# Nintendo finally releases no bullshit console: Nintendo Switch Lite



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

https://www.nintendo.com/switch/lite/
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/hardware/switch/lite/index.html

In short, it's the same Switch, but with unnecessary features removed. Lite model doesn't have dock or removable joycons. There will be 3 colors: yellow, cyan and grey. The most important thing of lite is that it will cost sensible 200 dollars. That's 100 dollars less, while not really losing anything truly important.

You will be able to buy it in 2019.09.20 (at least in Japan).

Here's a more complete change list:


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

I just saw the release video for this, and don't know why anybody - price aside - would want this over the regular switch. Maybe if you're like a parent and giving it to ur kid that you know has a high probability of breaking, losing, or having it stolen. Or maaaaybe if you're someone that prioritizes weight, like if you're a climber or something. Gotta get that mario kart fix at base camp?


----------



## Negotiator (Mar 15, 2018)

Gotta say the regular Switch is rather heavy, but I'm not too keen on a smaller screen. Right now I rest it on the table against a purse and it works just fine.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I just saw the release video for this, and don't know why anybody - price aside - would want this over the regular switch. Maybe if you're like a parent and giving it to ur kid that you know has a high probability of breaking, losing, or having it stolen. Or maaaaybe if you're someone that prioritizes weight, like if you're a climber or something. Gotta get that mario kart fix at base camp?


I can be exactly the same as you about Switch. What's the reason to get regular Switch? It's poor at being stationary console (low framerate, poor visual quality and lower resolution). You lose joycons, but it's not a big loss. They are cool as concept, but they are small and not really confortable or convenient. As portable console Switch is bit too bit, for stationary console Switch is too weak and kinda dumb (probably even more than Wii U, because those damn joycons aren't a full size gamepad). I'm not sure what other people think, but joycons to me looks like 3D on 3DS. It was cool and awesome, but in reality almost nobody used it. Then Nintendo made 2DS and many people bough them, because it was finally significantly cheaper and pretty much lost nothing. 

It would have been awesome if they actually improved battery life to make it more portable, but I guess it's also reasonable that they didn't. Why? It would cannibalize 3DS sales.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I can be exactly the same as you about Switch. What's the reason to get regular Switch? It's poor at being stationary console (low framerate, poor visual quality and lower resolution). You lose joycons, but it's not a big loss. They are cool as concept, but they are small and not really confortable or convenient. As portable console Switch is bit too bit, for stationary console Switch is too weak and kinda dumb (probably even more than Wii U, because those damn joycons aren't a full size gamepad). I'm not sure what other people think, but joycons to me looks like 3D on 3DS. It was cool and awesome, but in reality almost nobody used it. Then Nintendo made 2DS and many people bough them, because it was finally significantly cheaper and pretty much lost nothing.
> 
> It would have been awesome if they actually improved battery life to make it more portable, but I guess it's also reasonable that they didn't. Why? It would cannibalize 3DS sales.


I don't own any of the above mentioned consoles so can't really confirm/deny any of the complaints(one complaint I have though, and is probably something that stopped me from buying one, was that there was no way to watch videos on it); but I do know that the Switch has sold like craaaazy, and has consistently been sought after at low price for resell. So for all of the complaints, I think the form factor/function outweighed what you mentioned; not to mention they probably leave room for improvements because they were trying to be quick to market, and also so that they have clear upgrade paths. Now I could say that Switch lite might be as good in terms of 'Fun factor'(because that's why I assume Switch is so popular), but there are trades to be made, and so personally like I said, why bother? It's like if you want to play certain games with certain features, you still have to buy the joy cons? Is the multiplayer support there like how you can have 2+ people game on one Switch, or do you each have to have your own Switch Lite? Do you need to buy joy cons in order to have that experience? I think it's basically just their way of milking more money, from people who _think_ they need the convenience features.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I don't own any of the above mentioned consoles so can't really confirm/deny any of the complaints(one complaint I have though, and is probably something that stopped me from buying one, was that there was no way to watch videos on it); but I do know that the Switch has sold like craaaazy, and has consistently been sought after at low price for resell. So for all of the complaints, I think the form factor/function outweighed what you mentioned; not to mention they probably leave room for improvements because they were trying to be quick to market, and also so that they have clear upgrade paths. Now I could say that Switch lite might be as good in terms of 'Fun factor'(because that's why I assume Switch is so popular), but there are trades to be made, and so personally like I said, why bother? It's like if you want to play certain games with certain features, you still have to buy the joy cons? Is the multiplayer support there like how you can have 2+ people game on one Switch, or do you each have to have your own Switch Lite? Do you need to buy joy cons in order to have that experience? I think it's basically just their way of milking more money, from people who _think_ they need the convenience features.


