I can't open Youtube these days without being greeted by a Recommended tab swarming with Nintendo Switch-related videos.
Negative Nintendo Switch-related videos, should I say, because the overall tone of this abundant material is not exactly positive: rant videos make the bulk of the Switch-related content, with beaming and optimistic videos being few and far between. As videos and articles about the Switch keep piling up on the internet, it's now time to examine the state of the hype surrounding the upcoming Nintendo Switch
—and Nintendo's prospects in general.
Let's face it, the situation is quite dire. The Switch hype has pretty much deflated like an overcooked soufflé since the now infamously lousy Switch presentation, with all the excitement generated by the system since the october trailer virtually evaporating in a matter of days
—if not hours. I don't think I've ever seem the hype surrounding a gaming system collapse so quickly; and yet, as Youtube is flooded with "Switch will fail" and "WTF is Nintendo doing" videos, a lot of damage control is simultaneously going on.
I should rather say sheer denial, actually. Defending Nintendo's atrocious approach to the Switch and giving it a positive spin does require metric tons of denial and wishful thinking, but some gamers seem to have no shortage of these things. I've watched videos of starry-eyed gamers postulating that the reason Nintendo revelead so few games in the Switch presentation is because they are keeping some high-profile projects under wraps for E3 2017. That's a lovely theory, but there are virtually no chances that this is indeed the case. Nintendo have not performed game reveals on a massive scale at E3 for years, and I seriously doubt they will do so in 2017. Let's face it, folks: the most likely reason Nintendo revealed so few games during the Switch presentation is because there are no games to reveal. They had no qualms about announcing that
Super Mario Odyssey would be released at the end of 2017, so why would they be coy about other games? That "Shelving Games for E3" theory doesn't hold water, especially when considering Nintendo's E3 track record these last years.
This game issue leads us to another newly sprouted topic regarding the Switch and Nintendo in general. Some gamers are starting to speculate about the Switch's possible failure and its most likely consequence, which is none other than Nintendo retiring from the hardware business and going third-party full force. Such conjectures were unthinkable two console generations ago when the Big N was soaring along the Wii and DS, and they were pretty much taboo while the Wii U and 3DS were struggling to gain traction; but now that Nintendo seems to be failing to read and ride the gaming zeitgeist once again, gamers are no longer shy to discuss Nintendo going the Sega way. Some are even bolder and assert that this would be the best option for everyone, including Nintendo themselves: they could stop wasting resources on woefully underpowered consoles and pour all their energy into the development of mind-blowing games, milking their popular IPs for generations of consoles to come. How awesome would it be to play an HD
Mario game on the PS5 or the XBox Whatever-enigmatic-name-Microsoft-come-up-with? How wonderful would it be to get all Nintendo IPs on one's console of choice without having to worry about the lack of third-party support? That sounds stellar indeed, and I can understand why so many gamers are slowly but surely warming up to the idea of Ninty going third-party.
There's only one teeny-tiny problem with this dream scenario: Nintendo doesn't seem to be able to produce games properly anymore. They were not even able to get a new
Mario out the door for the Switch release, and
Zelda "forever"
Breath of the Wild has been in development for so long that it was initially supposed to be the resident WiiU entry of the series. Most of the time, Nintendo doesn't even bother doing the bare minimum when it comes to long-running games series, i.e. releasing at least one new instalment on every new console they produce. And the stuff they do manage to get out the door is becoming increasingly derivative and superficial. Titles like
Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival and
AC: Happy Home Designer are barely games at all,
Paper Mario: Color Splash is widely said to be the most casual entry in the series and all the recent canon
Mario games revolve more around collecting Stars than around clearing increasingly complicated levels like back in the days. And that's without even talking about Nintendo's readiness to recycle their own winning gaming formulas:
Star Fox Zero is basically a reboot of the original
Star Fox with a cumbersome control gimmick added and every
Mario entry released on the WiiU and 3DS is a rehash of old
Mario games. Will they be able to dazzle and make big bucks as a third-party developer with such an anaemic game production? Heck, I don't think so.
