The Nintendo Switch and the Vindication of the Playstation Vita

After months of waiting, it finally happened. Nintendo at long last drew the curtain back on their latest console, dubbed the Switch, with a three and a half minute video. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

Ok, so what exactly is the Switch? From the video, it appears to be a modular console with detachable controllers that can be played on a television through a docking station or on its own as a portable device. There appears to be a wide variety of accessories for the system, including a redesigned standalone controller, a stand, a mounting bracket, and a shell that the detachable controllers can attach to in order to mimic a standard gamepad. Flexibility seems to be the main design philosophy, as evidenced by a player in the video being able to transfer his Legend of Zelda play session from his TV to mobile with no need to pause. Cool stuff.

Certainly, there remains plenty of questions regarding the Switch. First, we don’t know how powerful it will be, although the video suggests that it will at least be as capable as the Wii U. Second, we don’t know how much the console will cost, but with HD processing capability, (presumably) on-board storage, and a decent screen, the system probably won’t be cheap, even without the (likely) optional accessories. Finally, we still don’t have much of an idea of what the system’s launch line-up, online strategy, or system interface will look like. There will be plenty to reveal about the Switch between now and March, so the standard disclaimers on video game hype hold true. But despite all that we don’t know, I can’t help but be excited about the Switch, and I say that as someone who hasn’t owned a Nintendo console since the Wii. The reason that I’m excited is because the Switch is less a successor to the Wii U and 3DS than it is to the Playstation Vita.

I probably lost a bunch of you with that last statement, but stick with me. The Vita, by all accounts, was an attempt by Sony to bring home console gaming to the portable space. The system reflected this goal by being able to output near-Playstation 3 visuals, a robust online implementation complete with must-have apps like YouTube and Netflix, and a control layout that almost completely resembled that of the established DualShock. The launch lineup brought this point home with gorgeous and fully featured games like Uncharted: Golden Abyss and Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3.

Of course, we all know where the Vita went from there. Burdened with a high price point, marketplace indifference, and Sony ignoring the system in favor of the Playstation 3 (and later, the Playstation 4), the Vita became a niche indie and Japanese games machine that only crazy people like myself still enjoy. But what if we consider an alternate universe? One where instead of the Vita being a successor to the Playstation Portable, it was the successor to the Playstation 3. What if Sony had put their considerable resources entirely into making the Vita success? Maybe we’d have seen Sony fast-track the Playstation TV to give players the option to play at home. Maybe we’d have seen first party titles like Uncharted 4, Until Dawn, and Bloodborne released on the Vita, giving it the library needed to push sales. Maybe because of all this, the $250 USD launch price wouldn’t have stung so bad.

For many reasons, this alternate universe would have never come to pass. Sony is too entrenched in their home console business and the hardware war with Microsoft to make such a radical move, nor should it. But Nintendo is another story. The House of Mario long ago bowed out from the hardware arms race, and due to the middling sales performance of the Wii U, they clearly have no business interest tying them to an entirely home console. For them, perhaps a Vita-like solution is exactly what they need.

For those of us still on Vita island, we see the brilliance of the handheld peeking through the corners constantly. We see it when we play well designed home console-like games such as Gravity Rush. We see it when we look at our home screen splashed with dozens of quirky indie titles that look and play so wonderfully on the hardware. We see it when we run Destiny raids in bed thanks to Remote Play. And watching the above video, we see it with the Nintendo Switch.

I’ve already started to see skepticism in the reaction to the video, and I can see where it’s coming from. If you’re someone who exclusively games at home, the Switch’s ability to go mobile may seem pointless to you. If you were hoping for a console that could match the Playstation 4 and Xbox One in terms of power, the Switch’s capabilities look dated. If you were wishing that this was the console that finally regains a foothold into third-party multiplatform development, the Switch will likely disappoint. But when we consider the system holistically, those concerns become minimized. Sure, the Switch likely won’t be able to run Cyberpunk 2077 or Mass Effect: Andromeda, but have you seen how gorgeous even Wii U games look with Nintendo’s art direction? Sure, we likely won’t see the latest Call of Duty or Madden on the Switch, but with the entire output of Nintendo’s legendary development teams coming to the console, are you really going to miss them? And sure, the online system will likely be trash, but how cool will it be to play multiplayer Mario Kart wherever you go?