It totally doesn't sell like crazy everywhere. In general, Nintendo consoles always sell worse in Europe. Doesn't really take a genius to understand why. Currently the price of it is just stupid, it costs over 300 Euros, meanwhile Xbox One S is just 200 and PS4 is usually at below 300. Makes no sense, that some portable bullshit (historically portables were cheaper) would cost more. So price reduction here is truly welcome. Plus some people just want a classical portable console and Lite is that, meanwhile Switch is some weird hybrid.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

Maybe I'm just less picky than the average person, but I personally have no issues with how the switch looks when docked. The framerate and resolution looks fine to me. And I personally have not had any issues with my joycons (be it drifting, losing them, etc) but then again I am a responsible adult, and most switch owners are probably younger and more prone to losing things. I play my switch much more in docked mode than in handheld, except for games that are easier to play touchscreen (mostly indie puzzle games like Piczle Lines that were originally made for smartphones).

And I mean, the switch being a hybrid console is it's _entire_ gimmick. My sister plays hers almost exclusively in handheld mode, I prefer docked but sometimes play in handheld while I use my TV for netflix or something... it's just a 'to each their own' type of situation. I can agree that the price seems a bit high for a console that is a hybrid and not a standalone, polished home console like Xbone or PS4.

My take on this is: basically, if you only planned to play in handheld mode anyway, go for it and have a great time, it's definitely worth it for that much of a lower price. Personally I will not be buying it. I already have an OG switch and like playing in docked mode more than handheld, and like having the option to play in whatever mode I choose.

I think it's a smart move on Nintendo's part. Brings more players to the market who either could not afford it before, or who were skeptical about buying one before. More people in the market is _always_ a good thing.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

I'd love to get this over the normal switch. Only one TV in the house anyway and I don't live on my own so. Plus it's $200 cheaper. Switch is $400 in Australia. I didn't really want to fork out $400. I'm going to cancel my lay buy on the switch.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Currently the price of it is just stupid, it costs over 300 Euros, meanwhile Xbox One S is just 200 and PS4 is usually at below 300. Makes no sense, that some portable bullshit (historically portables were cheaper) would cost more.


a) Yep, that's why I said in the first post _aside_ from price.
b) Costs more than standalone portable players because of its flexibility(multiplayer on the go); its ability to... 'Switch'.

Definitely a smart move by Nintendo though, to merge its portable division with their 'home console' titles. Spend less, but increase their market; and even if people buy Sony, or Microsoft, they can still afford a handheld with full fledged AAA title support.



> Plus some people just want a classical portable console...


It's not for me, but it is definitely a win for consumers who are looking specifically for that. It's good business as well to make it affordable enough for younger people to get hooked into their ecosystem.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Definitely a smart move by Nintendo though, to merge its portable division with their 'home console' titles. Spend less, but increase their market; and even if people buy Sony, or Microsoft, they can still afford a handheld with full fledged AAA title support.


I highly doubt it will cost less than Xbox One S. Anyway, for the price of Switch you can actually build a powerful PC, which will play games at 1440p resolution and 60 fps. Also many people don't own more than one console, so market you are talking about is small.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> It's not for me, but it is definitely a win for consumers who are looking specifically for that. It's good business as well to make it affordable enough for younger people to get hooked into their ecosystem.


Yes, just that I think, that most removed features weren't exactly essential, so gains are big and loses are minimal.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I highly doubt it will cost less than Xbox One S. Anyway, for the price of Switch you can actually build a powerful PC, which will play games at 1440p resolution and 60 fps. Also many people don't own more than one console, so market you are talking about is small.


