Nintendo Updated Sales Figures for Switch / 3ds

[Eroda]

So Nintendo has updated their sales data for their Products.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/finance/hard_soft/index.html

 

this is great news for nintendo fans it means that they are closer to hitting their 20M units sold this year. hopefully this means we get some good 3rd party switch games that arent dodgy ports but games made specifically for the console. because its obvious that large AAA titles ie CP2077 wont come to the switch because its too slow so we have to hope devs get interested in making specific games.

 

[TopHatProductions115]

Seems interesting. I might actually be convinced to buy a Nintendo console for once...

[Master Disaster]

So after sitting on it for almost a full year, and admittedly I was skeptical for most of that time, I recently decided to buy a Switch mostly for Mario Odyssey.

 

It's a great system but one thing really baffles me about it, why does it cost £10 more to buy a download code for games over a physical cart in a box?

 

Are Nintendo really saying it costs more to create a code than it does to create a cart in a box? What's going on?

[Trixanity]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

So after sitting on it for almost a full year, and admittedly I was skeptical for most of that time, I recently decided to buy a Switch mostly for Mario Odyssey.

 

It's a great system but one thing really baffles me about it, why does it cost £10 more to buy a download code for games over a physical cart in a box?

 

Are Nintendo really saying it costs more to create a code than it does to create a cart in a box? What's going on?

Probably some deal with the retail market. If Nintendo snatches all their sales they'll get pissed. Microsoft is feeling that right now. Some retailers have stopped carrying Xbox products (don't know the specifics) as a response to their Game Pass initiative. They feel that Microsoft is unfairly ruining their business and cutting them out. Nintendo is usually very traditional in their approach so they probably feel like retail/physical games are the shit even though I'd say at this point it's kinda just a needless environmental drain (at least in the developed world).

[Eroda]

i still dont own a switch mainly because i get bored very quickly and need a constant stream of multiplayer emergent gameplay to keep me entertained once nintendo ramps that up ill probably get a switch but i am a fan and want one even though im still holding out for more features

 

[GoodBytes]

38 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So after sitting on it for almost a full year, and admittedly I was skeptical for most of that time, I recently decided to buy a Switch mostly for Mario Odyssey.

 

It's a great system but one thing really baffles me about it, why does it cost £10 more to buy a download code for games over a physical cart in a box?

 

Are Nintendo really saying it costs more to create a code than it does to create a cart in a box? What's going on?

Sounds like you are in the UK. Yes, in the UK they have strange pricing.  US and Canada, while normal price of digital copies are the same as physical copies, specials can arrive and the digital version is cheaper. Nintendo seems to be doing unannounced specials. Like right now, they are offers on many games until Feb 2nd (for those in Canada and US)

 

[Xander Cousins]

41 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So after sitting on it for almost a full year, and admittedly I was skeptical for most of that time, I recently decided to buy a Switch mostly for Mario Odyssey.

 

It's a great system but one thing really baffles me about it, why does it cost £10 more to buy a download code for games over a physical cart in a box?

 

Are Nintendo really saying it costs more to create a code than it does to create a cart in a box? What's going on?

It same any every platform really. Xbox, PlayStation Etc. The Digital copies are more expensive than the Hardcopies. Which I do agree makes absolutely no sense.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 minutes ago, Alex Colson said:

It same any every platform really. Xbox, PlayStation Etc. The Digital copies are more expensive than the Hardcopies. Which I do agree makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense. The big retailers tend to pay for "exclusives" to drive traffic & other sales. A significant portion of consoles are also bought in stores still, as well. The console makers would be cannibalizing future sales if they had no physical presence in stores anymore. 

[Xander Cousins]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

It makes sense. The big retailers tend to pay for "exclusives" to drive traffic & other sales. A significant portion of consoles are also bought in stores still, as well. The console makers would be cannibalizing future sales if they had no physical presence in stores anymore. 