I wrote a little while ago about how I just want Nintendo to deliver a back-to-basics sort of console that puts its fantastic games front and center. The Switch, at least on first impression, seems to be doing just that. Granted, there are plenty of details not known about the console, and there very well could be a dealbreaker yet to be revealed. But as a dyed in the wool Nintendo kid who still gets a warm feeling whenever he sees Mario, I can’t help but feel good about what’s been announced. For me, March can’t come fast enough.

I can certainly appreciate the lack of any notable power boost over the WiiU, but as somebody who regularly games on the Vita while doing other stuff (like listening to podcasts or watching TV) then this seems right up my alley! If the whole process is as seamless as what they showed then I'm all in!

But man that was a quick blog! Did you have secret behind the scenes access or something? :-p

@kmfrob: Nope, just a slow day at work and I felt the need to get my thoughts on (e-)paper. :-)

I still think about getting a vita every few weeks just to play Final Fantasy X on the go... still not worth the investment but man, holding out hope on that Square Enix logo in the partners section that they might release Final Fantasy X and XII HD ports on the Switch.

Despite liking my Vita, I thought the cross-play feature was underused. I only tried it a couple of times, but the going from PS3 to Vita on something like MLB the Show was a really cool idea that ended up being cumbersome in practice. I'm less excited about seamlessly going from tv to portable than home console level games on a handheld.

@dixavd: Square Enix bringing old Final Fantasy games to the Switch would be the bomb. I have to imagine something like that is in the works for the console as I sincerely doubt that they would port Final Fantasy XV. Of course, the commitment could just be for the Eidos side of the business.

@rejizzle: That's a totally fair position to take. I don't think every single feature of the Switch needs to resonate with everyone, just that some selection of features makes it appealing to different demographics. As long as it does that it's already doing better than the Wii U.

I don't see how this is going to vindicate the Vita. I just think the number of people who will carry another device around to play games on is small. Maybe Vita could have addressed that market better, but I think even doing that correctly will still mean reaching a small audience.

One advantage this will have is that developers might not shun it like they did the Vita. This will sell some number of units simply for being a Nintendo home console and that might be enough to rope more developers in. Then again, Nintendo has been short on 3rd party titles on every recent console. 3rd party devs even walked away from the Wii after a while when software sales remained short.

@flippyandnod: Perhaps vindication may have been too strong a word, but I do think that the Switch is a fuller realization of the vision that Sony was trying to sell with the Vita. You're right that most people, at least adults, won't carry around they're Switch, but I do think they'll still get something out of the system's portability. I rarely take my Vita outside of my home (aside from long trips or vacations), but I've come to appreciate it's form factor regardless. I can play it anywhere away from my TV, including comfortably in bed, and I can use Remote Play to play PS4 when my wife wants to watch TV. Are they big enough benefits to sell the console on their own? As can be seen with the Vita, probably no. But if it had all of Nintendo's studios behind it and a better home-console-to-mobile implementation, a Vita-like system starts to sound a lot more appealing.

@darth_navster: Man I don't know if The Switch is really something I'd call a "back-to-basics" sort of console. If anything it seems to be their biggest gimmick console to date. The Wii U had a touchpad sure but it was still something more or less glued to your living room (with exceptions of course, I'm aware that you could technically take it on a plane and so forth). The Switch is dialing this stuff up to 11 with removable gamepads and screens.. Their announcement video is confusing in that I'm not sure if it's meant to be aimed at 3DS owners and saying "look at the new more powerful handheld we have lined up for you!" or at the core gamers who game exclusive from the couch saying "hey check out how portable your home console is now!" Either way I don't think either party was really aching for these options. The mobile crowd enjoyed being able to throw a small thing in their bag and play a Tetris-like game on the bus and didn't need that to become an unwieldy, much more accident prone tablet with controllers on the side. The home console people didn't necessarily want to play Zelda in the park while their dog played catch by their lonesome.

