Will the Switch ever get a Direct competitor?

[themistermanguy]

The Nintendo Switch has seen a ton of success thanks to its unique blend of mobile hardware with console style gaming, PC-quality development tools, and trademark Nintendo quirk, creating a system you can play anytime, anywhere, with anyone. It's filled an ever increasing market hole between simple mobile games, and complex console titles, creating a system that audiences from both sides can enjoy. So far, a few companies tried to pitch a portable tablet or phone as an answer to Nintendo's product. But nobody has really tried to create an actual direct answer to the Switch yet. I think it's about time we fix that. Sure they may not be as popular as the Switch, but a Direct Switch competitor or two could actually provide a nice alternative, and more importantly, make Nintendo more aggressive in an effort to compete.

Nintendo is usually a much more competitive company when someone creates a more direct answer to their products. With PlayStation and Xbox, they don't give a shit about what the other consoles do because they don't compete in that market space, the powerful stationary home console. Instead targeting an untapped market, IE they hybrid console you can play anywhere and with friends. So Nintendo has no incentive to compete against the PS4 or Xbox One because there's nothing to compete against really.

However, once someone tries to challenge Nintendo on their turf, and directly at their own game. Then the gloves come off, and Nintendo gets more aggressive.

* Exhibit A - Sony announces the PSP in 2003, which threaten's the GBA's dominance. Nintendo responds with the announcement of the DS that same year.

* Exhibit B - Nintendo rushes the DS to market in NA in November 2004, beating the PSP by about 4 months.

* Exhibit C - Nintendo drastically cuts the price of the 3DS and and strategically rushes key first party titles out in time for Holiday 2011, after the PlayStation Vita threatened its existence with a more powerful system at the same price.

* Exhibit D - Nintendo starts pushing motion plus for Wii, and even baking it into later versions of the Wiimote around the time Kinect and PlayStation Move rear their heads.

The moment Nintendo has a legitimate threat, they start pulling out the stops and do everything they can to make their product as attractive as possible. The Blue Ocean Strategy also gives them a home field advantage as since they have more experience in a market, they have a better chance of outselling any competitor. So we could see that again if the Switch ever gets a competitor. The question then becomes, who will rise up to the challenge? I still maintain that Sony will be the first to create a more direct answer to the Switch, assuming they learned from the mistakes made with the Vita. But I'd also like to see someone unconventional try and take on Nintendo.

 

[sXeth]

A tablet that can run Steam and connect a bluetooth controller.

Not really a big ask all in all. And probably Apple or Samsung could already do it if they were bothered.

Though there is the same problem that the passing fart in the wind that was "SteamBoxes" had. Which is to actively breach the console market with Steam (or whichever of its competitors), you immediately need a filter to get rid of all the games the system can't run, or means to lock settings on games to where they can run.


Sony could also still make an effort at it. You get into portables and the two flip positions and its Sony who's poisoned their well with a bunch of slapdash efforts and abrupt support drops, but little is stopping them from trying their own climb out of that other then a willingess to invest in a portable/hybrid.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I see the switch as a way of nintendo competing with ps4 and x1 despite being a much weaker machine by making their console also turn portable rather than being this separate new thing that others will have to compete against.

 

[bluegate]

However, once someone tries to challenge Nintendo on their turf, and directly at their own game. Then the gloves come off, and Nintendo gets more aggressive.

Weren't traditional home consoles their turf, that turf that they don't compete in anymore, according to you?

The original PlayStation steamrolled over the N64 and whatever console Sega had at that time ( confusing Sega names ), the PlayStation 2 equally steamrolled over the GameCube to the point that Nintendo had to come up with some catchy gimmick for their next console.

Then they tried to make a more traditional console again with the Wii-U and it got steamrolled by the PS4 to the point that Nintendo had to cut short their generation at only 4 years in the market.

 

[sXeth]

The original PlayStation steamrolled over the N64 and whatever console Sega had at that time ( confusing Sega names ),

That's a mite misrepresentative. A lot of N's troubles did root at the 64, but it was far from steamrolled by anything. A solidly respectable second place in one of the more competitive periods of home consoles (against the Sega whatever, 3do, and the last Atari). The bottom might've dropped out on their third party, and some genres are woefully unrepresented on it, but I'd wager most would stack the N64 offering directly vs the PS1 offering in the 64's favor nonetheless.

 

[themistermanguy]

However, once someone tries to challenge Nintendo on their turf, and directly at their own game. Then the gloves come off, and Nintendo gets more aggressive.

Weren't traditional home consoles their turf, that turf that they don't compete in anymore, according to you?

