The Switch certainly predates the Deck, and they definitely make their money back on software, but being forced solely into the Nintendo ecosystem is off-putting. Only Microsoft is a likely candidate to make a handheld that uses their Game Pass, and I would bet they aren’t really needing to push subscriptions at the moment.
I just looked it up, and it looks like Nintendo likely makes $40-$80 per Switch (estimated based on part costs). A decent profit, considering software (a big money maker) is just gravy at that point.
I can’t believe I have to rehash this again. A Switch is a computer. My point wasn’t that it’s somehow better, but Nintendo already did exactly what you said: made a handheld portable computer with built-in screen that can play games locally and is sold at a loss only to recoup those losses with software sales.
The Deck can do more than the Switch, but that doesn’t make the Switch less of a computer.
You say it’s off putting as if the Switch doesn’t have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It’s a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It’s not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable “Deck,” and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem…
Whether those games within that ecosystem are “quality” or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
You have a weird definition of platform “ecosystem”. How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer’s store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That’s being locked into an ecosystem by definition.
The Switch certainly predates the Deck, and they definitely make their money back on software, but being forced solely into the Nintendo ecosystem is off-putting. Only Microsoft is a likely candidate to make a handheld that uses their Game Pass, and I would bet they aren’t really needing to push subscriptions at the moment.
The Switch isn’t that expensive to make, the chip, memory, and storage are all budget af.
I just looked it up, and it looks like Nintendo likely makes $40-$80 per Switch (estimated based on part costs). A decent profit, considering software (a big money maker) is just gravy at that point.
Why are you trying to compare a computer to a walled garden Nintendo switch? Hell, you’re making my argument for me.
I can’t believe I have to rehash this again. A Switch is a computer. My point wasn’t that it’s somehow better, but Nintendo already did exactly what you said: made a handheld portable computer with built-in screen that can play games locally and is sold at a loss only to recoup those losses with software sales.
The Deck can do more than the Switch, but that doesn’t make the Switch less of a computer.
Nintendo hardwares are sold for profit
You say it’s off putting as if the Switch doesn’t have dozens on dozens on dozens of quality 1st and 2nd party titles. Also, no one is being forced into the Nintendo ecosystem. It’s a Nintendo product, and you buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. It’s not anti-gamer. That being said, apples and oranges to compare the switch to the deck.
Right, but the original statement was whether other companies have made a competing and profitable “Deck,” and the Switch is already such a device. Portable, plays games locally, has a thriving software ecosystem…
Whether those games within that ecosystem are “quality” or not is irrelevant. Both platforms have examples of good and bad games. My point was that if you buy a Switch, you are forced into their ecosystem. On the Deck, you do not have such a limitation (with a bit of effort, you can access anything a regular Linux machine can). Nobody is coerced in, sure, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
So where you see apples and oranges, I see a small, dry apple vs. a big, juicy apple. A better analogy might be Apple vs Windows.
You have a weird definition of platform “ecosystem”. How is buying a computing device (gaming or otherwise) that locks you down to only running software purchased from the manufacturer’s store not forcing you into their ecosystem?
I guess if you mean no one is forcing you to buy a switch sure. But if you own a switch, you have to procure software through Nintendo. That’s being locked into an ecosystem by definition.