One More Year....

Today, Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa made an announcement through a post on Twitter regarding Nintendo's plans for the next Fiscal year as follows. "This is Furukawa, President of Nintendo. We will make an announcement about the successor to Nintendo Switch within this fiscal year. It will have been over nine years since we announced the existence of Nintendo Switch back in March 2015. We will be holding a Nintendo Direct this June regarding the Nintendo Switch software lineup for the latter half of 2024, but please be aware that there will be no mention of the Nintendo Switch successor during that presentation. Credit: https://twitter.com/NintendoCoLtd/status/1787736518762881197 What do I think about this?

Even as I type this blog, there are many Nintendo fans that are REJOICING about this news. I've even seen a few tweets with people shouting "we won!" You "won?" What did you win? Another Fiscal year of silence regarding the next console? He did not even promise a RELEASE of the console within the next Fiscal year. He said that Nintendo will make an announcement within the next Fiscal year regarding their next console which ends around March/April of 2025. There is a good chance that the next console may not release until the second-half of 2025. Now, it is fair to point out that they have done a quick turnaround before with a console. In fact, they did it with the Switch. Even though Project 'NX' was officially announced in 2015, the actual Switch "reveal" took place in late October 2016, and the console was released in early March 2017. So, that is about 4 1/2 months from unveiling to release. At the time of this blog post, it is May 7th, 2024. We do not even have a code-name for the console. We don't know what it is. We don't know what it does. We don't know the form-factor. We know nothing...............officially. There have been many "rumors" about Nintendo's next-console regarding the form-factor, the chip-set, the Joy-Con technology, the type of RAM and size of the RAM, etc. No confirmation or denial from Nintendo on any of this. So, he goes on to say that the upcoming June Nintendo Direct will be to showcase games coming to the Switch in the latter-half of 2024, and he made a point to stress that there will be NO MENTION of the Nintendo successor during that presentation. That's pretty smug if you ask me. We all know that the Switch was a runaway success with 141 million units sold and counting, but it ain't that sweet where you can just string people along. Sure, your die-hard fans will accept whatever you feed them, but everyone else will look at this tweet and say, "Wait a minute? We have completed and exceeded a FULL console-cycle from Nintendo, we are basically going into overtime now, and you can't even give us a code-name for the thing??" Those games coming to the Switch later this year had better be pretty darned good, but how good could they realistically be? You don't want to drop power-house titles this late in the game on a console that is on it's 18th hole. You would want to save that for the new device, whenever that happens. Metroid Prime 4, a new Donkey Kong game that has been rumored, another Mario Kart, you can't put those games on the Switch. Even if the rumors are true regarding the new console having full backwards compatibility with the Switch and using a custom form of Ray-tracing as well as DLSS 2.2 upscaling, you would THINK that Nintendo would rather build those games from the ground up on more powerful hardware than to build them on inferior hardware and then upscale them to 4K in docked-mode with Ray-tracing and higher frame-rates. It just doesn't make sense to do it that way. Especially with heavyweight titles like that. Anything new in development in my opinion needs to be going to the new console to make sure that their new console has a deep-pool of games to back it up with no long droughts without games which is (allegedly) the reasoning behind pushing the console release to 2025. I have two questions that I want to propose about Nintendo's "plan" for the next Fiscal year. 1. Is the reasoning for this delay based on the fact that Nintendo Switch is within striking distance of the (OFFICIAL) PS2 record of 155 million consoles sold? Could the Switch sell 15 million units over the next Fiscal year? That's all that it would take. Depending on what games are coming later this year, yes it is possible, but not probable for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Any game that would be a guaranteed system-mover would most likely be on the next console. Now, they could still reach back and hit us with a cluster of GameCube and/or Wii remasters. Super Mario Sunshine remaster? F-Zero GX remaster? Super Smash Bros. Melee remaster? Metroid Prime 2 and 3 remaster? Zelda: Twilight Princess remaster? Maybe even a Super Mario Galaxy remaster?That could be enough. I guess we'll see. 2. Nintendo already has a significant amount of competition in the hybrid-gaming space that have cut into the sales of the Switch. Mostly from people that had no allegiance to Nintendo but were just curious of the hybrid form-factor in-general that upgraded to more powerful and versatile alternatives such as the Steam Deck, Ayaneo 2, ROG Ally, and Lenovo Legion Go. Many of these companies are already working on successors for their hardware. However, there are two key elements in this situation that could pose a MAJOR problem for Nintendo. What happens, if during this time Nintendo expects everyone to be sitting on his hands doing nothing, Microsoft, Sony, or BOTH announce a hybrid-console?..............

Think about that. Think about PS4 and PS5 games on the go. Don't even get me started on the prospect of a hybrid-PC from Microsoft that has a fully-function version of Windows and access to XBOX Game Pass. That would be a SERIOUS problem. So, I hope Nintendo knows what they are doing. I hope that this is a case of them having something more than what the rumors have suggested and are waiting for everyone else to play their cards before they show their hand. I know hardcore Nintendo fans will love whatever Nintendo does. As I mentioned earlier, you literally have Nintendo fans celebrating BAD NEWS. They've got the Kool and The Gang music bumping and everything! For everyone else however, after waiting what will be at the time 8+ years, simply as somewhat more powerful Switch and that's it is NOT gonna get it. I'm sorry, but I feel that is dilapidated thinking at best in my opinion. That is why I will enclose by saying that I think it is confirmed that Nintendo's next console is not just another Switch. There is something else.....

