Nintendo Switch Lite Launches September 20 For $200 (venturebeat.com) 86
Nintendo has confirmed the much-rumored Nintendo Switch Lite, revealing that the new slimmed down console -- available in gray, yellow, and turquoise -- will launch on September 20 for $199.99. From a report: The device, which first came to light last year, is $100 less expensive than its predecessor and, as such, it does lack a number of key features compared to its bigger brother. For example, the Nintendo Switch Lite only offers a single "handheld" game-play mode, compared to the additional "TV" and "tabletop" modes of the Nintendo Switch. While this raises questions about the use of "switch" in the device's name given that it doesn't actually switch between modes, it also means that compatible games are limited to those that support handheld mode in the Nintendo Switch Library. However, gamers will be able to buy separate Joy-Con controllers (and a device to charge them) to use wirelessly with other games that don't support handheld mode.
They got it backwards (Score:1)
Where is the $150 tv only version, the ugly one that doesnâ(TM)t waste money on the LCD screen and the battery pack and all that extra garbage?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Where is the $150 tv only version, the ugly one that doesnâ(TM)t waste money on the LCD screen and the battery pack and all that extra garbage?
Nintendo know that they can't compete with Xbox and Sony in the pure TV console market- that's why they always get "creative" like they did with the Wii, and now Switch. They don't want to be compared or try to compete like-for-like in that realm. For handheld they are king which is why they would prefer to compete head to head with Android in the lucrative handheld game sphere rather than as a nobody in the TV console market.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't compete? The Nintendo Switch will dominate the market for the upcoming years, not the PS5 or whatever shitty name the next Microsoft turd has.
The switch is a huge hit for Nintendo, but most people buying it are buying it for the portable capability not the ability to connect to a TV. In terms of raw power and physical specs the Switch is very lackluster compared to Xbox and PlayStation, Nintendo executives have even been on record saying that they have no desire trying to compete with MS/Sony in terms of hardware for TV console market. They know their strengths and they're playing to it and avoiding where they're weakest. (it's the same reason
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you bought a Wii U?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a switch about a year after release and it's only been out of the dock for a long plane ride and a handful of other times, the rest of the time it's plugged into the big screen tv on the wall where we play multiplayer games on it, It's a central part of the living room.
The switch mobile doesn't really impact me as I doubt the switch on the dock will wear out any time soon. But a $199 version totally makes sense for parents who have one or more small children where you want to have a device
Re: (Score:2)
....But a $199 version totally makes sense for parents who have one or more small children where you want to have a device per child but dont want to pay an arm and a leg for it.
Also, for many parents $200 might be worth it to avoid/reduce sharing the living room TV with kids, or arbitrating TV sharing between kids... With a handheld-only Switch, there's no questions about TV use.
Re: (Score:1)
They can't compete? The Nintendo Switch will dominate the market for the upcoming years, not the PS5 or whatever shitty name the next Microsoft turd has.
Yeah right, pretendo is history, they SUCK, they are an old, washed-up hasbeen [slashdot.org]!!!!!!!!! The Pretendo Piss and Piss on U both gave SD while PS3 and XBox 360 gave 1080. Pretendo Shit costs more than either the PS4 and Xbox 1 with those are capable of 4k with pretendo still choking on 1080i/p. The next generation Xbox and PS will beat the shit out of pretendo forcing them out except as a c rank gaming company for mobile phones with less sales than the dominant players of today.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I pretty much bought my 55" TV so I could play Breath of the Wild (on my existing Wii U) with stereo sound in a dark room. I'd happily pay up to $200 for a TV-only console that could play BOTW2 (which will be Switch-only).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the $150 tv only version, the ugly one that doesnâ(TM)t waste money on the LCD screen and the battery pack and all that extra garbage?
Huh? Who plays a switch attached to a TV? This is a Nintendo DS on steroids.
Re: (Score:1)
Convergence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 2DS and 3DS are supposed to be kept. I guess this means more price levels to buy a Nintendo console.
Re: (Score:1)
The 3DS line has no new titles being released. Even Nintendo's own site doesn't even have new releases. [nintendo.com] The last big release was Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story in January. [wikipedia.org] There's been no new announcements since.
Further, TFA seems to be splitting the player base for the Switch. Now developers will have to worry about whether or not the game they want to play will work on the system they have. If the 3DS itself is any indicator [gamespot.com], because this is a downgrade the developers will start targeting the li
Re: (Score:2)
Virtual +1 interesting/insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07K... [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the Sony PS4 version of that same game is more censured than the Nintendo Switch version.
Re: (Score:3)
Nintendo has never been the system of choice for those who play the 'serious' games, but they still are super fucking popular.
I have never witnessed my kiddos (or myself for that matter) unhappy w/the 'underpowered' performance when enjoying the shit out of playing some game together.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Underpowered for what? Running boring 4K games with no actual gameplay or story?
Only bad gaming companies rely on powerful hardware to avoid making good games.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be much more interested if it connected to a TV though. I don't really want a portable, I prefer a big screen.
Fine, so if gameplay is all that matters... (Score:2)
... and graphics don't matter then play on a fucking SNES or Atari VCS.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
The SNES was the best 2D console of its era, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apart from the arcade-grade Neo Geo system, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you had less fun because they weren't 4K and raytraced thought right? Right? The idea that you need powerful hardware to play games is just simply retarded. The gaming industry wasn't created when the XBoxOne was released.
Re: (Score:2)
The switch was seriously underpowered when it came out 2.5 years ago.
It runs Mario and Zelda perfectly fine.
Do you not understand the definition of "under powered"? To everyone else that means it doesn't have enough power to do it. Now you have learned something.
