4 ms·

It's interesting how many people see the Switch as being in its own category rather than acknowledging it as the winner of this console generation (which I comp

by basfo 2y ago

It's interesting how many people see the Switch as being in its own category rather than acknowledging it as the winner of this console generation (which I completely agree it is). Most people think the “console” battle is between PlayStation and Xbox, and that PlayStation is the winner. This is probably a big win for PlayStation’s marketing team.

spokaneplumb 2y ago
I kinda think that way when buying. The Nintendo console is the Nintendo console. If you want what they do, you're buying it. The other two are where the competition is and where there's a decision of which one, not buy this single product or don't. They're much closer to being interchangeable than the Switch is with either of them.
- jonwinstanley 2y ago
  This plays out in ownership too, I know a small number of people with all 3 but a lot that have a Switch plus 1 of either a PS5 or an Xbox
red-iron-pine 2y ago
This is probably a big, major effort by PlayStation’s marketing team to get people to think that
runevault 2y ago
Personally I'd say both are true. They won the generation, but they did so by not bothering to fight directly with Playstation and Xbox. By basically ignoring them and having a distinct identity they won.
- dmonitor 2y ago
  This framing only highlights either A. Sony has an amazing marketing strategy where they can paint their #1 competitor as not even a competitor. B. Xbox has a terrible product direction, where they are trying (failing) to beat Sony at being Sony instead of looking at the gaming industry and trying to create a product people want.
  - kridsdale1 2y ago
    Regarding B, the Xbox has always primarily been a strategy to put the Windows kernel in to every living room. From there, it’s made sense that they would use pc-tier components rather than phone-tier as Nintendo is on.
  - runevault 2y ago
    I wouldn't say A because Nintendo hasn't bothered trying to compete with them. If they bothered and Sony still managed to be considered a separate category I would agree, but Nintendo appears to not care about them. However I do think B is true. The only time they were able to go toe to toe with Sony was most of the 360 era when Sony got cocky and built a machine that was too complicated to work with relative to the value developers got out of that effort. Once Sony stopped doing that they've dominated Xbox (mind you the whiff on being too early proclaiming the digital era made it far far worse).
  - Neonlicht 2y ago
    How is the Switch a competitor when it doesn't even play most games that you can find on Playstation or Steam? I think Nintendo is- respectfully- in their own lane.
    - timv 2y ago
      The market penetration of the switch makes it harder for Sony to expand into the family/casual gaming space. That forces Sony to stick to the AAA lane (which is where their focus is) limiting their growth opportunities. If the switch had been a failure, then a lot of households that currently have a switch (only) would have bought a different console and that would likely have been a PS5 (even if they held on to their previous generation console, and waited a couple of years until the PS5 price dropped below $500) I have a PS4 and a Switch at home. The kids play the switch and occasionally play on the PS4. I can't justify buying a PS5 because there's only so much gaming time available, and family gaming is covered by the switch and my personal gaming is good enough on my PC. Take the switch out of the equation and that changes. PS5 is winning the AAA console lane, no doubt. But Sony could have been making more money if they could also own a significant portion of the family console lane.
dkkergoog 2y ago
Software, it can't be compared because of a unique catalogue. How would switch sales be impacted if Zelda was on the ps or Xbox?
mrandish 2y ago
> This is probably a big win for PlayStation’s marketing team. I don't have any current Gen console (nor have I played one) but as a long-time tech market "interested observer" my understanding is that XBox had a bit less raw power last Gen and tried correcting this Gen and succeeded in having a bit more raw power than PS5. However, it apparently didn't matter to the market. So it seems to be another example like Betamax vs VHS, where the product with somewhat better technology didn't win because consumers found other factors more important. In modern game consoles, I assume those factors would be some mix of exclusive titles, compatibility with existing previous gen game libraries, marketing+brand perception and, more recently, the console's subscription game service. It's interesting that Microsoft apparently didn't internalize this lesson, since Nintendo has been remained competitive for ~20 years by combining significantly weaker hardware with high-quality franchise games plus a clever differentiating factor (novel interaction (Wii) or portability (Switch). Of course, it would be wrong to conclude "CPU/GPU power doesn't matter" because it's more complex than comparing mips, flops, rops, etc. It also depends on how much, and how well, developers and game engines optimize for a platform's hardware. Microsoft definitely learned their lesson about high-quality franchise games with their recent (and very costly) acquisition spree including Call of Duty. Although, to get anti-trust approval it can't be platform exclusive for at least a decade. I'm wondering if MSFT's claims that they're happy to be a games software company selling on all platforms may actually be true. If so, it may not bode well for the future of the XBox hardware business - which would be sad because more competition is generally better for consumers.
- astrospective 2y ago
  Part of the issue is Xbox segmented the market with the less powerful Series S and put constraints on releases needing to have feature parity between the two, quite a few devs have had issues with. It delayed Baldur’s Gate 3 for months until MS waived off the split screen co-op. Seems bizarre to chase power at hard and then make it harder for your devs to develop to it. https://www.techradar.com/gaming/is-the-xbox-series-s-holding-games-back-i-asked-developers-to-find-out https://www.techradar.com/gaming/is-the-xbox-series-s-holdin...
  - 2y ago
MYEUHD 2y ago
Due to the switch's low processing power, it can't run many AAA titles (for example Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Call of Duty games etc.) That's why it's considered its own category.
- derefr 2y ago
  I find it interesting that we don’t see more “officially-licensed demakes” of AAA games being released for devices (the Switch; phones; old PCs) that can’t play the AAA version. It used to be very common (with e.g. SNES games getting simultaneous GB reinterpretations released with them.) But the only thing I can think of that did it in recent memory is Final Fantasy 15.
  - griomnib 2y ago
    There are some, like DOOM, but it’s not a lot. If Switch 2 can pull off PlayStation 4 quality I bet there’d be a bonanza of ports and some good money made.
  - jmcgough 2y ago
    Games used to take way less money and time to create, so it was viable to make 3-4 different versions of the same game for different platforms.
    - derefr 2y ago
      But if you demake a game hard enough (i.e. really clamp down on the asset details, by using intentionally-stylized art rather than lower-quality realistic art, etc) then it doesn't need to take so much time and money to create the port. It can be a bounded added marginal cost. Also, there are things a modern "parallel demake" (like FFXV Pocket Edition) can do to reuse certain types of assets from its AAA sibling, that in the previous era would have required remaking those assets from scratch. So a modern demake can actually be cheaper to produce in some ways. For examples: • You can just copy-and-paste the script and associated audio assets straight over, as anything can play audio clips. • You can also copy over all the animation "choreography" scripting for NPCs and cinematics, with the particular named animation cues just mapping to different actual animations for the simplified models. • Depending on how your AAA game models environments, you might even be able to export the abstract "level data" (what type of terrain goes where; basic geometry and material-type for meshes of buildings; placement of things like furniture and other large freestanding decor objects) from your AAA game engine, and then import it directly into your demake's game engine. (You'll then still need to run over everything to add new decor and details, make sure nothing is clipping, etc — but this is still a major speed-up.) IIRC this is how the recent third-party-implemented Pokemon titles [Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee and BD/SP] were implemented — they started with direct dumps and imports of the original games' level data into their engine.

