• LurkingLuddite@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    174
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Nintendo should’ve innovated more than sticking controllers on an extra-large phone and squatting on their old IP like a dragon’s hoard.

      • Landless2029@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        In a console age of chasing only graphics it was definitely a creative approach.

        They just saw how bad the Wii-U did and went “what if the console was inside the screen instead?”

        • Carrot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          The Switch was innovative? So much so that, upon seeing it’s success, literally everyone copied them in one form or another?

          • TotalCourage007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Its not innovative to smash controllers onto a smartphone device. What is innovative was their optimization for mobile gaming. Its similar to saying valve is innovative for selling other peoples games.

            • Carrot@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I mean if you’re being that reductive, sure, a handheld gaming system wouldn’t be innovative. The innovation comes from a console that switches from handheld mode and a docked TV mode. The innovation is a pair of controllers that work both as the built-in handheld controllers, and controllers that can be used when the console is docked. The innovation is that the controllers can behave either as a pair of controllers or a single controller. Sure, they aren’t super significant innovations, but it’s more than you see from other consoles. I don’t see the similarity in your last statement, but I guess I could be missing something.

              • TotalCourage007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                My issue with the whole innovative discussion is it tends to forget that Nintendo just liked to do gimmicky things that don’t always work out. Smartphones were getting to that point with telescopic controllers without NIntendo. I guess i’m being a little nitpicky, hope you have a good weekend :).

                • Carrot@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  And I guess what I’m getting at is that, if trying to do gimmicky things that might not work out isn’t the definition of innovation, what is? And telescopic phone controllers are kind of in line with “controllers that can be used in handheld/docked mode,” so I could understand an argument that that aspect of the switch isn’t innovative

      • Carrot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m so confused… There are so many valid reasons to hate on Nintendo, but you guys come up with two that aren’t valid? Nintendo is the only one of the big three that genuinely innovates when it comes to console design. Rent seeking? They’re the only one of the big three that doesn’t try to lock you into a subscription for your games. Every game that they make for their console is still sold as a physical cartridge with the full game on it. Even their online services are the cheapest of the three.

        They don’t innovate when it comes to games, sure, but that’s not what you folks were saying. Their games never go on sale and are overpriced, sure, but that’s not rent seeking. Like I said, there’s so much to dislike about Nintendo and how they run things, but the two examples here that seem to clearly resonate with people are just wrong, and I’m not sure why people are upvoting them. Maybe I’m missing something

        • Surp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          What do you mean they don’t try to get you to get a subscription? You need a Nintendo subscription to do anything online so not sure how in a digital online age where everyone is connected you somehow managed to convince yourself Nintendo doesn’t try to lock you in to a subscription. That’s all they do with the switch like no ones having their friends over to play Mario kart they are going online. Console Internet subscriptions should die but consoles aren’t powerful enough I presume to host their own lobbies.

          • Carrot@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You’re right, they do go for an online subscription. I guess my distinction was that access to your games aren’t lost if you aren’t paying the subscription. However, I realize that they do that for access to the retro games, so I’ll retract the rent-seeking statement, they’ve definitely moved to having more rent-seeking behaviour. My use case of the Switch just doesn’t interact with it in any way. I play games in split screen or local wireless multiplayer, which doesn’t require a subscription.