Moving on to the Switch's marketing pitch, one sentence that's being bandied around more and more often since the presentation is the "Play AAA games on the go" motto. Some gamers utter this like it's the market positioning to rule them all, the magic formula that will guarantee the Switch's success. But wait, doesn't this sound eerily familiar? Didn't somebody try this marketing ploy before, assuming that all gamers wanted to play AAA games on a handheld? Why, obviously: this used to be the main selling point of the Playstation Vita back in 2012. Did it work on the long run? Nope. And mind you, the Vita actually had a very good lauch, with no less than 25 launch titles including big-profile games. What's more, the Vita didn't underperform because Sony stopped supporting it; instead, they stopped supporting it
because it didn't perform well. And why didn't it perform well? Could it be because gamers don't care about playing AAA games on the go after all? Could it be because portable gamers are purchasing handhelds first and foremost for the exclusive and highly specific brand of gaming offered by such systems? Heck, I'd wager that 95% of the current Vita install base is made of niche games aficionados
—and that obviously includes yours truly. Sony failed to understand that handhelds are not mere hardware options but rather self-sufficient gaming ecosystems that appeal to a certain audience, and it seems that Nintendo is failing to understand this as well. Will the 3DS install base move over to the Switch? If the franchises they used to play and love on Ninty's handhelds do not move over to the Switch themselves, I seriously doubt it. Heck, I know
I wouldn't do it.
So, that's where we are today. The hype has deflated, and most gamers have adopted a cautious "Let's wait and see" stance that more often than not involves not purchasing the console at launch and waiting for more games to be released. No matter how you look at it and no matter how much of a Nintendo fan you are, it's hard to deny that the Big N is in a precarious position right now. We'll see how things evolve in the months to come, and I'll probably write more posts about the Nintendo Switch
—because let's face it, I'm kinda hooked on all that Nintendo drama now. Thanks for reading, and be my guest anytime!
To be fair, people have always been very negative about Nintendo's future since the Nintendo 64's lackluster sales. Personally, while I think playing Mario, Kirby and other Nintendo IPs on a PS/Xbox would be grand, having a third option in the market, having a more competitors in the gaming industry only benefits the consumers in the long run. Admittedly, there's always the chance that another competitor will show up but considering the last self proclaimed competitor (the Ouya) was a tremendous, undeniable and resounding flop, the industry would probably remain a two-sided war.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I don't think Nintendo is in touch with their market or even focused in making stellar or even great games (Kirby and recent Pokémon games being the positive exceptions) but I don't think it's in the long-term interest of everyone for Nintendo to simply go solely third party.
I'm pretty sure the console manufacturing industry would be able to strive and prosper even if Nintendo bailed out. Either a third competitor would appear or Sony and Microsoft would remain the top dogs, which wouldn't be such a dramatic situation in my opinion. I mean, Nintendo and Sega pretty much owned the console market from 1985 to 1995 and that turned out to be one of the most glorious eras in the history of gaming.
DeleteNintendo have lost their relevancy in the home console market since the N64, the Wii being the exception that will not materialize again. What kept them afloat and helped them maintain their aura and shine is the handheld market, which they are about to ditch so carelessly with the Switch. I don't especially want them to go third-party, but let's face it: the Nintendo of 2017 is dispensable as a console manufacturer, especially if they give up on the handheld market.
While part of me wants to agree with Sieg that more competition in the market is always better, another part of me wonders, what the hell has Nintendo brought of worth to the hardware side of gaming for the last generations? Touch controls with the DS, IMO, since motion controls turned out to not be superior to regular buttons in any gaming genre (which is even worse than the kinect, at least that control scheme was amazing for dancing games). And because they're so out of sync with the rest of the console generations, they can't even be the manufacturer that offers the cheapest hardware anymore. Sure, the switch is cheaper than the PS4 and Xbone were at launch, but nowadays it's actually cheaper to get a PS4 with a game in America. In Europe, I bought my PS4 with a game for 350 euros, which makes it the exact same price a switch would be if I bought a game for it on the same day I bought the console(and since there's no game bundled with the switch, why wouldn't I?). And a PS4 is much more powerful and already has a ton more games than the switch, so that's a no brainer. Back when the Wii U launched, its price was comparable to the PS3 and Xbox 360's at the time too. Sure, both those consoles were old, but they offered way more games and the Wii U wasn't significantly more powerful than them. The 3DS and the Vita had similar prices before the 3DS's price drop too, and I actually think both their libraries are equally pleasing to niche gamers.
DeleteSo...what is Nintendo really giving to the consumer? It used to be their handheld lines always had a lot more games than their Sony competitors, but that's completely out the window now with the Switch. Their gimmicks? Like the motions controls before, they can shove them up where the sun doesn't shine. 3D never benefited me a single time. Besides, Sony and Xbox have been jumping on the gimmicky train in the past few years as well, with Kinect, the Move and VR, so that isn't even Nintendo's exclusive dog anymore.
Bottom line is, if Nintendo disappeared from the console market today, I doubt much would change. The only market they had is the handheld market, and as far as we know they already threw that away with the switch, so who cares if they go the way of Sega. The handheld market we enjoyed on the 3DS is probably already gone, western developers have ignored Nintendo for years, the switch has probably raised the costs of creating the smaller niche games we like (thanks to the graphics increase and having to make a game work in both modes, we can see that reflected in the prices of the games already) and not even their first party games are guaranteed to be good anymore.
Honestly, if they failed I would be happy because that meant the few third party developers I do love that for some reason remain exclusive to Nintendo would have no choice but to move over. I'd love not to feel obligated to buy Nintendo's shitty hardware just because Story of Seasons, Fatal Frame, SMT and Pokemon are on them. There's nothing about those franchises that would inhibit their success on other consoles, heck, three of those franchises used to be on Sony too. In the case of pokemon, I think it would actually benefit the franchise to move away from nintendo's inferior hardware.
Going out of sync with Sony and Microsoft when it comes to console releases was a giant blunder that only dragged Nintendo down. It would have served them tremendously if their consoles had been as powerful as the Playstations and XBoxes; but with their habit of releasing underpowered hardware to cut down costs, it only emphasizes the weakness of their consoles. Sentences such as "Wow, the Switch is not even as powerful as the original PS4 and XBox One despite costing the same price and releasing four years later and technically being a next-gen console!" wouldn't be heard at all if Nintendo hadn't strayed from the path of common sense and conjoined console releases. Sure, their hardware would still be underpowered, but the spec gap between Nintendo consoles and Sony and Microsoft consoles wouldn't be as glaring as it is today.
DeleteIn my opinion, Nintendo has brought nothing to the hardware market since the DS touch screen. The Wii and its motion controls belonged more to the toy sphere, just like Amiibos, the 3DS faceplates AND these bloody Joy-Cons. And honestly, I don't think they've brought much on the software front either these last years. I know it's not popular to say that, but I wouldn't beat an eyelid if Nintendo went third-party. Gamers back in the '90s used to claim that the gaming industry would never be the same without Sega; yet Sega bailed out and the industry survived pretty well. I think most of us cannot even begin to imagine a gaming industry devoid of Nintendo consoles because Ninty have been there for sooooo very long; but if we actually ask ourselves what they have done for us lately, things start to look very different and Nintendo bailing out of console manufacturing suddenly doesn't seem such a huge loss.
So far, the games announced for the Switch are either AAA titles (in the underpowered Nintendo acception of the word) or indie games, with none of our beloved middle-tier niche games. Heck, even Project Octocrap looks more like a free browser game than like Bravely Default's successor. I dislike indies and big-budget blockbusters equally; and if the Switch library is only made of these two types of games, then that's one more reason not to purchase it. As though I had not enough of them already. *sigh*
Exactly. The only advantage to buying Nintendo consoles these days are for the Nintendo only IPs and that's just not enough for me. Judging by the games announced for the Switch so far, the only possible mid-tier games for it are Story of Seasons and SMT. And neither of those even have a screenshot released! Why the hell should any niche gamer buy it at release? Or any AAA gamer? Or any indie gamer?
DeleteI hate to sound like a Sony fangirl, but the reason why PS4 is winning now is thanks to its price, decent tech and excellent game variety; even niche gamers have a nice share of titles on it (most of it also available on the Vita, but still). For those who are super into graphics, they offer the PS4 pro. For those who like dumb gimmicks, there's VR. And there's always the Vita too. There's something for everyone! Sure, a lot of those titles aren't exclusive to only PS4, but if you can only have one console and your PC sucks, it's currently the best at offering a variety from everything.