You doubt the Lite will cost less? Even if it isn't, you'd be paying the premium for the portability. *Shrug*

Where I am, the Switch is around $380 msrp, but there are ways to get it heavily discounted, so it's really comparing two different things, considering the form factor and flexibility of the Switch. Mind you, I use an approx 10 year old system, so my need for 'powerful' PC isn't one. Though I suppose if I reused components I could probably get a cpu/mobo/ram for the same price. New Ryzen looking especially attractive. But if I had to complete build with monitor, legit windows, peripherals, case, psu etc... ? Noo way for that low of a cost.



> Yes, just that I think, that most removed features weren't exactly essential, so gains are big and loses are minimal.


As a portable device, it's not really anything new(that I know of) other than the titles that will be offered for it, and its multiplayer ability. I think Nintendo is hoping more people have similar thinking, so that they can make more off people who already own the regular Switch as well. I think that's safe to say, when the Lite won't be supporting all functions of games(i.e. needing to buy additional joy cons). To me it's just a cell phone with dedicated hardware controls direct from Nintendo with proprietary software. If there was an ability too, and I think eventually there should be, I'd just run an emulator. Heck, I'd even rather now just run an emulator to play those 'FUN' games of the past.


----------



## Allie Ester (Jul 12, 2019)

i like it. the more variety the better. doesn't mean i'm buying them all tho


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> You doubt the Lite will cost less? Even if it isn't, you'd be paying the premium for the portability. *Shrug*


I don't doubt that, but I doubt that it would be cheaper than Xbox One S, which cots around 200 Euros new. 2DS XL (the cheapest real console) is still 147 Euros. PS1 Classic is 50 Euros. 




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Where I am, the Switch is around $380 msrp, but there are ways to get it heavily discounted, so it's really comparing two different things, considering the form factor and flexibility of the Switch. Mind you, I use an approx 10 year old system, so my need for 'powerful' PC isn't one. Though I suppose if I reused components I could probably get a cpu/mobo/ram for the same price. New Ryzen looking especially attractive. But if I had to complete build with monitor, legit windows, peripherals, case, psu etc... ? Noo way for that low of a cost.


Switch, where I live costs 338 Euros and that's for just console itself without any games. A cheapest Switch game costs 20 Euros. Meanwhile average game costs around 45 Euros and most expensive ones are at 60 Euros. The most limited edition game with extras costs 143 Euros. The problem here is that Switch itself isn't that expensive, but if you want to do anything with it it costs a lot. For comparison cheapest Xbox One games start at 8 Euros, average game costs around 20-25 Euros and there are a lot of them under that price point. The most expensive One game is 68 Euros and the most expensive limited ed game with extras is at 260 Euros. So if potential gamer wants a cheap platform to play on, Switch still doesn't make sense, even at its own MSRP. You will end up spending more on games and that adds up really quickly. And there's no technical reason for Switch games to be so expensive, they are just SD cards with game on it and SD cards today are really dirt cheap. They probably cost much less than BluRay disc and Xbox One games are on those. And Switch can be compared to Xbox One, because it is a hybrid console, Switch Lite is a fork of that, but without stationary capabilities.

Now let's talk about PC. The Switch budget, which is around 340 Euros can get you decent new parts and a computer, which is completely functional. I managed to stay under budget with these parts:
Ryzen 3 1200
cheap Gigabyte B450 motherboard
cheapest 2x4GB DDR4 kit
500GB Toshiba P300 HDD
Sapphire Radeon RX 570 4GB
Thermaltake Litepower 450

Sure, there are no peripherals, monitor or OS here, but the hardware itself is complete. OS problem can be solved with linux. It's not a perfect solution, but hey it can emulate older consoles and run a lot of PC games too. The peripherals problem is kinda solved by similar logic. You see Switch only have joycons and no real gamepad. You can use that adapter, but it's far from legit controller. So if you want to get Switch Pro controller, it will cost you 80 Euros and that totally buys you mouse, keyboard and maybe even monitor. Here we are talking about overall more powerful and capable system and it costs the same as Switch. After this point Switch is even less attractive. Just like in previous comparison PC games are even cheaper. Steam sales exist, piracy exists, physical game sales exist. The library is way more versatile and generally is much more cheaper and better. The Switch just can't compete with that. Even a complete PC in just hardware comparison most likely wins too, but then only Switch level graphics must be acceptable. 

BTW you shouldn't talk about "flexibility" of Switch, PC can do way more things than Switch ever will. Portability, small form factor and hybrid console capabilities sets Switch apart from anything else. 