by basfo 2y ago

spokaneplumb 2y ago

I kinda think that way when buying. The Nintendo console is the Nintendo console. If you want what they do, you're buying it. The other two are where the competition is and where there's a decision of which one, not buy this single product or don't. They're much closer to being interchangeable than the Switch is with either of them.

jonwinstanley 2y ago
This plays out in ownership too, I know a small number of people with all 3 but a lot that have a Switch plus 1 of either a PS5 or an Xbox

red-iron-pine 2y ago

This is probably a big, major effort by PlayStation’s marketing team to get people to think that

runevault 2y ago

Personally I'd say both are true. They won the generation, but they did so by not bothering to fight directly with Playstation and Xbox. By basically ignoring them and having a distinct identity they won.

dmonitor 2y ago
This framing only highlights either A. Sony has an amazing marketing strategy where they can paint their #1 competitor as not even a competitor. B. Xbox has a terrible product direction, where they are trying (failing) to beat Sony at being Sony instead of looking at the gaming industry and trying to create a product people want.
- kridsdale1 2y ago
  Regarding B, the Xbox has always primarily been a strategy to put the Windows kernel in to every living room. From there, it’s made sense that they would use pc-tier components rather than phone-tier as Nintendo is on.
- runevault 2y ago
  I wouldn't say A because Nintendo hasn't bothered trying to compete with them. If they bothered and Sony still managed to be considered a separate category I would agree, but Nintendo appears to not care about them. However I do think B is true. The only time they were able to go toe to toe with Sony was most of the 360 era when Sony got cocky and built a machine that was too complicated to work with relative to the value developers got out of that effort. Once Sony stopped doing that they've dominated Xbox (mind you the whiff on being too early proclaiming the digital era made it far far worse).
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  How is the Switch a competitor when it doesn't even play most games that you can find on Playstation or Steam? I think Nintendo is- respectfully- in their own lane.
  - timv 2y ago
    The market penetration of the switch makes it harder for Sony to expand into the family/casual gaming space. That forces Sony to stick to the AAA lane (which is where their focus is) limiting their growth opportunities. If the switch had been a failure, then a lot of households that currently have a switch (only) would have bought a different console and that would likely have been a PS5 (even if they held on to their previous generation console, and waited a couple of years until the PS5 price dropped below $500) I have a PS4 and a Switch at home. The kids play the switch and occasionally play on the PS4. I can't justify buying a PS5 because there's only so much gaming time available, and family gaming is covered by the switch and my personal gaming is good enough on my PC. Take the switch out of the equation and that changes. PS5 is winning the AAA console lane, no doubt. But Sony could have been making more money if they could also own a significant portion of the family console lane.

