simpleSwitch 2 demand appears to be flagging as Nintendo reportedly lowers production
Nintendo’s Switch 2 got off to a roaring start but demand has started to sag, particularly in the US. Where are the big games to reverse this?
ALoafOfBreadThe value proposition just isn’t there. Much more expensive for better performance and… pokemon pokopia? There aren’t any games really taking advantage of that increased performance that I am aware of. My switch 1 still works. I’d like better performance, but not $500 worth
NOT_RICKDK Bananza is fun but I don’t think it’s worthy of buying a new system. It’s also pretty cool running Cyberpunk on such a slim system but there’s plenty of ways to play that. It’s got a strong third party base already, but I do think this calendar year’s first party releases will be really important for the system.
They also released an update so all switch 1 games can run in docked mode when the switch 2 is in portable mode, but that only benefits those that use the system portably often.
My Switch Lite with Diablo 2, Brotato and Balatro will last me till heat death
That’s why most people I know got the switch. They got it in spite of bad performance to play older 3rd party games on a portable, social format. Can play with friends, on the bus, on the couch. Don’t really need better specs to do that.
The nintendo games are largely just a bonus, imo. They’re very expensive and I personally wouldn’t seek them out if I didn’t also own a switch. If I had kids or was a kid that’d be a different story, probably.
Exactly. Until the last year or so, it was simply the best handheld you could get. Is it good as a current-gen console, obviously not. But you could play nearly anything on it, and the Lite is surprisingly reliable compared to the standard’s issues with stick drift etc
The only thing the Switch 2 has over similarly priced Linux-based handheld PCs these days is The Duskbloods
Yeah, this is the “tock” part of the “tick-tock” hardware cycle. People bought the Switch because it was refreshing and a new way to play. Now Nintendo is offering to let us pay again and more for nearly the same. It’s a little cynical but true.
They could have called it the SwitchU, but honestly that’s a disservice to the WiiU - its second screen had more innovation.
KraeuterRoyThing is, a lot of people, me included, were asking for a more powerful Switch rather than something entirely new. Its just a compelling form factor.
What I did not want (and what’s the reason I never bought a Switch 2) were 70-80 bucks a game, subscription based hardware features, gimmicky shit like the camera on a stalk and the sheer audacity to charge 10 quid for a shitty tech demo / marketing game.
And yet, so many people still bought a Switch 2 - so I guess Nintendo did the right thing…financially.
To me, the problem is that this is the Switch Pro, and they called it the Switch 2. The marketing psychology makes a big difference. Switch Pro would imply it coexists alongside Switch and is for those who want to pay for more performance. Switch 2 implies that it’s something worthy of abandoning the prior generation. I think the former is fine (even desirable) and the later is just a bad value proposition.
Also interesting there were leaks about a Switch Pro a year or so prior to the Switch 2 reveal. My guess is the Switch 2 IS the Switch Pro.
LemmyngAny games that do take advantage of the increased performance cost $5-20 extra.
One of the smartest thing Nintendo could have done, and it seemed like they were doing this with BOTW/TOTK was to offer the upgrade for free with NSO Expansion Pak memberships, to increase the value of NSO Expansion Pak, get more people to sign up for NSO Expansion Pak and make the Switch 2 a more viable purchase.
BUT NAAAAAAH, ROTFLMAO, $20 ON TOP OF $70 ANNUALLY ON TOP OF $70 GAMES COMING OUT MONTHLY ON TOP OF A $450-500 CONSOLE + $100 ACCESSORIES IS MOTHERFUCKING CRAZY.
I would take a new fire emblem game, but certainly not a full upgrade for it.
I upgraded to the OLED model years back and it works fine for me.