I really wonder how big that market can be. I mean, for people who still haven't gotten a switch or steam deck or anything similar until now, how likely is this going to change their mind?
That is me right here... Plus I have some younger kids who have had fun playing with old Nintendo DSes for now. But their friends often have the Switch and I want the updated graphics plus group play (Mario Kart) so we'll buy at least one of these when it comes out. I've been holding off because the original hardware just seemed a bit wimpy when reading the experiences of people playing Breath of the Wild on it. I'm hoping the new model will have enough power to do full justice to BotW.
This has always been such a weird take for me. I know PC gamers get caught up in hardware arms races but Nintendo handheld consoles have always been about having fun playing cartoony games. Animal crossing doesn’t need much horsepower to trap my kids into putting a thousand hours into their islands.
Nintendo has never needed to compete on frame rate or vRAM to be successful
Developers are asking for it. It shares a market with bigger consoles but in terms of capabilities it's closer to a tablet.
It's hard to cross-port from PC/PS/Xbox to Switch because it is so far behind. Not impossible, of course, but if you're choosing to target Switch from the start you're often committing to building your game on all platforms without using some modern technologies or new engine features. If you're backporting from a more powerful platform then you might need to make significant (expensive) changes to get it running.
It's mostly a developer cost calculation, but one that can keep new titles away from the Switch.
(Could GTA VI run on Switch 2? I'm pretty sure Nintendo would want that even if it's not their traditional user base.)
People always have this argument that it's hard to port for it because it's so underpowered. But ultimately, games like Balatro or Neon White absolutely shine on Switch, while extremely graphic intensive games like Indiana Jones and his Big Circle cannot run
Nintendo has correctly decided that if it can attract all the low requirements indie titles plus offer its own games, then it has an extremely compelling product. Which it does, it outsold Sony and Microsoft combined.
For sure, but they would absolutely want more titles to be available, and consumers are asking for their favourite titles to be on their favourite console.
You've misunderstood the point, it's cost not coding ability.
Modern PCs, PS5 and Series X have greater resources available and newer hardware that allows for more advanced shaders, among other things, which are simply not performant or even possible on the Switch.
If you want to support these features AND support Switch or low-powered devices as well, you are making the business decision to build and maintain two codepaths and to duplicate, rework and maintain a second set of assets.
The cost often doesn't work out, so the choice is either support Switch and don't have a game that looks as good as contemporaries (a reasonable choice for indies, but graphics do sell games), or to ignore the Switch (maybe hire a studio to back-port it later if it does well enough).
Games companies and Nintendo would love for more big titles to be on Switch.
I don't care what hardware is inside the new Switch 2. It cannot compete with the Steam Deck because the Switch 2 is still made by Nintendo.
Made by Nintendo means that it'll be a super locked down device that only plays games made by Nintendo or a rather small list of 3rd party game makers. Developing for the platform is expensive and requires an extremely lengthy certification process. This means that all the games are reasonably high quality, sure but it also means that small developers or games with some adult content will never make it.
The Steam Deck, on the other hand runs an enormous library of Steam games and new games crop up every day. It also runs Switch 1 games! The barrier to entry is tiny and it's actually possible to mod games which is probably the single most important feature in modern gaming if you want your game to last and be popular for a very long time.
The Steam Deck also runs Linux which means hackers all over the world can make it better. Even simple shell scripts that automate common tasks provide an enormous benefit! You can automate synchronizing your save games between your PC and your Steam Deck wirelessly, for example without much effort because it's just (mostly) normal Linux.
The Steam Deck is general purpose hardware in a portable form factor running a general purpose operating system that's been optimized for (portable) gaming. If you want a feature you can make it happen yourself or ask the monstrously huge (and obsessed) Linux community for assistance.
The Switch is locked-down, application-specific hardware in a portable form factor running an application-specific operating system that's severely locked down and can't be modified or improved in any way by end users. If you want a feature you have to ask Nintendo and pray.
Nintendo's "moat" is their exclusive IP and single-screen multi-player party games, which other platforms have largely forsaken. Their competition is still mostly PlayStation and Xbox, too. (Steam Deck sales are a rounding error.) So portability is still an edge for now.
I do hope Steam Decks become more mainstream, though.
Yet its sales leave the SteamDeck miles behind, and its future is kind of uncertain with a dependency on Windows games translation, that currently Microsoft happens to tolerate.
OneFootball | Remote Germany, UK, Poland, Portugal | Full Time
We are the most popular digital media platform for young football fans. Founded in 2008 and one of the world's first 1,000 applications in the Apple App Store, we have come a long way to provide our users with the best personalized digital football experience.
We are 290 diverse, dynamic and driven employees representing no less than 40 different nationalities working from our vibrant office in Berlin. We share common values and are extremely passionate about our job.
It does not work as you'd imagine. It doesn't work for anyone - particularly switching from ios to macos as the currently playing device. It works the other way around fine, and even between iOS and iPadOS. But not iOS to macOS. Other headsets that simply support connecting to multiple devices at a time end up providing a better experience since you can switch between devices easier than with Airpods switching. I'm unsure about how the Airpods Max performs but I'm willing to bet it's the same way.
As far as I understand, Apple laptops still mostly (all?) use Broadcom chipsets for Bluetooth, instead of Apple's own W1 chipset that includes the enhanced connectivity features.
I'm not sure why, instant handoff between a laptop and a phone seems like such a natural workflow for anyone who does a mix of phone calls and videoconferencing.
I've been hearing about Bluetooth LE Audio standard which should help a lot but its just started to be offered in hearing aids. Right now you have to choose between the Apple approach, Google approach or standard bluetooth each with their own limitations.