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> As a portable device, it's not really anything new(that I know of) other than the titles that will be offered for it, and its multiplayer ability. I think Nintendo is hoping more people have similar thinking, so that they can make more off people who already own the regular Switch as well. I think that's safe to say, when the Lite won't be supporting all functions of games(i.e. needing to buy additional joy cons). To me it's just a cell phone with dedicated hardware controls direct from Nintendo with proprietary software. If there was an ability too, and I think eventually there should be, I'd just run an emulator. Heck, I'd even rather now just run an emulator to play those 'FUN' games of the past.


Not a single emulator is as good as a real console. The only decent emulation at this point is only made for SNES and older consoles. If you want anything never, be prepared for innacurate rendering and generally watered down experience. If you want to play console games, just get the console.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I don't doubt that, but I doubt that it would be cheaper than Xbox One S...


Sorry the translation still confuses me, going by what you initially wrote. It seemed as though you were saying you doubted the Switch Lite would be cheaper than, but you're saying it WILL be cheaper? That's how it _should_ be for a portable. But if I wanted to justify it being more expensive, I COULD accept that the premium is FOR the portability.



> Switch, where I live costs 338 Euros and that's for just console itself without any games. A cheapest Switch game costs 20 Euros. Meanwhile average game costs around 45 Euros and most expensive ones are at 60 Euros. The most limited edition game with extras costs 143 Euros. The problem here is that Switch itself isn't that expensive, but if you want to do anything with it it costs a lot. For comparison cheapest Xbox One games start at 8 Euros, average game costs around 20-25 Euros and there are a lot of them under that price point. The most expensive One game is 68 Euros and the most expensive limited ed game with extras is at 260 Euros. So if potential gamer wants a cheap platform to play on, Switch still doesn't make sense, even at its own MSRP. You will end up spending more on games and that adds up really quickly. And there's no technical reason for Switch games to be so expensive, they are just SD cards with game on it and SD cards today are really dirt cheap. They probably cost much less than BluRay disc and Xbox One games are on those. And Switch can be compared to Xbox One, because it is a hybrid console, Switch Lite is a fork of that, but without stationary capabilities.


Any platform you buy into has associated costs. Just like the Switch Lite. You don't HAVE to buy any of the added accessories, only the ones you WANT or NEED for whatever game(s) you HAVE to have. Which is a criticism of the Switch Lite I mentioned(HAVING to still buy standard things that come with the Switch in order to get compatibility). We could even say that digital keys cost too much as they only need one copy to distribute. The expense(for all games) is partly to pay the developer costs, and in the case of cartridges or whatever, it is the fabrication, and hard materials, shipping etc... There is a huge chain that needs to be (re)paid.

Xbox One is a hybrid portable? That is very interesting. I did not know that. But as I said, the Switch is hybrid portable, that does multiplayer on the go... IN PERSON.



> Now let's talk about PC. The Switch budget, which is around 340 Euros can get you decent new parts and a computer, which is completely functional. I managed to stay under budget with these parts:
> Ryzen 3 1200
> cheap Gigabyte B450 motherboard
> cheapest 2x4GB DDR4 kit
> ...


The point of comparing the consoles to computers is pointless. It is already well known that a computer can multitask better, and - generally - perform better for gaming if you sink cost into it. Consoles have the pro, that developers(are supposed to) tweak the code specifically to run on the console hardware, to max the hardware capability at a stable performance; but even then it cannot be compared to what you can self build. Unless the title is console only. 



> Sure, there are no peripherals, monitor or OS here, but the hardware itself is complete. OS problem can be solved with linux. It's not a perfect solution, but hey it can emulate older consoles and run a lot of PC games too. The peripherals problem is kinda solved by similar logic. You see Switch only have joycons and no real gamepad. You can use that adapter, but it's far from legit controller. So if you want to get Switch Pro controller, it will cost you 80 Euros and that totally buys you mouse, keyboard and maybe even monitor. Here we are talking about overall more powerful and capable system and it costs the same as Switch. After this point Switch is even less attractive.


You originally wrote for the price of a Switch, you can build a 'powerful' system. Entry level in my mind is not that. Is it _more_ 'powerful' than a Switch? Sure, I won't argue that. But it _also_ costs more. Don't forget about power consumption either.