And who are this aimed at anyway? Beats me.
Gamers, so yes, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
" To everyone else that means it doesn't have enough power to do it. Now you have learned something."
Spare me you lame attempts at being patronising. I was probably playing games when you were still something your mum and dad discussed over romantic dinners.
If you want to play games and don't care about hardware you can just use the current Switch. Congrats on not answering the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Spare me you lame attempts at being patronising. I was probably playing games when you were still something your mum and dad discussed over romantic dinners.
Yea that makes sense for you, You probably really do believe you were playing video games a decade before the atari 2600 was out. That fits right in with the rest of the insanity that comes out of you.
Given that revelation, I have no idea what it is you think "video games" are, but since they aren't video games, I can't see any possible way to explain to you what games are, what they are for, or what "fun" is, let alone the relationship between the two.
If you want to play games and don't care about hardware you can just use the current Switch. Congrats on not answering the question.
Question: And who are this aimed at anyway? Beats me
Re: (Score:2)
"ou probably really do believe you were playing video games a decade before the atari 2600 was out"
Well I was certainly playing them in the 70s. So how old are you pretending to be in some attempt to give yourself gravitas?
"That fits right in with the rest of the insanity that comes out of you."
Desperate hyperbole, much?
"but since they aren't video games"
What are they then, card games? Perhaps a jigsaw?
" or what "fun" is"
If all you care about is gameplay why do you even care about a Switch? Surely you'd be
Re: (Score:2)
My god you have zero recollection of what either of us have just said, don't you.
I answered your question with very direct answer, "gamers"
That is a personal attack now? But not anything you said in reply, questioning my age, saying you wouldn't believe me even if I told you, bringing up another persons parents, ignoring the fact that even WAS an answer to your question.
You are the one that instantly jumped to personal attacks, then cry and whine after doing so that you get no better response than the same
Re: (Score:2)
"That is a personal attack now?"
No, but "now you have learned something" was a lame attempt at being patronising as I stated. But apparently you can't even be arsed to read what you wrote or you simply don't care so go fuck yourself you pathetic troll.
Re: (Score:2)
I was probably playing games when you were still something your mum
Actually based on your own comment you weren't playing games back then because back then all hardware was "too underpowered" to play games.
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about one that only operates as a console? The miniscule amount of mobile gaming I do is on my phone so I have no use for any of the Switch's mobile features but would love a cheaper version of the console to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I have zero interest in a portable console. And that display and battery must make a bigger chunk of the cost than the dock or detachable controllers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Given that Nintendo swears they're going to keep supporting the 3DS, they really need to push out a new mobile-only console.
Re: (Score:2)
they only swear this because they still have a large stock of 3DS's that need to get sold, you shouldn't really expect 3DS support for long.
Re: (Score:2)
>"How about one that only operates as a console? The miniscule amount of mobile gaming I do is on my phone so I have no use for any of the Switch's mobile features but would love a cheaper version of the console to buy."
I was going to post something very similar. I have no interest in the expensive "Switch" or mobile gaming (other than on my phone). But I have some interest in casual console gaming. If they had a TV-only console, they could probably slash the price by more than half. No screen, no ba
I'm mostly out of the loop after the Wii (Score:2, Flamebait)
If I have to use something as a display, why doesn't Nintendo just create an Android/Apple app to use, and a separate download for non-connected play.
A 7 or 10 inch tablet, heck, even a 6 inch phone is bigger,,,
Re: (Score:1)
It is more powerful than any android, optimized specifically for gaming.. and of-course the controllers, etc - that stuff is still problematic on regular android. :)
Also - to keep income from controlling game market - they have good games, that are only available on single platform
A list of 'non compatible games' (Score:1)
FTA
> it also means that compatible games are limited to those that support handheld mode in the Nintendo Switch Library
I own about 38 switch titles as my S/O streams on Twitch.
Every title works in handheld mode, which ones do not I'm curious?
I try searching for a list of games that DO NOT work specifically in hand held mode and it is rough, and many articles about this new switch-lite seem to make it sound like half the games won't work on the go.
Diablo 3, Zelda, all main Mario games, everything works in
Nintendo has its wires crossed (Score:2)
Personally a switch without a screen that could only be plugged into HDMI would be far more appealing.
Re: (Score:1)
This reminds me of when they made the Top Loader NES and used "statistics" to decide to make it RF only (as that's how many people hooked up their original NES and just left it that way, from before VCRs and non-RF-only TVs were the norm; absolutely not representative of the current market), while the Japanese counterpart was the very first Famicom to feature A/V jacks... Just blindly following statistics doesn't always lead to good results.
Re: (Score:1)
What widely used "internet" from the early '90s are you referring to? Might I advise that you don't let your "facts" get in the way of facts... Also, maybe read what you're responding to, just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo said that they made Switch Lite a mobile-only device because of the metrics they've received from the install base which say that people mostly use Switch in handheld mode.
I have no interest in why.
That's what most people are interested in.
So?
If most of the install base were keeping it docked, it would have shown the screen to be an unnecessary cost that could have been rectified by making a TV-only version.
It's my money. If they fail to deliver what I want or price their product above what I'm willing to spend I can assure you I won't be losing any sleep over not purchasing one. $300 is a little much for less than last gen performance. The switch has the graphics power of a $50 NVidia GPU released over a decade ago.
Nah, still not interested. (Score:2)
Isn't this... (Score:1)
Minus the "Switch" part (Score:2)
You will no longer be able to "switch" this Switch from TV to portable mode since they inhibited the Tegra's HDMI through USB-C on this model for some reason.
I guess they want you to still buy the other model, but with Nintendo's record it will be a PITA to take your game between the TV and the portable.