handheld capabilities at all have similar mobile components inside them"
"No, wait! That doesn't count!".

There is no middle ground here. Functionality defines the use of the console, not the hardware specs. Having mobile components in a Snes mini or an Ouya does not make them handheld systems. It doesn't make them "A little bit of a handheld system". It doesn't even make them "1% handheld system". The inside components have nothing to do with it being a handheld system or not. What defines a system is its functionality and the Switch, directly out of the box, offers the exact same functionality when used as a handheld or as a home console. Yes it works as a dedicated handheld system because its SUPPOSED TO as a hybrid system. That doesn't mean that becomes its single primary function.

I'm not going to continue to play this extremely dumb game with you where I'm supposed to omit basic facts about the systems you're trying to compare just so that it fits into your extremely specific comparisson. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the MacBook isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a Mac or that a windows Laptop isn't specifically designed to be a portable version of a windows PC, none of which apply to the Switch. You can hook up a laptop to a monitor but you can NOT detach the keyboard or mouse from a laptop like you can with the Switch. In nearly every scenario, in order for a laptop to offer the same functionality as a desktop, it requires you to purchase additional components to make it work. It is not the same as the Switch.

Are you joking? "You gave a link?" You gave a fucking Google search. Get the fuck out of here.

You don't HAVE a statement. You're literally talking about a "track record" with devices released in the 90's and early 2000's in a completely different market.

How do I put this nicely...If you look at at at total sales decline of over 60% in just 7 years for the dedicated handheld gaming together with the significant rise of mobile gaming and market share and then unironically say "This proves nothing!" then you are straigth up in reality denial and possibly an idiot.

Yes 76M is a good number in a vaccuum, But it's still sold only 50% of its predecessor and it also sells significantly less than the Switch does now. The Switch Lite also sells much less than the original Switch despite being significantly cheaper. Again, what is your claim that the Switch would have sold equally well or better if marketed as a handheld only device even based on? All the facts point that Nintendo took the right approach with its marketing.

Also, we do actually have statistics on this. Official numbers from Nintendo report that about 30% of players primarily play in Handheld, about 18% primarily play in docked and that the rest plays the system in both modes.

You're trying to beat around the bush again. I called you delusional because you claimed that a system should have a different marketing approach and be promoted as a handheld first and still sell equally well if not better.

I've asked you several times to back up this statement. I've asked you for your credentials and if you have none, I've asked you to provide facts or figures as to what this "opinion" is based on. Instead, you've tried to turn the tables and put the burden of proof on me for calling your nonsense what it is: Nonsense.

I have provided several figures that show that sales of dedicated handheld game consoles has shrunk by over 60% in just 7 years. I've provided you statistics from Nintendo that show that only 30% use the system as a dedicated handheld device and I believe this isn't the first time figures were posted in this thread that show that handheld exclusive Switch players are a minority. When asked to do the same , you mention "Total video game market cap" and when asked what the number on that cap is and how this has any relevance in a discussion about handheld gaming devices only, you respond with a fucking Google search.

I have no idea why you insist on having this debate with me. You are way out of your league here. You have no facts or figures to back up your opinion. Your opinion is based on nothing more than your desire to consider Switch a handheld first and foremost, it's not actually based on any logic or facts at all.
Rykan Rykan your patience in the face of extreme obduracy, your diligence and persistence in the face of unrepentant irrationality and your equanimity and level-headedness in the face of repeated provocation and hostility deserve a goddammned medal.

Mozza Mozza seriously can we nominate him for some kind of virtual Gaffer reward?
Episode 4 Movie GIF by Star Wars
 
Last edited:

Mozza

Gold Member
Japan isn't the world. It's just one country.

Why can't we all be happy all consoles are doing healthy numbers instead?
You would think so, but some do just not like Nintendo doing well, which is surprising considering their stance that the Switch is not a home console, and therefore not operating in the same market, so this begs the question, why even bother about it in the first place.
 
Last edited:

ThaGuy

Member
What is so hard about admitting it's a hybrid?
One big marketing quote was playing console games at home or on the go 🤔.
 