The Switch has everything you need out of the box to start using/gaming right away. Leaving out monitor, peripherals, OS etc... might be fine if you already have parts to re-purpose and KNOW how system build, let alone install an OS; but let's not pretend building the PC, setup, install etc.. doesn't take time. Which is money, as they say...



> Just like in previous comparison PC games are even cheaper. Steam sales exist, piracy exists, physical game sales exist. The library is way more versatile and generally is much more cheaper and better. The Switch just can't compete with that. Even a complete PC in just hardware comparison most likely wins too, but then only Switch level graphics must be acceptable.


I don't think anybody argues what a computer can do; and why it is in most cases superior to a dedicated console. Keep in mind I don't own a switch or any current gen console, yet I'm typing with you on a near 10 year old computer. 



> BTW you shouldn't talk about "flexibility" of Switch, PC can do way more things than Switch ever will. Portability, small form factor and hybrid console capabilities sets Switch apart from anything else.


Sigh. Go re read my posts and what and how I compare a Switch to, instead of making arguments up as to why a computer is better. Oh shocker, flexibility of the switch IS exactly what your second sentence states.



> Not a single emulator is as good as a real console. The only decent emulation at this point is only made for SNES and older consoles. If you want anything never, be prepared for innacurate rendering and generally watered down experience.


Yes, it's called an 'emulator'. And yes, SNES is superior so there is no problems there, for me.



> If you want to play console games, just get the console.


I've had and gamed on systems from Atari, NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Dreamcast, Gameboy, PS1, PS2, PS3, etc... I know too well how fun a console is, how limiting they are, how much of a cash cow they are for their parent companies, and how much a of a space taker/dust collector they become.

Can say without a doubt, I'm perfectly happy with my 'powerful' PC.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Any platform you buy into has associated costs. Just like the Switch Lite. You don't HAVE to buy any of the added accessories, only the ones you WANT or NEED for whatever game(s) you HAVE to have. Which is a criticism of the Switch Lite I mentioned(HAVING to still buy standard things that come with the Switch in order to get compatibility). We could even say that digital keys cost too much as they only need one copy to distribute. The expense(for all games) is partly to pay the developer costs, and in the case of cartridges or whatever, it is the fabrication, and hard materials, shipping etc... There is a huge chain that needs to be (re)paid.


Same developers develop Xbox and PS games, yet they still cost significantly less. I see no reason for Nintendo games to be so expensive. I can understand cost increase, when developing for weird platforms like DS or Wii, because their hardware was unconventional and had unusual controllers, but Switch is just ARM tablet. There's nothing really unusual about it. YOu would find mostly the same innards as Switch in Android tablets.



BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Xbox One is a hybrid portable? That is very interesting. I did not know that. But as I said, the Switch is hybrid portable, that does multiplayer on the go... IN PERSON.


Nah, it's not, but if you just want something cheap to play games on, it's a decent choice and Switch isn't. Switch like that is simply losing some potential sales and Lite will not fix that completely.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> The point of comparing the consoles to computers is pointless. It is already well known that a computer can multitask better, and - generally - perform better for gaming if you sink cost into it. Consoles have the pro, that developers(are supposed to) tweak the code specifically to run on the console hardware, to max the hardware capability at a stable performance; but even then it cannot be compared to what you can self build. Unless the title is console only.


And why it can't be. If you want to get something to play games on, PC is a decent choice. It also can be used for much more than gaming too, so you can just "reduce costs" by also making that as your computer upgrade too. 

And now let's talk about optimization. Where it is and what it is? It doesn't exist anymore. If it did, then console version would look different from PC version, but that just doesn't exist anymore. Developers develop game and then make ports for console and PCs. The only difference of console is that graphics settings are already preset to reach some target, like 30 fps at 1080p. PCs have always been more powerful than consoles and they usually are the best gaming machines too. They have power, they support software for a long time, there are no generations, there are the most options, there are the most accessories. PC lets you have everything you want in your games, consoles don't. In last 3 generations of consoles, they only became lower power computers with highly specialized branding, their own ecosystem and lots of limitations. If you are fine with that, great. Console is a good choice for you, but if you want more than that, PC is the only option.