The original PlayStation steamrolled over the N64 and whatever console Sega had at that time ( confusing Sega names ), the PlayStation 2 equally steamrolled over the GameCube to the point that Nintendo had to come up with some catchy gimmick for their next console.

Then they tried to make a more traditional console again with the Wii-U and it got steamrolled by the PS4 to the point that Nintendo had to cut short their generation at only 4 years in the market.

Back then Nintendo competed because they had companies they could compete against. Nintendo could easily take on Sega in the 16-bit era, so they did. They could at least put up a fight against Sony, especially since Sega was derping off in the corner in the 5th gen, so they did. It was when Nintendo had to compete against Sony AND Microsoft in the 6th generation did they start having problems. The gaming industry was going through significant changes then, and Nintendo realized they could no longer directly compete against tech giants that were willing to brute force their way into the industry. So Nintendo pulled out of the main race starting with the 7th generation, and has been trying to find ways to avoid direct confrontation since.

I know the GameCube had its issues such as mini-disc and lack of online, but honestly, even if that wasn't the case, what could Nintendo have offered that couldn't have been done just as well, if not better than on the other two platforms at the time? Probably nothing. Good as Nintendo games are, they alone wouldn't be enough to combat the sheer good will Sony had built up with the PlayStation brand at the time, nor could it stop the surprise hit phenomenon that Xbox's Halo turned out to be.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Not being in direct competition with anyone in particular has been what's keeping Nintendo afloat for a while now. For the better, I think. While I don't think the Xbox One is an utter commercial failure it's pretty much the also ran of the generation, seeming rather redundant next to the PS4. The Switch, on the other hand, has succeeded on the virtue of being different. I'm gonna sound like a Nintendo fanboy now but bridging the gap between handheld and home console was rather brilliant. It's prudent to assume that Sony is taking notes. The PS5 might also have a portable mode. I think it's gonna be either that or doubling down on VR for the next generation.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

The original PlayStation steamrolled over the N64 and whatever console Sega had at that time ( confusing Sega names ),

That's a mite misrepresentative. A lot of N's troubles did root at the 64, but it was far from steamrolled by anything. A solidly respectable second place in one of the more competitive periods of home consoles (against the Sega whatever, 3do, and the last Atari). The bottom might've dropped out on their third party, and some genres are woefully unrepresented on it, but I'd wager most would stack the N64 offering directly vs the PS1 offering in the 64's favor nonetheless.

If you are talking the overall quality of their respective libraries, you may have a point. In terms of commercial success though?

Hell no, the PS1 is the clear and definitive winner of its generation (as was the PS2). It sold over 3 times the number of units the N64 did and over 10 times that of the Saturn. In fact, The PS1 outsold all it competitors combined twice over with room to spare. Same for the PS2 and its competitors btw, except there the gap is ever larger. That's home consoles though. If we're talking handheld, then Nintendo is top dog. Always has been. Only the PSP ever managed a good foothold, and even then the DS still outsold it near 2 to 1. And then Sony tried again with the PS Vita

Coincidentally, the Vita has quite a bit in common with the Switch. It's a mobile system that could provide console quality games. It has a touchscreen and gyro controls. It's a good indie game machine. No really, the Vita has an astoundingly large 1500+ game library and most of that is indies. Most of the things the Switch can do, the Vita has too, aside from lacking the detachable controllers and a way to play on a tv. It's arguably about the closest thing to a competitor the Switch has.

But we all know how things turned out for the Vita. I mean, Sony announced back in september they're gonna stop production this year, had already stopped producing physical games before that, and have no plans for a successor. I can only assume they've decided to give up on trying to beat Nintendo on the handheld market in favor of their traditional home consoles, where they've at least scored some commercial wins.

 

[Something Amyss]

Not being in direct competition with anyone in particular has been what's keeping Nintendo afloat for a while now. For the better, I think. While I don't think the Xbox One is an utter commercial failure it's pretty much the also ran of the generation, seeming rather redundant next to the PS4. The Switch, on the other hand, has succeeded on the virtue of being different. I'm gonna sound like a Nintendo fanboy now but bridging the gap between handheld and home console was rather brilliant. It's prudent to assume that Sony is taking notes. The PS5 might also have a portable mode. I think it's gonna be either that or doubling down on VR for the next generation.

But it is definitely brilliant. When Microsoft and Sony are duking it out with similar base specs and similar games with often trivial differences (I know the XBOX And PS4Pro are somewhat a different story), it's hard to justify both unless you really need those exclusives from both consoles.