Does it really? For a digital copy it is stored on an accessible Network where ones a valid key is sent from your Account you can download it.... Hardcopy on the other hand has to go through Being burned to a Disc, adding measures for preventing it from being copied, Along with the case and instructions that comes with some games yet that is somehow a cheaper method? If it was they wouldn't have moved to Digital IMO

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 hour ago, Eroda said:

this is great news for nintendo fans it means that they are closer to hitting their 20M units sold this year. hopefully this means we get some good 3rd party switch games that arent dodgy ports but games made specifically for the console. because its obvious that large AAA titles ie CP2077 wont come to the switch because its too slow so we have to hope devs get interested in making specific games.

The Switch has some great looking third party exclusives announced in Project Octopath Traveler, Shin Megami Tensei V, and Bayonetta 3. I'm sure there will be many more.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Alex Colson said:

Does it really? For a digital copy it is stored on an accessible Network where ones a valid key is sent from your Account you can download it.... Hardcopy on the other hand has to go through Being burned to a Disc, adding measures for preventing it from being copied, Along with the case and instructions that comes with some games yet that is somehow a cheaper method? If it was they wouldn't have moved to Digital IMO

It's not about the cost of the specific sale. That's higher for Physical than Digital. It's the cost of the next sale after that. It's the cost of the Physical Presence advertising. It's the cost to the retailer when people don't buy an extra cable or controller when they're in the store. There's Cost of Item vs Consumer Engagement, and it gets really complex to calculate really fast.

 

Read up on "Loss Leaders" if you want to start a deep dive into the area.

[Xander Cousins]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Read up on "Loss Leaders" if you want to start a deep dive into the area.

Maybe at some point in the future, Thank for the Suggestion

[SteveGrabowski0]

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread the chart in the link

[Commodus]

Something not mentioned so far: the Switch has already outsold the Wii U.  Less than a year to outdo the Wii U's entire lifetime.

 

I'm not surprised that the Switch would handily outsell the Wii U -- it's just a stark reminder of how ill-conceived the Wii U was, even if it did have some great games.

 

Now if we can just get Nintendo off of its great console/bad console hardware cycle... although at this rate the next system may just be a much more powerful Switch, and I would be perfectly happy with that.

[TacoSenpai]

58 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Something not mentioned so far: the Switch has already outsold the Wii U.  Less than a year to outdo the Wii U's entire lifetime.

 

I'm not surprised that the Switch would handily outsell the Wii U -- it's just a stark reminder of how ill-conceived the Wii U was, even if it did have some great games.

 

Now if we can just get Nintendo off of its great console/bad console hardware cycle... although at this rate the next system may just be a much more powerful Switch, and I would be perfectly happy with that.

Honestly they could literally make their next gen a Super Switch like exactly what they did from NES to SNES.  And I would be more than ok with that.

[Eroda]

4 hours ago, LordTaco42 said:

Honestly they could literally make their next gen a Super Switch like exactly what they did from NES to SNES.  And I would be more than ok with that.

 

 

they could just use the X2 with more than 256 Cuda cores running at full speed and if they aimed at making a product like the PS4pro (ie something not designed for full 4k output just upscaling etc) they might have a market expecially if its 100% switch game compatible.

[Trixanity]

15 minutes ago, Eroda said:

 

 

they could just use the X2 with more than 256 Cuda cores running at full speed and if they aimed at making a product like the PS4pro (ie something not designed for full 4k output just upscaling etc) they might have a market expecially if its 100% switch game compatible.

Xavier is the latest SoC from Nvidia and would be a massive step up from the X1 in the Switch. The X1 chip was archaic in pretty much all aspects at the launch of the Switch and in my opinion a bad choice even if it gets the job done. It was honestly never really a good chip in the grand scheme of things.

 

Xavier might not be entirely backwards compatible depending on what Nvidia has done with the chip. I doubt Nintendo wants to go down that route as it's not their way of doing things and I suspect Xavier is lot more expensive unless they got ripped off on the X1 chips.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

Xavier is the latest SoC from Nvidia and would be a massive step up from the X1 in the Switch. The X1 chip was archaic in pretty much all aspects at the launch of the Switch and in my opinion a bad choice even if it gets the job done. It was honestly never really a good chip in the grand scheme of things.

 

Xavier might not be entirely backwards compatible depending on what Nvidia has done with the chip. I doubt Nintendo wants to go down that route as it's not their way of doing things and I suspect Xavier is lot more expensive unless they got ripped off on the X1 chips.