Also, many exclusives have no reason to exist. They likely can be ported to other platforms. Most of the time they are just a great examples of abuse of the rights. Most developers truly have no reason to only work for one company. Very often they are paid to do so. In the past such stuff was justifiable as consoles were weak and often had really different hardware from each other so easy porting wasn't a possibility and developers really had good reasons for not making multiplatform games, but now those reasons don't exist. This technique is mostly used to lock you into specific ecosystem. Therefore is anticompetitive strategy.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> You originally wrote for the price of a Switch, you can build a 'powerful' system. Entry level in my mind is not that. Is it _more_ 'powerful' than a Switch? Sure, I won't argue that. But it _also_ costs more. Don't forget about power consumption either.


Parts I listed are really powerful enough. They let you play games at 1080p at 60 fps and around high-ultra settings. If you want 60 fps at 1440p, then settings would be medium-high. And if you are feeling adventurous, you most likely will reach 60 fps at 4K and low settings, but that's totally not recommended. So computer like that is really powerful and you shouldn't be fooled by its low price point. It's just that such computers performance per dollar is most likely the highest you can get right now. If you want something cheaper, you will save not so much and lose lots of speed and if you want something faster, you will be spending lots more and get not so much more. 

For this computer power consumption shouldn't be very high. Around 200 watts at load. Remember, computer is tweakable and you can undervolt it to make it consume less power if needed. Switch consumes around 20 watts on average and 39 watts max. It's not great for handheld, but much better than computer. Meanwhile 200 watts for computer at high load isn't really much, but yeah that's absolutely beyond Switch.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> The Switch has everything you need out of the box to start using/gaming right away. Leaving out monitor, peripherals, OS etc... might be fine if you already have parts to re-purpose and KNOW how system build, let alone install an OS; but let's not pretend building the PC, setup, install etc.. doesn't take time. Which is money, as they say...


Apparently I don't value my time and don't think, that building PC is hard. It's really easy in this specific case as you don't have to put components into enclosure. You can build such computer is less than 5 minutes, maybe even in less than 2 minutes. I gotta agree on OS installation being lengthy.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I don't think anybody argues what a computer can do; and why it is in most cases superior to a dedicated console. Keep in mind I don't own a switch or any current gen console, yet I'm typing with you on a near 10 year old computer.


I have had several consoles in my life and wasn't exactly attracted to their ecosystems. At least I know what it means to have a console. The last one was X360 and the more I used it, the more I hated that games were in lower than 720p resolution and that most of them ran at locked 30 fps, sometimes even less than 30 (Test Drive Unlimited and Midnight Club LA are good examples of that). I also never truly got used to controller for playing games, it was only fine for adventure and racing games. Now I have dedicated HTPC for all my gaming needs. It runs pretty much everything I want at 1080p ultra settings and 60 fps. No more games have to look like a garbage and be laggy messes. The computer itself didn't cost much either. In fact it is mostly spare part build. I recently finished Yakuza 0 on it.



BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Sigh. Go re read my posts and what and how I compare a Switch to, instead of making arguments up as to why a computer is better. Oh shocker, flexibility of the switch IS exactly what your second sentence states.


It's not flexibility, that makes Switch interesting, it's a locked ecosystem with exclusive experiences. It's not really flexible. In fact it's probably the last true console and not just a PC disguised as console. In other words, the only one worthy to be called console.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Yes, it's called an 'emulator'. And yes, SNES is superior so there is no problems there, for me.


I prefer Sega, so it's fine for me too. With SNES I mostly meant SNES and everything before it has mature emulation.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Can say without a doubt, I'm perfectly happy with my 'powerful' PC.


You keep talking about your PC so much, can you reveal its specifications? I'm just curious what you have. My HTPC specs are:
AMD Athlon X4 845
low end Asrock FM2+ motherboard
2x4GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
120GB SSD
1TB HDD
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
Thermaltake Litepower 450 PSU
Alpenfohn Sella cooler
Ugly DIY chassis 

CPU, motherboard, RAM, SSD and graphics card are all leftovers from other projects or leftovers after upgrades. Even with leftovers' price included, it doesn't cost much, around 400 Euros.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Apparently I don't value my time and don't think, that building PC is hard. It's really easy in this specific case as you don't have to put components into enclosure. You can build such computer is less than 5 minutes, maybe even in less than 2 minutes. I gotta agree on OS installation being lengthy.