Being able to dock your handheld makes the Switch a different animal and can help to justify things. Especially for families who might share a TV. It also makes it a potentially attractive option for the sme groups of people.

I mean, I haven't used my Switch docked much, but I imagine it's a selling point for a lot of people.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Considering Sony's incompetence and MS' indifference at handhelds, they probably never will.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Isn't the Switch actually Nintendo's way of competing against PS4 and Xbone? Wii U was bombing so they knocked out a conole with poor specs but handheld capabilities?

 

[themistermanguy]

Isn't the Switch actually Nintendo's way of competing against PS4 and Xbone? Wii U was bombing so they knocked out a conole with poor specs but handheld capabilities?

Switch was Nintendo's response to the rapidly changing landscape in gaming. The PS4 moved to PC-like hardware, which combined with wide engine support, allowed for game development to be easier than its ever been before, especially for small teams like indies. Meanwhile, Smartphone gaming was only growing in popularity, with many games regularly topping the charts. So with console gaming re-surging and smartphone gaming rising, Nintendo came out with a convoluted home console with dated hardware, and an unneeded tablet controller that many people thought was just an add-on to their existing system. Meanwhile, they also had a redundant dual screened handheld with outdated hardware and a gimmick that everyone ended up ignoring after the first few years. Nintendo was getting squeezed from all sides of the angle, and thus, rather than compete, they needed to create a product so radical that it basically made its own new market segment.

The Switch doesn't compete, but rather offer an experience that's a mix of modern console gaming and development, and mobile style gameplay. It's goal is to bridge the gap between console and mobile gaming with the best qualities of both, and it's so far succeeded in doing just that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The people who want a Switch have a Switch, and the lure of Nintendo isn't simply hardware. It's the games that you can only get on their consoles. That and I like the Switch. It was kind of uncomfortable to begin with but I've gotten used to holding one, and no.... it's not simple a tablet with a blutooth controller nor would be replaced by one. That would be portable only in the sense of having a desk.

The only complaint is the limited memcard selection you have to use for the device. I would say battery life, but honestly that would affect comfort of holding it and additional battery packsfor other devices are a damn near necessity if travelling for business, anyways, so it's no feather in my cap to carry one or three for my laptop and phone regardless.

The Switch didn't only sell because it's niche gaming delivered and marketed well. The market for the Switch is fulfilled precisely by the Switch, and a 'direct competitor' is not going to eat into its demand or attract similar success.

Nintendo by their own make a shit ton of games, and those games are on the whole fantastic offerings crafted with dilligence, lavished with large budgets and profound care of quality testing. And it's a bit hard to compete with Nintendo when you always know you're getting something new and all too frequently clever beyond compare.

 

[Yoshi178]

The people who want a Switch have a Switch

not entirely true.

the console wouldn't still be breaking sale's records 22 months into it's life like it is if everyone who wanted one already owned the system. lol

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I think a fair bit of Nintendo's current success is its indie games. The Switch is relatively easy to code for these days and short-form, low to mid budget games are a great fit for when you're on the go.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

The people who want a Switch have a Switch

not entirely true.

the console wouldn't still be breaking sale's records 22 months into it's life like it is if everyone who wanted one already owned the system. lol

That's true. My statement was a bit simplistic. Maybe more; "People who want a Switch want a Switch specifically."

Not merely a 'direct competitor' because obviously that won't compete.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Nintendo is mainly competing with themselves (3DS) with the Switch more than anything. Though smart phones already have better games and a more robust library than the Switch. Digital board games are far superior in game design and mechanics than anything on the Switch (or really any system). There are a few Switch games I want to play like the Bayonetta series but my $80 phone has better games on it than the Switch is offering.

 

[Yoshi178]

Nintendo is mainly competing with themselves

LOL. You keep thinking that buddy. :3

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Too soon to say. I think it's very well possible that the Switch's home console/handheld hybrid design will turn out to be the next step in the evolution of gaming devices. Or it might not. Depends on if Sony and Microsoft will try to imitate it.

 

[votemarvel]

Nintendo is mainly competing with themselves

LOL. You keep thinking that buddy. :3

I agree with him, in the mobile gaming sense at least.

The 3DS is a better option if you want to do some gaming on the go. Similar battery life, less likely to damage the screen, no peripherals to risk losing, far more portable. True the multiplayer requires the other person to have a 3DS as well but it is still an option.

Now I'm sure your experience will be different to my own but of those I know who own a Switch the most mobile gaming they do with it is taking it to different rooms in their house. 3DS owners on the other hand almost always have it with them when going somewhere.

So yes in terms of mobile gaming Nintendo's only real competitor is themselves.