The choice of the X1 somewhat signaled that Nintendo wasn't sure the Switch would work. They took an off-the-shelf part that they could get relatively cheap (but in large supply) that fit their power budget. A Super Switch will almost certainly be a more semi-custom part on at least 2 processor node shrinks. (It's a "20 nm" part, which means it's a 22nm+ part when 16nm was already in high-volume manufacturing.) 

 

The Switch "works", in major part, because of the functional limit to display technology. There's a point at which 1080p really does max out for most uses. (The Color Depth is a separate discussion.) Given the success and the games they put on it, there is unlikely to ever be another Nintendo home console. And, frankly, that might be okay. Now, about those controllers...

[GoodBytes]

From what I know, and you'll have to take my word for it, is that Nintendo picked the best Tegra chip architecture/generation that was available. The rest are for cars, and has costly technologies, making the chip way to pricey. Nvidia abandoned Shield line as it was not profitable to any level to the company, and sales were very weak. The focus for Tegra is what was selling at the time: cars.

 

Now, with the Switch success, I am sure Nvidia next chip is in the works to make a no-car variation for Nintendo, if Nintendo plan to continue to make similar system. In partnership with Nintendo, I am sure Nvidia will know what Nintendo plans are (I mean: next console will be a Switch like system or not), and based on that have something ready for them, and not have to rely on an old chip.

[Trixanity]

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

From what I know, and you'll have to take my word for it, is that Nintendo picked the best Tegra chip architecture/generation that was available. The rest are for cars, and has costly technologies, making the chip way to pricey. Nvidia abandoned Shield line as it was not profitable to any level to the company, and sales were very weak. The focus for Tegra is what was selling at the time: cars.

 

Now, with the Switch success, I am sure Nvidia next chip is in the works to make a no-car variation for Nintendo, if Nintendo plan to continue to make similar system. In partnership with Nintendo, I am sure Nvidia will know what Nintendo plans are (I mean: next console will be a Switch like system or not), and based on that have something ready for them, and not have to rely on an old chip.

I don't see why Nvidia with their resources couldn't have gone semi custom. They could at least have taken the latest SoC and tweaked power to fit into a Switch. Even if sub-optimal it would probably have been significantly better.

 

If I recall correctly, Xavier should fit fine in a Switch or tablet form factor as long as you tweak the power a bit. The automotive product uses two of those along with a third block with tensor cores I believe.

[Taf the Ghost]

53 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

From what I know, and you'll have to take my word for it, is that Nintendo picked the best Tegra chip architecture/generation that was available. The rest are for cars, and has costly technologies, making the chip way to pricey. Nvidia abandoned Shield line as it was not profitable to any level to the company, and sales were very weak. The focus for Tegra is what was selling at the time: cars.

 

Now, with the Switch success, I am sure Nvidia next chip is in the works to make a no-car variation for Nintendo, if Nintendo plan to continue to make similar system. In partnership with Nintendo, I am sure Nvidia will know what Nintendo plans are (I mean: next console will be a Switch like system or not), and based on that have something ready for them, and not have to rely on an old chip.

 

39 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I don't see why Nvidia with their resources couldn't have gone semi custom. They could at least have taken the latest SoC and tweaked power to fit into a Switch. Even if sub-optimal it would probably have been significantly better.

 

If I recall correctly, Xavier should fit fine in a Switch or tablet form factor as long as you tweak the power a bit. The automotive product uses two of those along with a third block with tensor cores I believe.

Considering Nvidia is probably going to end up selling 80+ million of those parts to Nintendo by the end, I'm sure Nvidia will be willing to do a semi-custom/cut-down solution whenever Nintendo decides to make the next version of the Switch. Doesn't seem like the hardest SoC design in the world, "Jensen here, I need you to just cut out all of the MI & AI parts and roll out a SoC that we'll demo to Nintendo." 

[sof006]

Come on Bayonetta 3! Reason why I bought my Switch.... and Breath of the Wild.

[GoodBytes]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

I don't see why Nvidia with their resources couldn't have gone semi custom. They could at least have taken the latest SoC and tweaked power to fit into a Switch. Even if sub-optimal it would probably have been significantly better.