Yes, for the most part I pretty much agree with everything you replied with.



> It's not flexibility, that makes Switch interesting, it's a locked ecosystem with exclusive experiences. It's not really flexible. In fact it's probably the last true console and not just a PC disguised as console. In other words, the only one worthy to be called console.


I'd still say that _it is_ flexible considering the other options it was competing with. And how you + 'friends' can use it on the go. But that is a good point about it being a 'real' console.


* *




*Don't quote this spoiler section please, as I'd like to delete it eventually.*

I keep thinking about wanting to buy a newer SSD in order to max out the board's bandwidth, but I think it might be a waste. Like _maybe_ I'll gain 1-3 seconds on startup vs. the 8-10 currently... My os is w10 and it is extremely lean because I don't really have anything installed and have disabled a lot of services, so excuse of needing more space can't really be used.

Overall I find there's too many wants, and not really any justification for them, much like the consoles. When you buy one thing, _Diderot effect_ kicks in and you start to desire more to compliment this or that. Maybe it's in the same vein of how you'd cull a w10 installation but instead, for the operating system that is your life.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> I'd still say that _it is_ flexible considering the other options it was competing with. And how you + 'friends' can use it on the go. But that is a good point about it being a 'real' console.


I think, that Switch is the closest to PS Vita console, which just died out on its own. PS Vita also had its fork to work with TV and it was PS (Vita) TV. It was a massive failure.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



* *





I would have loved to. I have GTX 650 Ti in another computer. If you want a big SSD instead of SSD and HDD, I think it's worth it, even on such hardware (it's obviously not 10 year old). What makes SSDs great isn't sequential writes, but much higher random writes. Hard drives just couldn't pull off great random reads and writes due to it's mechanical nature and therefore stuff inside can only move so fast, until it reaches highly inefficient state. It was ok at the time to increase spinning speed, but 7200 rpm is the optimal speed. SSDs are fully electrical and lots of small files across the whole drive can be accessed pretty much instantly and this is the main reason why SSDs are so superior to hard drives. If sequential speed was so meaningful, we would have 15k or 20k rpm hardrives in raid 0 back in those times. While upgrade would be technically great, it's absolutely not worth it if you already have an SSD for OS and you aren't ready to store your games in SSD too. Especially, when your hard drive is so big and you actually use at least 1/6th of it, SSD upgrade would just be costly and without any meaningful improvements. I actually have a computer running OS from hard drive alone and it's not really slow. The trick here is that it runs Windows 7, which is so much lighter than Windows 10 (well spying malware sure uses lots of resources). That computer also has 4GB of RAM and yet it's absolutely enough for many things, most importantly it's fine for what it was built for (to run older games at high resolutions and high frame rate). I think it boots in less than minute and another computer I have boots everything from SSD and yet it's not exactly fast. The machine with SSDs only also has faster everything and 16GB RAM, but Windows 10 is just brutal to load (it has more useless services, it requires online log in at every start up) (also Windows 10 there is made to be lighter, that means all spying settings are turned off, almost nothing is booted at start up, some useless features are disabled and most preinstalled Microsoft apps uninstalled).

My point here is that the need for faster hardware mostly comes from shitty software (well Windows 10) and even then the need for SSD is highly exaggerated by media. Nowadays I would just forget hard drives altogether as average consumer and gamer doesn't need terabytes of storage and as long as huge storage isn't needed, SSDs make sense financially. Especially on budget builds with very low storage needs, SSDs in many cases are cheaper and faster, therefore eliminating need for hard drive at all.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I think, that Switch is the closest to PS Vita console, which just died out on its own. PS Vita also had its fork to work with TV and it was PS (Vita) TV. It was a massive failure.


Eh... I get what you're saying but I think the Vita is much more like the Switch Lite, only that the Lite will be much better because of it's compatibility with Switch games. The Switch by all accounts is/has been a huge success for Nintendo.



> My point here is that the need for faster hardware mostly comes from shitty software (well Windows 10) and even then the need for SSD is highly exaggerated by media. Nowadays I would just forget hard drives altogether as average consumer and gamer doesn't need terabytes of storage and as long as huge storage isn't needed, SSDs make sense financially. Especially on budget builds with very low storage needs, SSDs in many cases are cheaper and faster, therefore eliminating need for hard drive at all.