But Nintendo, especially now with the Switch, doesn't seem to be trying to be the best at offering anything to anybody. No cheap hardware, no software variety, no worthwhile innovation. The switch could have saved them on the last part if it had truly been a good hybrid console; that's why me and most people were excited about it back in October; but it turns out it's just a lame "home console first" you can take into the toilet for a while, and nobody cares about that. It doesn't offer true portability or the kind of genres that we liked in portable games (or prices for that matter). Nintendo was the leader of the handheld market for decades and they don't have the slightest idea why that market is successful. That's incredibly sad and it makes me think they don’t even have a right to be on the market anymore. Because they’re really not doing anything for it, their hardware is just “the thing you buy to play Mario/Zelda/Pokemon” and little else, and that’s not a good reason for them to exist.
Speaking of Pokemon, what happened to Pokemon stars? It was supposed to be a launch title and then was pushed back to summer 2017 or later, but I find it odd that Nintendo had no trouble announcing Mario for winter 2017, but has said nothing of Pokemon Stars. Since it’s one of their biggest IPs and the switch has such a pathetic game library lined out so far, why would they not announce it? I’m getting concerned for it...will Stars end up being the new Pokemon Z?
Gosh, Nintendo screwed things up so badly with Pokemon. The only thing needed to make the Switch an instant hit was to release Pokemon Stars and/or the fabled Diamond/Pearl remakes on launch day; the fact that they didn't jump on that golden opportunity makes me facepalm myself over and over. Seriously, their entire marketing department should be fired at that point.
DeleteThe more I see that Switch soap opera unfold, the more I am convinced that the Switch's launch was rushed and that the system was basically pushed through the doors before it was fully ready. That would explain the technical shortcomings, the half-baked gimmicks and the lack of games. Remember when the NX was rumored to be some sort of holistic console that would take care of your health as well as your entertainment? What happened to that concept? What we got instead is a toy of sorts that's basically the WiiU with a more powerful tablet that can be played out of the house and motion controls added.
Some people speculate that the Switch launch might actually be a soft launch; but in my opinion, that's giving Nintendo way too much credit. A soft launch would make sense only if Ninty's current consoles were hugely successful and they didn't want to cannibalize their own sales; but as we all know, this is far from being the case. The WiiU is virtually dead and the 3DS is starting to show its age and to reach its technical limits. Sure, it's still selling like hot cakes; but if we look at the actual 2016 releases as well as the planned 2017 ones, we can see very clearly that third-party devs are deserting the system and that Nintendo themselves are not working that actively on 3DS games. (Good thing that Fire Emblem Echoes popped out of the blue or we wouldn't have anything to play until the hypothetical release of Dragon Quest XI and Ever Oasis.) Nintendo fans and investors alike were growing incredibly restless last year, and Nintendo panicked and throw us a bone in the shape of the Switch. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that they decided to release the Switch in march 2017 because they knew BOTW would be ready at that time and hoped it would be a killer app for the system à la Ocarina of Time.
.....if Nintendo is hoping BOTW will make the Switch sell, then they are so retarded it's making me go on a rant. Here's the reasons why that will most likely fail:
DeleteA: A single game is not good enough to justify a console purchase nowadays. Especially when it costs 360$ to get both because the killer app isn't bundled with the console (which is also retarded). 360$ and you don't even get all the console accessories! This is especially bad when you consider that Nintendo's fanbase is either poorer or much more unwilling to buy consoles than their competitors fanbases. I know this is true because this is why they had to price drop the 3DS before that became a success, and that system had more games and was already cheaper than the Switch. You need third party Nintendo, and you need it at launch, get it through your head.
B: It's not a console exclusive. I'd warrant the few people crazy enough about Zelda already got a Wii U when BOTW was announced for it years ago. There's no reason for even those Zelda fans to get a pricey Switch, especially when you consider that...
C: The game might not be best game to launch with anyways. We've been getting reports about how the game performs better in portable mode...and yet portable mode only lasts 3 hours. Even those who are ignoring the Switch's faults up until release will be thrown face-to-face with those issues when they buy the killer app. I wonder how many of them will be okay with the shitty battery when they have to play with the Switch charging all the time because the game runs shitty in docked mode? Assuming other games run better than BOTW, this makes it a horrible game to laucnh with, as gamers will take the game's shortcomings as representative of the switch as a whole. And if it is representative of the switch, Nintendo should be ashamed. Speaking of that, if even Nintendo themselves can't make a game last long with the battery and run well in both modes, that doesn't bode well for third party games...