It's not a printer next to a computer. It takes 6 month just to manufacture a new chip design. It takes 1 year minimum to do modifications on a chip. Assuming Nintendo even asked, we don't know when, and if it would have been possible considering the release date that the company was targeting. Maybe it would been possible if the WiiU was fairing better and Nintendo was aiming for a late 2018 release of the system.

[Trixanity]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

It's not a printer next to a computer. It takes 6 month just to manufacture a new chip design. It takes 1 year minimum to do modifications on a chip. Assuming Nintendo even asked, we don't know when, and if it would have been possible considering the release date that the company was targeting. Maybe it would been possible if the WiiU was fairing better and Nintendo was aiming for a late 2018 release of the system.

That's why I said tweak the power on the existing design. It ain't a pretty way to do it and you'll lose some in the process but it'd probably still be superior to the X1. 

 

The Xavier SoC (as an example) is in the 30W range. For maximum battery life you may want to cut back on that.

 

And honestly, looking at the Parker chip (which would be the one that Nintendo could have opted for) makes me scratch my head. It wouldn't have been perfect but it actually fits decently with what Nintendo needed. It can be configured as low as 7.5W which is definitely in line with a battery powered device. Devs would probably have been annoyed with the separate clusters of A57 and Denver cores though.

 

All I'm seeing here is Nvidia being inflexible and not having a lot to offer at the time and Nintendo asking for the cheapest chip possible to keep their margins.

 

Or perhaps there is something in the supposed automotive design that makes it inherently unsuitable for the job that I simply can't see at a glance.

 

Edit: from what I can tell Parker isn't significantly bigger than X1. However Xavier is three times bigger if I'm reading this correctly. Probably due to double the CUDA cores and double the high performance cores with corresponding cache sizes. So that pretty much throws it out the window. Nintendo isn't going to pay for that.

 

I also looked at product timelines and Nintendo may just have missed Parker while Nvidia is probably also giving the automotive industry dibs due to business strategy. Disappointing nevertheless. It simply isn't a good chip. Especially not for a game console with long lifespan.

[Eroda]

10 hours ago, Trixanity said:

That's why I said tweak the power on the existing design. It ain't a pretty way to do it and you'll lose some in the process but it'd probably still be superior to the X1. 

 

The Xavier SoC (as an example) is in the 30W range. For maximum battery life you may want to cut back on that.

 

And honestly, looking at the Parker chip (which would be the one that Nintendo could have opted for) makes me scratch my head. It wouldn't have been perfect but it actually fits decently with what Nintendo needed. It can be configured as low as 7.5W which is definitely in line with a battery powered device. Devs would probably have been annoyed with the separate clusters of A57 and Denver cores though.

 

All I'm seeing here is Nvidia being inflexible and not having a lot to offer at the time and Nintendo asking for the cheapest chip possible to keep their margins.

 

Or perhaps there is something in the supposed automotive design that makes it inherently unsuitable for the job that I simply can't see at a glance.

 

Edit: from what I can tell Parker isn't significantly bigger than X1. However Xavier is three times bigger if I'm reading this correctly. Probably due to double the CUDA cores and double the high performance cores with corresponding cache sizes. So that pretty much throws it out the window. Nintendo isn't going to pay for that.

 

I also looked at product timelines and Nintendo may just have missed Parker while Nvidia is probably also giving the automotive industry dibs due to business strategy. Disappointing nevertheless. It simply isn't a good chip. Especially not for a game console with long lifespan.

from what i heard the chip in the switch doesnt use anything except the 4 a57 cores the other a53 ones are unused so they could have set it up similar  but i doubt it would have come in at 299 price point nintendo wanted it probably would have been 399 and performance would have not been significantly higher in portable mode. what gets me is why the switch isnt just locked to 720p no AA or AF or HDR etc and use the dock to upscale to 1080P and add 6XAA/AF and HDR etc etc.

 

the swithc is just lacking it doesnt even match current gen consoles  which 3rd party devs are already wanting to leave behind. eventually itll just not be worth the effort to make games on the switch and it will just be nintendo making games again. so here is hoping that in a couple years nintendo makes a proper home console that is backwards compatible.