Of course there is a crossover sweetspot where some of those people do actually want both things in one package, but in my opinion these are usually (and I'm just theorizing here, this isn't anecdotal evidence or anything) two distinct groups with their own unique needs that don't necessarily overlap.

@humanity: I guess the Switch being gimmicky depends on your definition of what a gimmick is. To me, a gimmick would be a feature of the console that never becomes natural to the game experience. When I'm playing a game with a standard controller, for instance, I don't really think about the controller itself. It simply melts into the game experience. Contrast that with motion controls or dual screens, where I'm constantly thinking about the artifice of the display or input, and those could rightly be called gimmicks. The use case that I'm picturing for the Switch is that of a console that you never have to really think about while playing games.

As to your other point of what is the aim of the console, I would simply say that it is the successor to both the Wii U and 3DS simultaneously. It's aimed at fans of Nintendo games, be they portable or home console games. I think the basic and uniform input layout is going to bring back a lot of lapsed Nintendo fans back to the fold while also appealing to Nintendo's younger fans who swear by their 3DS. Granted, you make a valid point about the Switch being a tad too bulky to feel like a true portable console, but I would contend that this is only revision one of the Switch. Similar to the original DS or Game Boy Advance, I fully expect a redesign to appear within two years of the system's launch that will better address this demographic.

I think Jeff put it best on his Mixlr when he said that the Switch reduces the consumer tax for playing Nintendo games. Rather than buying one portable and one home console to play all of Nintendo's output, we will now only need to buy one machine that can do both things. I think that alone will make a lot of people interested in the platform.

It certainly does feel like a Vita successor, which means I'll probably like it, but it remains to be seen how big a market there is for this.

I think it's a super smart move of Nintendo to consolidate their business on a single platform. Despite popular beliefs, the Vita is swimming in new releases in Japan, because the Japanese players gravitate towards handheld gaming. With the Switch, Nintendo can rope in both the Japanese and Western audience and we'll have a hire chance of seeing more Japanese games being localized on that platform, if there is just one audience.

Having one platform with the Switch solves nearly all of Nintendo's problems however its the complete opposite of the Vita its portable gaming for the home which is how most gamers in the west play, but with SD cards, no external HDD support and 4gb of ram I very much doubt you'll get AAA gaming on the go. I can only see the 10million Wii U owners and 50million 3DS buying the Switch, why would Skyrim and NBA fans buy the gimp version on Switch its the same reason the Vita failed.

Assuming Nintendo get the portable part right. As for being a Vita successor, I don't really agree. The Vita wasn't trying to replace home-console gaming(why would Sony want to compete with themselves)...just release a powerful device that could possibly have lower-res ports of console AAA titles. Well, at least it got Persona 4.

At first glance, the Switch looks like Nintendo will be sacrificing money in the long run, as they're combining their mobile and console revenue streams into one.

I don't think that is why the Vita is moderately successful. I've never seen a single Vita in Japan but I did see a few 3DSs, not that many though. A lot of phone gaming.

There's just more software support for the Vita in Japan. Sony jumped ship too quickly and I think Sony have a poor history of supporting their products, even outside of the console market.

4GB of RAM is more than enough for this console. What will matter more is the amount of VRAM, going with something like 2GB at 1080P would be very foolish. Most games on PC don't even use more than 2-3GB of RAM despite recommending far more.

It really depends upon which way your looking at is. Like I can see the statement being completely false from one way, and completely true from another.