D: The last mainline Zelda game (the one on the Wii), was very poorly received. Tri Force heroes also had its share of issues. The really good Zelda games the last few years have either been ports or made by KT. Don't think some people haven't noticed that.
The sad thing is, Nintendo should know all of this. Haven't they been under fire lately because of how shitty Sun and Moon runs on O3DS? Do they not remember the price cut the O3DS needed to save it from being a failure? Do they not remember how poorly the Wii U performed even with all the Nintendo IPs on it? Do they not remember how the Vita performed with its "AAA gaming on the go" mentality? Especially when the Vita was offering those AAA experiences at 40$ price range and Nintendo is offering those games on the switch for 60$?
It's getting to the point where even I don't think they can be that retarded. There must be something going on behind the scenes, the Wii U and Satoru's death must have affected them more than they've let let on. That's gotta be it. Because otherwise, the only other explanation is that they think so little of their fans that they think they'll buy anything Nintendo. And if that's the case, they deserve to die off. Nobody should take their fans for granted.
Man, gotta love that rant of yours. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, obviously.
DeleteThe thing is, playing maverick has often turned out really well for Nintendo. Everybody was making fun of the Game Boy for being an underpowered piece of crap (which it totally was), and yet it turned out to be one of the most successful handhelds of all time. Everybody sneered at Nintendo for even thinking of releasing a home console as weak as the Wii, and yet BOOM! Instant success and a true cultural phenomenon for a couple of years. Basically all their handhelds have been mocked mercilessly for being underpowered and gimmicky, and yet Nintendo has been dominating the handheld market for decades.
I really think that at some point, they started believing genuinely that their consoles were being smash hits BECAUSE they were so wildly different rather than DESPITE being so wildly different. And in my opinion, the latter is much closer to the truth: popular Nintendo consoles did well for a variety of reasons that allowed people to gloss over their shortcomings and annoying gimmicks, not because they were weak and gimmicky. The Game Boy was the soaring console it was because it was cheap, solid, portable, with a great battery life for the time and abundant first- and third-party support, not because of its ugly cheap tiny monochrome screen, strident sound chip and crazy flickering as soon as there were more than three sprites on display. The idea that people love Nintendo consoles for being different from the competition and loaded with gimmicks is a dangerous oversimplification that can only lead Nintendo straight into bankruptcy's arms.
Wha-? Isleif, you can't possibly mean that having to shine both a light and a magnifying glass to play the gameboy wasn't the reason it was massively successful. I know I love my original GBA because I have to squint and can barely make out the games due to the lack of a backlight. Oh, games like Pokemon, The Legacy of Goku, Harry Potter, the phantasy star collection? Fhe, those don't mean anything. It's all in the technical limitations and the eye strain I tell you!
DeleteBut seriously, I hate it when people mention the Wii especially. The Wii was only successful because of the time it came out. It came out during a time when it's competitors were a lot more expensive (remember the 600$ PS3?) AND the casual market was abandoned by those same competitors, which left them so starved that even the horrible motion controls were a lot more appealing than the two million brown colored FPS that the PS3 and Xbox 360 offered. If the Wii had come out during say, 2012 when the mobile market was taking off, the Wii wouldn't have been as successful, motion controls being new or not, because there would have a been a better option for the casual market. But Nintendo can't seem to see that.
Not to be a Nintendo hater, because I know several other consoles were only successful because of circumstances at that specific time. I've admitted that the PS4 was only so successful because of the time it was released in; if Microsoft hadn't pissed off the fans or Nintendo hadn't stupidly gone out of sync with the console gens, things would have been different.
But you can't keep going by hoping that lighting will keep striking the same place, even lighting does strike 2 out 3 times. You gotta have something to fall back on, like Sony had with the Vita (and most likely with VR). And Nintendo always had that something with the handheld market but not anymore. If they were truly doing a 3DS successor in about a year, I doubt both of us would be so invested/interested in the Switch, but as it is we could be witnessing the fall of Nintendo. And that is impossible to ignore, even if we don't like them that much anymore.
Oh gosh, your first paragraph made me roar with laughter! I can't wait to read your irony-dripping posts when you finally decide to start a blog. ^___^ Also, the more I read about gamers' experiences with the Game Boy, the more I realize that I may be the only gamer out there who played the thing without the magnifying glass and without bothering about the light. Turns out I was born with eagle eyes, which serves me tremendously as a portable gamer.
