It's amusing that Breath of the Wild has sold more than the system it runs on. Ars Technica had an article on that. [1] And it's not because of the Wii U version (those are counted separately).
> Some tourists and importers could be buying region-free copies of Breath of the Wild to use on Switch consoles they bought in other countries, but that doesn't seem like it would be all that common.
Oh, you'd be surprised. Since Nintendo officially left Brazil, all copies sold here are imported that way.
Most likely theory, IMO: people preordered Zelda for the discount (BB and AMZN offer like 20 percent off MSRP), expecting to nab a Switch later, but later hasn't yet arrived. Based on ebay sales rates, maybe soonish.
to be the voice of reason here: botw is amazing. it's no surprise. if you played any of the franchise growing up, you prolly love it– zelda. botw takes that love and doubles you down.
I am bullish on Nintendo and considering adding a position via over the counter (ADR) NTDOY. My concern is that they continue to have supply issues unable to ramp up production to meet demand. Perhaps this is intentional.
My friend just got a Switch and absolutely loves it. He has been playing Zelda nearly non-stop since he got it.
Having taken a look at a Switch, I'm a bit surprised that a brand new portable console has such a low resolution screen. If Nintendo is trying to compete with mobile phone gaming, wouldn't it be logical that they offer a better screen (or at the very least comparable with a mid-end phone)?
It's 237 PPI which is completely adequate for something held at arms length. And considering console games are more fill rate dependent than most phone apps it makes sense to have a lower res.
I think a more interesting question to ask is why are phone manufacturers so insistent on burning battery life on 400 PPI and higher displays that add little benefit for most people.
These high res phones make for nice VR displays but I can't believe that's more than a small niche.
There's more to graphics than pixels - framerate, latency, color etc. And besides, there's more to gaming than graphics - notably, input/controls. That other stuff is important enough to make the Switch easily better than any higher-resolution phone for serious games.
Console-level graphics can be demanding; my wild guess is, this was their compromise to allow 60fps + complex scenes + OK battery life.
Makes more sense to me as a factor than panel cost/availability (like you say, there are cheap devices with denser screens) or some hard CPU/GPU limitation (since it can output 1080p docked).
Maybe in a year or two, with a revised GPU or the next process node or whatever, they do a Switch HD that delivers the better resolution, maintaining battery life. (Or they go for no-glasses 3D like the 3DS. That would be pretty counter to mobile gadget trends, but this is Nintendo.)
As someone who has done a lot of casual gaming on phones and iPads, the switch does wayyyyy more than just compete with mobile games. I was originally also concerned about 720p screen, but it's a great quality panel. 90% of my switch use has been undocked, and I love it. Sure it does look better docked, but it blows any mobile gaming experience before it (including mobile nvidia shield which I own both versions of) out of the water. And while I do enjoy several non-Zelda games on the switch, I'd be just as happy if it was a $300 Zelda machine because that game is just that good. For me I wasn't very unhappy with the Wii U screen so this is a big upgrade comparatively for display quality and not just resolution. And the input methods for switch are objectively better than anything before it in mobile gaming imho.
Have you taken a look at it in person, or just the specs? I can see how a 720p resolution might seem low, but if you try it out in person it's actually quite remarkable, particularly if you've tried other portable gaming systems like the 3DS or Vita. It's leaps and bounds above them.
Though subjectively the Switch isn't all that innovative like the Wii. Also, I do not see a ton of compelling games scheduled, as the next game is Super Mario Kart 8 which is a rehash from the Wii U.
The form factor seems decently innovative to me anyways. This is definitely the most polished implementation of a console that travels from tv to handheld that I've owned.
Zelda is a big contributing factor, but I suspect the core appeal of the Switch is the central innovation of the convertible portable/home hybrid. Not just the idea of "portable you can plug in to you TV", but in the specific details of how they've done it.
That Illumiroom thing is neat. Not sure if it really contributes to the experience though, especially with all the furniture in the way. The only good ones were the least invasive, such as the wave effect of an explosion or the bouncing balls. That way it's more of an add on experience rather than an always on but distracting projection of the surrounding environment. Similar to the tactile effects in Switch or older rumble packs.
Simpler the better. Which brings in the question of cost/complexity vs benefits. Which seems pretty high here.
[+] [-] tgb|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/04/why-zelda-breath-of-t...
[+] [-] TheCoreh|9 years ago|reply
Oh, you'd be surprised. Since Nintendo officially left Brazil, all copies sold here are imported that way.
[+] [-] jldugger|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kemayo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azhenley|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rileytg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodesocket|9 years ago|reply
My friend just got a Switch and absolutely loves it. He has been playing Zelda nearly non-stop since he got it.
[+] [-] agumonkey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] copperx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoolGuySteve|9 years ago|reply
I think a more interesting question to ask is why are phone manufacturers so insistent on burning battery life on 400 PPI and higher displays that add little benefit for most people.
These high res phones make for nice VR displays but I can't believe that's more than a small niche.
[+] [-] ploxiln|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twotwotwo|9 years ago|reply
Makes more sense to me as a factor than panel cost/availability (like you say, there are cheap devices with denser screens) or some hard CPU/GPU limitation (since it can output 1080p docked).
Maybe in a year or two, with a revised GPU or the next process node or whatever, they do a Switch HD that delivers the better resolution, maintaining battery life. (Or they go for no-glasses 3D like the 3DS. That would be pretty counter to mobile gadget trends, but this is Nintendo.)
[+] [-] givinguflac|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshschreuder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paul7986|9 years ago|reply
Though subjectively the Switch isn't all that innovative like the Wii. Also, I do not see a ton of compelling games scheduled, as the next game is Super Mario Kart 8 which is a rehash from the Wii U.
Im hoping Microsoft's next console has some innovative features like their Illumiroom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGGMv9RnJIA
[+] [-] awinder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicky0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supercoder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmix|9 years ago|reply
Simpler the better. Which brings in the question of cost/complexity vs benefits. Which seems pretty high here.
[+] [-] bobajeff|9 years ago|reply
Every company innovates. Innovation is not a synonym for revolution. No one buys innovation.
NES was just a box to play Mario. Wii was just a box to play Wii Sports. Gameboy was a Tetris machine. Gameboy Color was a Pokemon machine.
[+] [-] 83457|9 years ago|reply