First the 'nope not at all. Ok, so obvious is "Differnt company, duh". More concrete. Sony was trying to do to many things at once with the Vita. Sequel to their old handheld, go over and above what Nintendo offered, add another line of products to their gaming space, etc. And it all pretty much backfired. Sure, in the 'what if world' you lay out, the Vita might have succeeded big. But they committed the sin of trying to do to many things at once. The old "Try to please everyone, and you please no one". The switch doesn't seem to have this problem. If you take it as not a sequel to the Wii U and Nintendo consoles, but exclusively to their hand-held lineup? Well now it makes sense. The Wii/WiiU has always been 'the second console" for a lot of gamers (less so with the wild success of the Wii but still). This is essentially Nintendo saying "Ok, we are not going to try and make compete for home console space, to try and replace the PS4/X1." Instead, the switch is just them putting more power into what would be their normal hand-held (I.e. its gonna be more expensive and powerful then if they had released a separate home console and handheld) and adding features to make it TV ready. Enough that they can call it a home console. Again, yes, in what-if land, if Sony had never made a PS4, and instead made the Vita, with Vita TV as a thing upon launch, they yes that's the switch basiclly. Only they didn't..so no, comparison is wrong.

However, and here is the side I actually agree with. The vindication of the Vita? The spiritual sequel? It certainly is for those crazy fools like us who own and enjoy playing games on our Vita's. Kudos to you Sir, until I sat down and composed my thoughts on this i was utterly uninterested in the switch. Now? When I realize that instead of the inevitable death of the Vita, and my access to the niche games I love on my vita dieing with the console..you know cause such titles are just to expensive to make on current generation at-home consoles, and Nintendo's handhelds are never quite powerful enough. Except that's wrong! The sequel lives again, and my enjoyment and desire for a console like it to exist has been vindicated!

Also, while its gonna suck for all those people who bought a WiiU. When they release the few exclusive games for that console 'remastered' on the switch, I'll get to play them!

So, yeah. It seems like the switch might well end up being the successor to the Vita that us vita fans never thought we would see. The place that the companies currently making Vita games will turn too to release new games! Horray our favorite niche is alive and active! Trouble before was, while the people who own a Vita are extremely satified with the console, we are not a large enough demographic for the number of titles we see on the vita to get released on something like the PS4. Sure there -are- JRPGS and the like, but they are few and far between compared to the Vita numbers. Now? Now we get a new console that is likely to be allow for exactly the right kind budget vs projected profit balance to be profitable.

Its just a double bonus bonus that those of us who will be buying it as "Well all the developers who made stuff I liked on my Vita are making stuff for the switch now, guess I'll get one!" also get to gain the benefit of "oh hey, it turns out Nintendo makes some pretty good stuff, I own the system I guess I'll try some of them out. At least, that will be a bonus for those of us who never bought a WiiU.

@wynnduffy: For Nintendo software sure but for third party's? The last gen Skyrim Remaster min is 4GB but for for NBA2K its min is 8GB a trend for alot of recent titles Gears, Forza and Battlefield. With SD cards having slower memory transfer speeds than HDD and with reduced capacity plus less RAM its gonna take quite a bit of effort getting third party software running on the Switch, I wouldn't expect alot of support.

Recommend RAM specs are meaningless, just because it says 8GB doesn't mean it'll ever come close to using 8. I'm sure I am not the only PC gamer that has been ignoring system requirements for a long time, especially their ludicrous RAM recommendations.

Battlefield 1 recommends 16GB but on my PC the game only uses 3-3.6GB of system RAM on ultra settings at 2560x1400.

Modern SD cards are very fast, more than fast enough to play games from. Storage speed has never really been an important factor for performance.

The Nintendo Switch will be on par or better than the Xbox One, depending on which Tegra it's going to use.

For me it's not so much playing console games on the go. For me it's mostly about playing handheld games comfortably, and the unification. I don't intend to travel with my Switch.