Rykan

Member
All I could say to you is that you should learn how to read, and have a good faith when you are trying to convince anyone, most of your point had already been address by either me or IFireflyl IFireflyl or some of the other member in the previous few pages multiple times. When you are dodging questions and don't care about what the person your are trying to convince is even talking about, the conversation is going nowhere. First of all you are the one quoting me multiple time first without even reading my point, second I've told you agree to disagree at least twice, but you still insist on forcing your opinion on to me without even understanding where I came from. Telling people to "get the fuck out" "delusional" "out of your league" does not make your point valid. With all that been said, I don't understand how do you come to the conclusion of me "insist on have debate with you". With this kind of attitude, no one would want to have a conversation with you. You could cling on to your imaginary victory if you are only argue to win. from now on you are not going to get any response from me until you precisely addressed all the question that I've asked you first without changing or altering my question or taking words out of context to fit your narrative. Its simply not worth while wasting my time with you anymore.
At no point in this conversation have you been worthy of an argument in "Good Faith". You cite sources and numbers you don't have, you try to change the definition of terms such as branding and functionality to whatever suits you at the moment. You dismiss clear data out of hand on no grounds at all and when asked to support your argument with literally any figures at all, you respond with a google search with the message "Go look for it yourself.

Worst of all, you keep falsely accussing me of not adressing your points or altering your question. At no point have I done this and I'm more than happy to throw down the gauntlet on this one. Quote the parts from your posts that you feel I haven't adressed properly and I will gladly quote the part from my post where I clearly adress it. I don't expect to hear from you again. You continue to ignore important aspects of hardware to suit your poorly thought out argument.

Your Laptop question is a perfect example of this. Everyone here can clearly see what you were trying to do here. A laptop is a portable device, so if you can get a desktop like experience just by plugging it in to a monitor, that would prove that the Switch is just a handheld with an HDMI out. Hah! Checkmate!

Except thats not how that works and when I explain that there is a much larger context that needs to be taken into consideration and that you need to look at the full picture, you accuse me of "Changing or altering your question". This is also the reason why you insist in calling a Switch a handheld and not a hybrid. You hyper focus on one aspect of its design, which clearly needs to be the way it is in order to function as a hybrid, and then you ignore literally everything else about the console.

Again, how the heck is anyone supposed to argue with you in good faith? You don't bring facts yourself, you make ridiculous claims you can't back up and falsely accuse me of not responding to your points.
 
Last edited:

Marvel14

Member
To be specific a games console is a piece of dedicated hardware whose primary purpose is to play videogames.

You're splitting hairs and continually using double standards to try and give a reason why the switch should be considered differently. You argued the internal components but when it was pointed out that other consoles used mobile specific components you shifted to something else evading the point that by your own logic the other consoles would be considered handheld too if based on the type of internal components.

As I've said previously in the thread, the problem with trying to split hairs like you are doing is that complicating the definition of a console will inevitably result in contradictions or inadvertently classifying the other consoles as something other than what you have decided they are - case in point your attempt to cite mobile components.

The truth is all modern consoles are just PCs. They share far more in common with PC's than the devices that were originally called games consoles. They, like the switch, continue to be classified as consoles because of the basic definition of a console - a dedicated piece of electrical hardware whose primary purpose is to play videogames. Put anything more on top of that and you end up with a ruddy alwful mess as we've seen in this thread.

My problem with calling the Switch a portable is that it assumes a distinct and separate use and market from other consoles. This is the reason why console warriors bring up the definition and argue it so defensively in every damned sales thread shat shows the Switch doing well. Secondly, it assumes a primary function which the device is not presented as. The consoles is designed to be played at home and is capable of being moved to and used in other locations more easily than other consoles - all the marketing presents this and even the name focuses on this.
Honorable mention to you for keeping the rationality alive. I suspect we could have shortcutted this discussion by asking iffy-firefly and starbro what evidence would change their mind. The answer would undoubtedly be: "change the mobile chipset" or "take out the tablet screen" which confirms that they are refusing to engage with all of the evidence that challenges their perspective. The positive outcome is that we have collectively truly dissected the arguments and laid them bare...Next Switch sales success thread we can deal with this nonsense very efficiently indeed.
 
Top Bottom