DeleteAll successful consoles are a perfect storm, in a way. The success of the Wii doesn't prove that the market wants motion controls and casual games at all times; it only proves that the market wanted these things in 2006, and that's precisely why the Wii was the smash hit it was. The same thing goes for the DS and its all-encompassing game library and uncanny focus on health "games"; release the DS nowadays and that whole health focus would go unnoticed, due to the tremendous amount of health apps on smartphones. I'm sure you can apply the same reasoning to the Game Boy, original Playstation and so on.
If Nintendo were designing a 3DS successor as we're talking, I wouldn't care one bit about the Switch. The only reason I bother writing about that underwhelming piece of kit is because it's holding the future of both Nintendo and handheld gaming in its overpriced Joy-Cons. Although I'm not too sure about the latter at that point, mind you: I'm really starting to think that portable gaming and the mid-tier niche games we so love will survive, one way or another. Either the Vita's retirement period will stretch beyond all expectations, or someone will come up with a new handheld in a couple of years. That someone could be Sony, Microsoft or a brand-new player, or even Nintendo themselves if the Switch bombs and if they are quick enough to react and fall back on the market that has served them so well all these years.
I was joking, did people really use a magnifying glass? (and thanks for the compliment!) I didn't use a magnifying glass or lights either, not even with the original non-colour gameboy (though I played that when I was 3, so my memory on that is non-existent. I do have photos where I seemed fine with it though). I also remember thinking that the lack of a backlight on the GBA was not an issue, I recall my mother telling me she couldn't see the games at all and I thought "what is she talking about?". But after I went back to the GBA a few years ago after buying a DS, oh boy, the difference hit me like a train. I guess our tastes in consoles evolve over time, just like our tastes in games. I know there's a bunch of really terrible games I loved as a kid.
DeleteYou know, if there's one good thing about the switch, is that it's going to be sweet talking ill of at least the joycons some years from now. I remember always hating motion controls and everyone around me going "you're just an old coot, they're innovating and fun to play with", and boy did it feel good when those same people started badmouthing them later.
Because even if the switch turns out to be a success, you know those joycons will suck. And you also know there's gonna be people defending them. But it's gonna be so sweet when those people start hating them too. And if the switch is a failure, you and I can pat each on the back and reminisce about how right we were and joke about how we're prophets. Rightful vindication is awesome, even if few people want to admit it.
I do hope you're right about the future of portable gaming though. Like I said in my other comment, I know niche and mid-tier games will endure, but I have my doubts about dedicated handhelds. But maybe someone else will make a good hybrid console in the future? You know, what the switch should have been? Having both markets available in one console that pleases all gamers if a good idea after all, they just couldn't pull it off. I think Sony, with their current third party support and money from the PS4, could pull that off. And they do seem to love copying Nintendo, the VR is the only gimmick they managed to pull off first...
Well yes, it seems that a good number of people did use the magnifying glass and were routinely bothered by the lack of a backlit screen on the original Game Boy. I guess that for people with a bad eyesight, the GB was more akin to a torture tool than to a delightful toy.
DeleteI'm pretty sure we'll get to pat ourselves on the back and reminisce about how we were right about the Switch down the line. I mean, I don't especially want the console to fail; but I really can't picture how it could be anything else than a resounding failure at that point. But hey, let's see if the future proves us wrong or not.
You know, I virtually gave up on gaming back in the late '90s because I couldn't find games tailored to my tastes. There were no more 2D games, no more bright colours, no more light-hearted fun games; and as I retreated into emulation with a heavy heart, I was convinced I would never purchase a gaming system again. And yet twenty years later, I am gaming like never before and sitting on a massive collection of games! My point is, you never know where the gaming industry may lead us and what it has in store for us. And if handhelds disappear for a while, maybe they'll leave a giant gap in the market and console manufacturers and gamers alike will realize that full-fledged portable gaming options were not so superfluous after all. Then we'll see the second coming of handhelds, with more games to choose from than ever before. Gosh, how awesome that would be.
So you've never bothered to walk this one back, huh?
ReplyDeleteWhy, of course not. It's still too early to cry victory for the Switch; and should that console turn out to be a massive success by the end of its shelf life, I probably wouldn't walk back that post. This is mere blog writing, not a prophecy of sorts. I was totally venting at the time, and I'm making no apologies for it. :)
Delete