BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Nintendo Switch's Competition Isn't The PS4 Or Xbox One, It's The iPad

Following
This article is more than 7 years old.

Nintendo’s new home console debuted yesterday, which means we should theoretically be entering a new phase of the console wars. Once upon a time, it was Nintendo and SEGA slugging it out, but for more than a decade now, it’s been Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft doing battle with their respective systems.

The Nintendo Switch, however, is throwing a wrench into the works by its very nature. While it does function as a home console, its heavily advertised main gimmick is that is transforms into a mobile tablet-ish handheld to play the same games on the go. So, who exactly is it competing with now? Some may still say Sony and Microsoft, but based on what we’ve seen, I fully believe that Nintendo is going to be squaring off against the iPad.

First, let me talk about why I don’t really think that Nintendo is competing with PS4 and Xbox One anymore, and they really haven’t been for some time. I believe this is true about the PS4 Slim and Xbox One Slim, which are what most price-focused consumers will be picking up these days, but also about the upcoming PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio, the high-end, ultra-powerful variants of each system.

At this point, Nintendo consoles have become one of two things for most buyers. Either A) it’s an additional system to bolster something you already own like a gaming PC or an Xbox or PlayStation, or B) it’s your only system if you are a die-hard Nintendo fan or someone completely focused on family gaming. The Wii U failed because of this very dynamic. When it came down to a choice between a Wii U and an Xbox One or PS4, there simply wasn’t a comparison in most instances. The Wii U was a less powerful system that yes, had access to some great first party Nintendo games, but lacked almost the entire third party catalog that the other two systems (and PC) took for granted, which were dozens of the most high profile games released every single year. Because of that, you either had to be content only playing Nintendo games, or buying it as a supplementary system.

I am not convinced this narrative is going to change with the Switch. While there were a great many things to be excited about during the reveal of this console, one selling point I am hugely skeptical of is Nintendo trying to tout tremendous third-party support right out of the gate. We have to keep in mind that Nintendo also tried to play this card with the Wii and Wii U, and those systems had many brands “supporting” them initially until suddenly, they weren’t, and nearly every major multiplatform series had fled Nintendo.

(Image: Nintendo)

Nintendo can throw up a giant image full of all these brand logos that are supporting the Switch, but it’s impossible to know what those actually mean. Is Ubisoft delivering only Just Dance, or also Assassin’s Creed: Empire a year from now? Does Activision’s appearance mean Call of Duty and Destiny are heading to Switch, or is it just going to be Skylanders? Everyone made a big fuss about Skyrim Special Edition essentially headlining the Switch debut, but that will be a five month-old game when the Switch launches, and I’m much more curious if the system will get say, Elder Scrolls VI when that’s released in a few years.

What I’m predicting here is what happened with the Wii U. We see early Switch versions of Xbox One and PS4 games, some probably months after their initial release, but that eventually trails off because of the power limitations of the console and the fact that it’s often a tough sell to port games to Nintendo products, regardless of that. Remember when Ubisoft made two separate Assassin’s Creed games in one year, one for 360/PS3 and one for Xbox One/PS4, and neither of them came to the Wii U? Often the problem is more than just horsepower. And if this is some brilliant new era of third-party cooperation, why did the biggest third-party game of next year, Red Dead Redemption 2, just get announced without even a whisper that it might come to the Switch?

I could be wrong about this, and the continued existence of "lower tier" PlayStations and Xboxes might mean more studios are willing to develop for the Switch this time around, but if not, if this really does turn out to be just business as usual with Nintendo and third parties, there is nothing that will make the system more competitive with Xbox One and PS4 than what we saw with the Wii U.

But that doesn’t mean the system can’t be competitive, period.

Rather, the market that Nintendo seems better poised to take on with the Switch is the tablet games arena, led most notably by a zillion iPads that commuters play on trains or kids poke at with sticky fingers.

This is a device that can play fully-fledged­ console games in mobile form. We have not seen a handheld do something like that for ages, and provided it can get over obvious hurdles like having reasonable battery life, this is something that could potentially be game changing for the iPad crowd.

The intro trailer did a great job of demonstrating this. We saw a device that you can easily take on a plane that can play more than just Angry Birds or Bloons Tower Defense. This is something you can play The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on. Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, whatever the blockbuster Pokémon title is that's assuredly being crafted for this system. These are heavy hitters, and the Switch represents a step up from both Nintendo’s own past handhelds and traditional iPads.

The Switch will likely be a more attractive purchase than a 3DS (for however long that’s continued) due to its ability to also function as a home console, and its ability to play actual console games on the go. The Switch will be a more attractive purchase than an iPad for gaming because it will likely be much cheaper, and will play games that are infinitely more engaging because it will be Nintendo’s A-list first-party roster (along with whatever third parties they do recruit). It can also be broken up for local multiplayer, which is something you almost never see in this space. For frequent commuters, for families with children that need to be occupied, all of this makes for a pretty attractive prospect.

There are some hurdles to overcome in this market, and I can’t pretend to ignore them. It may be a tough sell to continue to try to pitch a dedicated mobile gaming device in this market when actual tablets have much more additional functionality to them. And one disadvantage over past Nintendo handhelds and tablets themselves is that the Switch will be pretty bulky by comparison, and certainly won’t fit in most pockets unless you’re wearing cargo shorts or JNCO jeans.

Also, for as fabulous as the library of games will be, they actually cost money. Children, parents and tablet gamers are used to the vast majority of games costing practically nothing (or literally nothing) in the app market. $15 for a title is astronomical in that scene. So while you might end up saving on the hardware, you will quickly make up for in $40-60 game purchases. This is a market where someone will spend $200 in Clash Royale microtransactions, yet they might turn up their nose when asked to pay $60 for a 200 hour Zelda game. That may be a tough nut to crack.

Third, and this might actually be the weirdest point, it is not yet clear whether or not the mobile component of the Switch is a touchscreen. All indications point to no, as nowhere in the trailer does anyone touch the screen, and only use the side controllers or a Pro controller with it. I reached out to Nintendo directly to ask if the Switch had a touchscreen or any sort of gyroscopic tech in it like the Wii U gamepad it’s obviously modeled after, but they declined to say one way or the other. If this is not the case, this will be a very, very weird situation where in 2016, a mobile, screen-based device is being sold at without touch capabilities, and I can imagine a generation of very confused kids who have been raised on iPads poking at this thing in frustration for a good long while until they figure out that you can only play it with physical controllers. It will almost certainly make for better gameplay, but it is a fundamentally strange concept in this day and age, and even for recent Nintendo products like the 3DS and Wii U which do employ touch tech.

Still, despite all this, I think the Switch is going to be fundamentally better suited to face off against tablets and phones than it is Xbox One and PlayStation 4. Nintendo has sacrificed power for mobility, and while that’s their prerogative, I have to believe that in the end it will cost them enough third-party support to once again make Nintendo the “optional” console. But as a force that can compete with the (mostly abysmal) app market of Android and iOS? It might be a very attractive option for that audience.

Or, it could end up in No Man’s Land, too weak to compete with normal home consoles, but too specialized to be preferable to iPads. And if that happens, given how much Nintendo has riding on the Switch, that could be very bad indeed.

Follow me on Twitter and on Facebook. Pick up my sci-fi novels, The Last ExodusThe Exiled Earthborn and The Sons of Sora, which are now in print, online and on audiobook.

Why does The Walking Dead have such lasting appeal? Find out below: