The Possible Reasons for the Nintendo Switch's Online App

A little while ago, Nintendo announced that the Switch's online functionality would be primarily relegated to a mobile application instead of running entirely on the console itself. Naturally, many eyebrows and pitchforks have been raised in response to this unusual turn of events. With what little information we have, a lot of reasonable questions have come about. Things like "What if I don't have a smartphone?", "Isn't this an unnecessary inconvenience?", and "Why do I have to manage two devices at once?" to name a few.

Right now, with how vague things are, Nintendo’s application seems like an unattractive proposition, but such a controversial and unprecedented decision can't have been made lightly. With this in mind, I believe that trying to look for the advantages of this strange, segmented implementation of online might help us derive the underlying reasons that led to Nintendo seeing sense in it.

Here's my take.

Technical Functionality

A great place to start is assessing the technical side of things: what technical value can be reaped by relegating much of the Switch's online functionality to an external application?

Though we don't know the particulars of the Switch's internals, it isn't a stretch to say that the console is likely built to facilitate software developers getting the most out of its specs as efficiently as possible. Letting an app take up the duty of online matchmaking, voice chat, and parties would probably free up a bit of ram and processing that'd otherwise have been dedicated to ensuring that these secondary features could be accessible at any given time.

I can think of two potential advantages that could come from freeing up these resources: Greater visual quality and an increased battery life.

What if offloading some online functionality to the app let devs do more and gamers play longer?

In either handheld or docked mode, a little probably goes a long way. Minimizing the Switch OS's footprint instead of having it encompass various online functions probably increases the usable resource pool in a way that allows developers to have more happening on screen than would otherwise be possible or, alternatively, a greater deal of performance stability with the same quality and quantity of assets.

There's also the option of avoiding the use of resources in excess, allowing for the Switch to last longer in handheld mode: freeing up ram, easing the processing load, and sending little in the way of wireless data natively could be a great boon for battery life and make online play a bit more viable in handheld mode.

If relevant, these reasons might be pretty substantial in encouraging the decision to host the brunt of online functionality on external hardware.

Lifestyle

Other reasons Nintendo would want to pursue a secondary app for online functionality may not be in terms of the Switch but the brand outright.

Let's face it, even with handheld mode, not everyone is going to be bringing their Switch with them wherever they go. While it is more convenient than a full console has ever been, the Switch isn't pocketable, it doesn't have a very long battery life, and, as far as we know, doesn't support cellular data. These things make the console a little more difficult to see as a something that'll always be on hand to a majority of its userbase.

However, even though the Switch may not end up being one of most people's lifestyle devices of preference, a cellphone definitely will be.

By setting up their principle online infrastructure through mobile devices, Nintendo can keep their ecosystem on the mind outside of play, even if you don't have any of their dedicated hardware with you. Setting up through the phone also offers the opportunity to connect players across platforms, foster growth and expansion of the community overall, and ensure that updates and promotions are easily accessible to everyone who can take advantage of them.

This sort of consideration could be a smart play towards making Nintendo a prominent part of your everyday life, and that would potentially represent massive marketing value to the company moving forward.

Convenience

Interestingly, the advantages of making Lifestyle considerations aren't just promotional, but also an increase in user convenience. Centralizing the online infrastructure to an application could bring together a wealth of features that players may enjoy taking advantage of when they're away from their console, including things like the eShop or customer service access. This is the sort of thing Nintendo could consider pushing in a quality of life context.

Imagine a central hub for all your needs no matter where you fit in the Nintendo ecosystem.

Nintendo could even take things farther when working to this end and use the app to make our lives easier even when we go back to our dedicated hardware. An example of this could be establishing a base Nintendo ID Framework. With permission, the app could then log you on to any Switch, phone, or future handheld without any hassle for the transfer of accounts and software purchases. They could even do something like allow you to log your Nintendo ID onto a friend's console for multiplayer, carrying over data and rewards, and earning their equivalent of achievements.

The possibilities are quite attractive, but only time will tell if these sorts of things are actually on the table for the app. Here's hoping.

Parental App

This is more of an aside to be honest, but the one thing I can't really piece together is Nintendo's Parental Control app.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's a great idea: It can help a parent regulate what, when, and how much a child plays. It can even help folks keep to personal schedules, further adding to it's potential utility.

It also does little that I can imagine requiring it to be a separate application as opposed to being a feature-set of the standard online app.

You might think it'd help prevent children from editing their parents' schedule settings, but I don't think that makes too much sense as it'd all be accessible on a single device anyway. Maybe things would get a bit too cluttered by putting those feature sets together?

I can't be sure, but we'll probably see why things have been done this way as we learn more about both of these applications in the future.

I hope you enjoyed this piece, and I'll see you soon for whatever comes next.

Take care!

The Way I see it: The Future of the 3DS

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

Recently, Nintendo's president, Tatsumi Kimishima, reinforced the idea that the dedicated handheld space is still a valuable market and that the 3DS may yet see a successor.

The response to this idea hasn't been all too positive.

I've been reading a lot of naysaying on Nintendo continuing to support the DS handheld line even before the recent comments, but it seems that some folks aren't just doubtful of the likelihood of this happening: they're outright opposed to it. That's a little odd to me. While everyone has a right to their opinion on where Nintendo should go on this front, I have to say that a number of the reasons put forward in an attempt to justify doubts and detractions haven’t seemed all that solid to me.

Today, I've decided to dig into that matter a little.

An Elaboration

Like I've done in the previous post in this series of opinion pieces, I'll be outlining and answering some of the more prominent doubts on the matter as a means of constructively explaining my view: I don't think that Nintendo necessarily should or will abandon the dedicated handheld space in service of their latest console.

Nintendo's merged their software development divisions to make games for one device, namely the Switch.

Some point to the merger of these divisions about four years back as something that was done explicitly in order to design games for a singular device. There's no proof or indication of this. The excuse we'd gotten was that the move was made to develop “more innovative and attractive products” and to keep up with the various facets of the industry. This could just as easily be seen as a move to increase the fluidity of production, more efficiently transfer resources and personnel between projects as necessary, and/or increase access to the creative pool. There's no reasonable way to point to this merger as a clear excuse for only creating games on the Switch instead of multiple kinds of hardware; Nintendo pursuing the mobile market and intending to support the 3DS into 2018 -five years after the merger- both reinforce the invalidity of this oft parroted assumption for good measure.

There's no point in a new 3DS if the Switch succeeds because it could do everything a dedicated handheld could do.

I sometimes read this idea put out in order to justify why a new handheld is pointless. However, this perspective doesn't consider that, after the Wii U, Nintendo have relegated the concept of dual screen play exclusively to the DS line. This is something that can't be found anywhere else and, coupled with whatever supplementary novelty they pursue in the future, will easily help differentiate the hardware on a core level. Also worth considering, the Switch may be portable in that it can be taken on the go, but it isn't something that can be fit in your pocket or taken around as a pure convenience. Include the fact that the new advancements made for the Switch allow incredible performance for battery consumption, and you have a pretty sure bet that whatever might come after the 3ds could return to DS Lite levels of battery life at 10-15 hours, adding further to the viability of a truly dedicated handheld.

Making other handhelds isn't smart because it would confuse customers.

Nintendo is explicitly, whether or not people like it, marketing the Switch as a home console first and foremost and framing its portable aspect with that in mind. It's also priced well outside the range of successful dedicated handhelds.

By at least a hundred dollars.

In fact, you can even purchase a 2DS for less than a third of the cost of a Switch. This price difference alone already establishes a hard cut with regards to its placement in the market, as many consumers that'd purchase a handheld would immediately disregard the Switch when it runs the cost of a new home console: a fair number of folks don't at all want a home console, meaning that the features that account for this increase of price don't represent notable value to them. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that just leaving this part of the market empty-handed in the future is a waste of potential.

Nintendo said they wouldn't drop the Gameboy line of hardware when they released the DS but actually did, so they're probably going to do the same thing if the Switch succeeds.

When folks look back at this circumstance, it's reasonable to call out what Nintendo said. It's also fair to assume that they would have come back to the Gameboy if the DS failed. This is because both handhelds were being sold to the same functional market and the DS could even play GB games for two revisions. However, with the Switch replacing their dedicated console outright and the 3DS receiving a slower stream of third party software support, why would the logical response to the Switch failing be to lean on the DS line as opposed to developing a new dedicated home console? Alternatively, if the Switch succeeds, why would they throw away the novelty of dual-screen gaming entirely when it still maintains appeal to a fair portion of the market? It doesn't even make the most financial sense to shut off a revenue stream like that and focus on a single piece of hardware unless you're only considering first party games: Nintendo receives a licensing fee for every game sold on their hardware whether or not they've made it. With this in mind, if there's still an audience open to purchasing a dedicated handheld, it pretty immediately seems like a wasted opportunity for everyone involved if they neglect it or treat it like a contingency plan.

Closing

So there you have it.

As you can see, things aren't necessarily as definite or simple as they've been painted to be and, though I don't speak with authority on the matter, I personally don't think that Nintendo will consider abandoning the 3DS line (or dedicated handhelds) if the Switch is successful but might consider it if a successor to the 3DS ends up being a failure instead.

What do you think? Do you have any perspectives you'd like to share on the matter? Things you think I've missed? If so, please feel free to let me know in a comment below.

Thanks for reading and take care!