I just hope it feels good in my hands. The New 3DS I have hurts my hands after about an hour or so. The PSP same thing, especially because I used to play Monster Hunter games on it and it just isn't comfortable. I liked the Wii U for MH and the way you held it made it not a chore to play for long stretches. That said, I never owned a Vita and don't know how it contours to my hands, maybe one day, but there's really no reason as it's all but dead to me software wise and like many have said, cross play is sorely underutilized.

I'll probably buy a Switch eventually, but I'm not sure if it's actually a smart move for Nintendo or not. A lot of that will be determined by the price point I guess. I know the 3DS wasn't setting the world on fire compared to the original DS, but the Wii U was basically the Hindenberg in terms of sales, and so Nintendo is now risking killing both their portable and home business at the same time? I mean, I guess they will keep pretending that the 3DS matters just in case this thing totally flops, but I feel like its existence alone will do big damage to that. This approach, while I appreciate only having to have one Nintendo platform going forward, is actually considerably riskier than people are giving it credit for.

I feel the same way. The only place I travel with my handhelds is to the bed before I go to sleep. It would be the same deal with the Switch.

That's my hope as well. I think there's a big opportunity for Nintendo to put a spotlight on the burgeoning Japanese indie games scene with the Switch. By giving these developers a global audience on a unified platform, the hope is that we get easier access to quirky titles on a larger scale than we've seen on the Vita.

Irrespective of what Sony intended, home console quality gaming on a portable ended up being the Vita's calling card. The fact that it competed with Sony's home platforms and failed only makes that point further. The difference here is that unlike the Vita, Nintendo is betting the farm on the Switch and so that system will receive better support.

I'll also disagree that Nintendo is leaving money on the table in the long run with the Switch. I think that this was the only way for them to survive as a console maker. Let's face it, another Wii U sort of albatross would have killed off any future home console business for the company, and with the rise of tablets and smartphones there's only so much they could do by going portable-only. By creating a unified platform that can play all of Nintendo's titles at home or on the go, they've created a much better value proposition for both die-hard fans as well as the wider market. It's a risk, but not as big of a risk as you're portraying.

I think you really get to the heart of what I'm trying to say here. The Vita was the go-to home for Japanese indie and mid-tier developers, and with Sony slowly sun-setting the console, the Switch could pick up the torch. Add to that Nintendo's development capacity, and you've got a hell of a library even without traditional third party AAA support.

And that's a completely reasonable position to take. I'm in a similar situation (although I intend to travel occasionally with the Switch). But man, it's going to be cool knowing that I will be able to play every single Nintendo game for the next 4-6 years.

But is it really that big of a risk? I mean, let's say the home console market rejects the Switch. What's to stop Nintendo a year after release from releasing a portable-only redesign of the Switch and satisfying the mobile market? And the best part about that is if you were an early adopter and bought the original version to play at home, the system's design means you can still play portable games on the big screen. It's a way better situation than getting screwed as a Wii U early adopter.

@wynnduffy@thepanzini: I'm no expert on computer architecture, but does the Switch really need to play AAA third party games? I mean, the Xbox One and Playstation 4 both have been selling in significantly higher numbers than their last-gen counterparts, and the PC market is healthier than ever, so aren't the consumers who want to play Battlefield 1 already satisfied? You could make the argument that this would result in a software drought for the Switch, but I think with Nintendo now focused on one console and the rise of multi-platform indie development, lack of compelling software will be less of an issue than in generations past. But hey, if the Switch can run the latest Call of Duty, all the better!

@darth_navster: I don't think it needs to really but it will definitely be able to run most of them, so long as it's going to be comparable to an Xbox One. I'm sure none of us expect it to compete with a PC or PS4 Pro. I'm excited for the Switch, seems like a great console to have alongside my PC.

Absolutely expected to see vita island mentioned. Lola approved.

I really see the portable option of the console to be just that, an option. It seems that the console will be focused on delivering traditional games which are controlled strictly through a sticks/buttons format, which suits me just fine. I like that I'll be able to play it without being tethered to the console (my Wii U gamepad can't even make it through the wall into my bedroom) but I'll probably play it in the dock 99% of the time.