dkkergoog 2y ago

Software, it can't be compared because of a unique catalogue. How would switch sales be impacted if Zelda was on the ps or Xbox?

mrandish 2y ago

> This is probably a big win for PlayStation’s marketing team. I don't have any current Gen console (nor have I played one) but as a long-time tech market "interested observer" my understanding is that XBox had a bit less raw power last Gen and tried correcting this Gen and succeeded in having a bit more raw power than PS5. However, it apparently didn't matter to the market. So it seems to be another example like Betamax vs VHS, where the product with somewhat better technology didn't win because consumers found other factors more important. In modern game consoles, I assume those factors would be some mix of exclusive titles, compatibility with existing previous gen game libraries, marketing+brand perception and, more recently, the console's subscription game service. It's interesting that Microsoft apparently didn't internalize this lesson, since Nintendo has been remained competitive for ~20 years by combining significantly weaker hardware with high-quality franchise games plus a clever differentiating factor (novel interaction (Wii) or portability (Switch). Of course, it would be wrong to conclude "CPU/GPU power doesn't matter" because it's more complex than comparing mips, flops, rops, etc. It also depends on how much, and how well, developers and game engines optimize for a platform's hardware. Microsoft definitely learned their lesson about high-quality franchise games with their recent (and very costly) acquisition spree including Call of Duty. Although, to get anti-trust approval it can't be platform exclusive for at least a decade. I'm wondering if MSFT's claims that they're happy to be a games software company selling on all platforms may actually be true. If so, it may not bode well for the future of the XBox hardware business - which would be sad because more competition is generally better for consumers.

astrospective 2y ago
Part of the issue is Xbox segmented the market with the less powerful Series S and put constraints on releases needing to have feature parity between the two, quite a few devs have had issues with. It delayed Baldur’s Gate 3 for months until MS waived off the split screen co-op. Seems bizarre to chase power at hard and then make it harder for your devs to develop to it. https://www.techradar.com/gaming/is-the-xbox-series-s-holding-games-back-i-asked-developers-to-find-out https://www.techradar.com/gaming/is-the-xbox-series-s-holdin...
- 2y ago

MYEUHD 2y ago

Due to the switch's low processing power, it can't run many AAA titles (for example Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Call of Duty games etc.) That's why it's considered its own category.

derefr 2y ago
I find it interesting that we don’t see more “officially-licensed demakes” of AAA games being released for devices (the Switch; phones; old PCs) that can’t play the AAA version. It used to be very common (with e.g. SNES games getting simultaneous GB reinterpretations released with them.) But the only thing I can think of that did it in recent memory is Final Fantasy 15.
- griomnib 2y ago
  There are some, like DOOM, but it’s not a lot. If Switch 2 can pull off PlayStation 4 quality I bet there’d be a bonanza of ports and some good money made.
- jmcgough 2y ago
  Games used to take way less money and time to create, so it was viable to make 3-4 different versions of the same game for different platforms.
  - derefr 2y ago
    But if you demake a game hard enough (i.e. really clamp down on the asset details, by using intentionally-stylized art rather than lower-quality realistic art, etc) then it doesn't need to take so much time and money to create the port. It can be a bounded added marginal cost. Also, there are things a modern "parallel demake" (like FFXV Pocket Edition) can do to reuse certain types of assets from its AAA sibling, that in the previous era would have required remaking those assets from scratch. So a modern demake can actually be cheaper to produce in some ways. For examples: • You can just copy-and-paste the script and associated audio assets straight over, as anything can play audio clips. • You can also copy over all the animation "choreography" scripting for NPCs and cinematics, with the particular named animation cues just mapping to different actual animations for the simplified models. • Depending on how your AAA game models environments, you might even be able to export the abstract "level data" (what type of terrain goes where; basic geometry and material-type for meshes of buildings; placement of things like furniture and other large freestanding decor objects) from your AAA game engine, and then import it directly into your demake's game engine. (You'll then still need to run over everything to add new decor and details, make sure nothing is clipping, etc — but this is still a major speed-up.) IIRC this is how the recent third-party-implemented Pokemon titles [Let's Go Pikachu/Eevee and BD/SP] were implemented — they started with direct dumps and imports of the original games' level data into their engine.