Yes, I was thinking about getting a 500gb-1tb(for the increased wear rating and speed advantage) to store OS + Games, now that prices are falling, but I barely fill 60% of the 128gb and I don't really transfer files, so it kind of defeats a lot of the purpose.

Have you heard of no virus thanks system hardener? I used to do a lot of things manually, after painstakingly researching this or that random thing I thought was something serious; but nowadays - aside from x, y, z that I might stumble upon in states of paranoia - I'll instead save a lot of time and just run that.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Eh... I get what you're saying but I think the Vita is much more like the Switch Lite, only that the Lite will be much better because of it's compatibility with Switch games. The Switch by all accounts is/has been a huge success for Nintendo.


If only Vita wasn't discontinued, I think it's still a better handheld than Switch.




BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Have you heard of no virus thanks system hardener? I used to do a lot of things manually, after painstakingly researching this or that random thing I thought was something serious; but nowadays - aside from x, y, z that I might stumble upon in states of paranoia - I'll instead save a lot of time and just run that.


I have never heard of such software and it makes me very skeptical. Windows maintenance, security and privacy shouldn't be an arcane and painful art. For maintenance it's good to use Windows drive clean up, CCleaner, Wise Registry Cleaner (CCleaner and WRC aren't essential for maintenance, but good to have) and in bad cases Bulk Crap Uninstaller. For security free Avast is totally fine, you can use Malwarebytes free when you suspect, that your PC was attacked. For privacy you definitely should use Brave browser or at least some other browser, which is from nonprofit company or is open source, then install HTTPs everywhere extension, uBlock Origin. Brave just comes with everything preloaded, so it's dead simple to set it up. Even such a simple setup will help you to protect your privacy on internet. Oh and search engine should be Duck Duck Go, no more Google.

Now let's talk about what you shouldn't use. For maintenance, you should never touch any Tune Up software, which claims to speed up your computer with some magic. There's no magic in speeding things up. Those tools are often malicious or at least they can change some settings, you don't know and these changes may cause you to have random problems, plus they often leave a lot of residue even after their uninstallation.

For security you should never any unheard antivirus software. If you are thinking about that, it's probably better to just stick with Windows Defender. 

if you want privacy, then Chrome should be ditched. It's notorious for tracking users without their consent and Google was fined for their shitty behaviour. Obviously ancient browsers aren't recommended either, like Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator or Mosaic. Certain browsers shouldn't be used, because they are just badly made, best examples of that are Midori (it's super unstable, when I tested web browsers it was the only web browser, which couldn't load anything, because it had horrible freezing issues and alwasy ahd to be killed), Maxthon (it's almost malware itself and antivirus program identifies it as such, plus it leaves residue in start up items, registry, and other weird places, it's a McAfee of web browsers), Firefox (it's always slow for no reason, feels broken and isn't very stable), Lunascape (multiple engines insides, multiplied capabilities to fail).


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> CCleaner...


I used to think so too, but naaah.



> uBlock Origin.


Yes, this is pretty much all one needs. I'm not afraid of Google search, because I already use Android, Gmail, and the rest of their suite of products. I just take the 2mins to go to settings and disable anything I don't want running; and if they continue to track/harvest my data, it doesn't matter that much since I'm not doing anything illegal.



> Now let's talk about what you shouldn't use. For maintenance, you should never touch any Tune Up software, which claims to speed up your computer with some magic. There's no magic in speeding things up. Those tools are often malicious or at least they can change some settings, you don't know and these changes may cause you to have random problems, plus they often leave a lot of residue even after their uninstallation.


That's funny because ccleaner was reported to install/make changes without users knowing about it.



> Windows Defender.


Yea that's pretty much all you need if you're not randomly clicking on every ad or popup. 



> Firefox (it's always slow for no reason, feels broken and isn't very stable)


I use Firefox and it is fast and very stable. I've read of some people having bad experience with it when they have too many addons; or addons with too many updating lists; or too many tabs open and not enough ram.



> I have never heard of such software and it makes me very skeptical.


Nowadays I tend to more trust software that is completely free, and open source. But with everything, do due diligence and don't just take some random person(s)/article(s) word for it; even if they're supposed to be your 'friend'.


----------