Power wise I'm guessing it'll be comparable to the Wii U, which seems like a non-issue because Nintendo has proven they can push their hardware in ways other devs don't. The area this will hurt them is in third party development. I know they have a lot of people on and it'll be easier to develop for since it's an ARM architecture, but I think they'll have issues courting people to make games that are significantly less powerful than on other systems.

To me, the Switch represents a way to play all of Nintendo's games without buying a console and a handheld. I'm not sure how this will help them, honestly, but it helps me a lot.

I loved/love the Vita. There were issues with the design on the device and things like the UI (which is a shame never got overhauled but I get why it didn't) but Sony seemed to immediately let it go in the West opposed to Japan...they could have made a fight with it and had it become a truly unique and powerful part of the PS4 architecture, but they abandoned it.

The Switch could be a disaster but Nintendo die-hards will always keep Nintendo systems limping along. Hearing one of the guys on 8-4 Play say they think the Switch will have an 8 hour battery life made me laugh out loud in the car.

@darth_navster: I think the Switch is neat idea and it makes sense for Nintendo to unify its hardware platforms, however Nintendo's audience has been shrinking with almost every generation I don't see anything from the Switch that'll bring in new fans. To do that it'll need third party support and I don't disagree with @wynnduffy it could run AAA third party games, but I think the Switch hardware is different enough that most third partys won't bother unless the Switch does Wii numbers.

The statment from Bethesda and 2K says everything the two third partys games in the Switch reveal ad don't appear to be in development and the Switch is out in less than six months thats the best Nintendo could show.

http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/20/13353270/nintendo-switch-skyrim-nba-2k17-not-confirmed

"However, when contacted by Polygon, representatives for both 2K Sports and Bethesda declined to confirm whether their respective games were in development for Nintendo’s new console."

The Vita's great and cross-play was a revelation. A full system based around that unification concept is exactly what I'm looking for.

@thepanzini: because they declined to confirm at this point in time doesn't mean they aren't in development lol.

@frodobaggins: That's the point, why show them then? By the time the Switch releases both games will be old hat, if the Switch was gonna get proper third party support we would see Q1 2017 games in the trailer. Again the Switch will be a fantastic console for existing Nintendo hardware owners, thoughts echoed on the recent Bombcast.

@thepanzini: because this was a very short, very to the point 3 minute announcement trailer and they probably didn't want to give too much away focusing more on the hardware than the software. Skyrim and nba are two titles that are recognisable and do the job of showing that this thing will run games of this calibre. Just my take on it.

@thepanzini: But does Nintendo really need to return to the SNES era dominance? Sure, that would be nice, but Nintendo has carved out a very profitable niche from the N64 to present. The one anomaly is the Wii U, which I think the Switch is working to correct. Anecdotally, myself and quite a few people I've talked to are considering buying the Switch even though we skipped the Wii U. Admittedly, that's not hard data, but I can see there being an audience of lapsed Nintendo fans who see more value in the Switch than they did in the Wii U or 3DS. It may not be enough to do PS4 numbers, but it could be enough to keep Nintendo a profitable entity.

@quid_pro_bono: You make some great points, but I have to ask, can't Nintendo's decision to consolidate its consoles with the Switch be a win-win for the company and consumers? I mean, if the Switch is a better value for us, won't that translate into better sales for Nintendo? It seems odd to think that a company can't succeed by catering to its audience's needs.

@darth_navster: Nintendo's core audience has been shrinking for a while, the 3DS has sold 1/3 what the DS achieved with the advent of smartphones. The Switch will very easily have a sizable core audience, but their niche has gotten smaller with every generation. The biggest value add in the Switch is you only need to buy one piece of hardware to play Nintendo's games, but how many Wii U owners have a 3DS and vise versa, and how many 3DS owner have the XL or New 3DS, the Switch will likely have a smaller core audience my guesstimate maybe around ~30 million.