Switch "Attach?"

There was a recent YouTube advertiser survey that was asking the question on which console would you want to buy. Here is a screenshot of that survey.

The 3rd selection here says Switch "Attach." What is that? Is this a mistake? This is too specific to be a typo. Could this be the name of the next Nintendo console? Well, let's examine a few things. It seems strange that with all the secrecy and subterfuge by Nintendo regarding their plans for the next-gen that all of a sudden they would be this sloppy and let the name of the next console be leaked out on some random YouTube advertiser survey. How would they even get that information to begin with? Also, if this survey is asking about unreleased and rumored consoles in addition to ones already on the market, why would PS5 Pro not be on the list? Most people are dismissing this as hogwash and it may be just that, but we like to have fun here playing the "what-if" game, so that's what we are gonna do. Not saying the rumor is true or not, but there are a few things to consider.

First, we have not even gotten a code-name for the console yet which is 100% out of the norm for Nintendo this late in the game. NEVER have they gone this long without any concrete public acknowledgement for at least the direction they are going with their next generation console.

People have just DECIDED to call it "Switch 2" when Nintendo has said nothing of the kind about literally anything. Switch "Attach" could just be a code-name in reference to a major feature of the console. For instance, "NX" in reference to the Switch was a way of saying Nintendo "cross" describing how it would be a "cross" between a portable and home console. Basically saying it was a hybrid without saying it outright. Nintendo "Revolution" was the code-name of the Wii and it was descriptive of the aspect of normalizing motion-control in console gaming, in effect "revolutionizing" the industry as a whole. The "Ultra64" code-name was self explanatory for the N64.

The reason why it's "possible" this could be true is based on a recent patent-filing by Nintendo.

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US424794570&_cid=P10-LTP8P3-14708-1

If you go to the "drawings" section and look at Fig 8 through Fig 19, there are some very interesting pictures there. Here are a couple that stood out to me.

Now, maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe the current Switch could already do this. I don't own one, so I wouldn't know. It does fit the idea of the term Switch "Attach." Regardless on what actually happens, I expect that Nintendo's next-gen console will not just be a more-powerful Switch and that's it. Hybrid-gaming is not a "gimmick" anymore. It IS gaming. However, with so much competition in that field now with the Steam Deck series, Ayaneo series, ROG Ally, Lenovo Legion Go, and many other hybrid devices, even with Nintendo's stellar 1st-party IPs, that alone is not enough to distinguish it from the competition. It also is not Nintendo's MO. They don't do "normal" or "status-quo." Their hardware always has a gimmick, is a gimmick, or is a combination of the two.

Should Batman Kill?

Recently, I been combing over some statements made by director Zack Snyder in regards to his point of view of Batman being allowed to "kill" criminals rather than just incapacitate them until the authorities arrive. One of his quotes are as follows. “People are always like, ‘Batman can’t kill.’ So Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, well, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens,'” Snyder continued. “And they go, ‘Well, don’t put him in a situation where he has to kill someone.’ I’m like, ‘Well, that’s just like you’re protecting your God in a weird way, right? You’re making your God irrelevant.'” Credit - Variety.com Now, there is a lot packed into that statement, but I'll try not to go too far off in a tangent on this because I want to stay focused on the original-question. The crack he made about equating people agreeing what has already been established by the creators of the character as canon with idolatry, to me is a little bit of a red-herring and a lot of Ad-Hominem. We all know that at various points in history, creators that have used the Batman character in numerous publications and forms of entertainment have had some measure of creative license with the character. Batman has killed before. However, it is a huge leap to go from Batman has killed before to saying Batman SHOULD kill from now on. Or, to suggest that Batman is predisposed to kill simply because he often finds himself in situations where that option is available to him, and him not doing so makes him "irrelevant." It's a very obtuse point-of-view to be quite honest. 85 years into Batman's existence, I think Batman not killing hasn't hurt him very much. Just sayin'... The thing that made Batman so elite in the first place and separated him from other comic book characters was the fact that he perfected the science of incapacitating criminals in the most efficient ways possible WITHOUT killing them. It's not hard to kill. Anyone can do that. To me it's like comparing pro-wrestling to real-life fights. In real-life fights, you are in a situation where anything goes. There are no rules, and it can all end abruptly. A REAL fight with a martial-artist is over in less than 10 seconds. You train to be able to end a fight before it begins. It takes tremendous discipline, perseverance, dedication, and hard work to achieve that. In pro-wrestling, you are giving the illusion of real combat between competitors. It also takes tremendous discipline, perseverance, dedication and hard work to achieve that. While the imminent threat of "death" is greatly diminished, it is NOT eliminated and putting on the performance of the illusion of violence is far more dangerous and harmful to the body in the short-term and long-term than the vast majority of real-life fights. It is human nature to make excuses for things that we wished to be true, and I suspect that Zack Snyder WANTS Batman to be a killer, and he is trying to find ways to bring his desires into justification and even trying to make that justification retroactive. Not to say that he is insinuating Batman was always a killer, but that he SHOULD have been. When you look at the dark, cold, and dystopian feel of his films, he certainly resembles that remark. There is a place for that, and I have to admit that I liked the Batman portrayed by Ben Affleck in the Zack Snyder DC movies. Did I like the killing by Batman in the movies? No. Did, it rob me of any enjoyment of the films? No. Does that mean Batman should kill going forward? NO. If he wants to do that with Batman in his movies and he is allowed to do that, I have no problem with it. However, you can miss me with the suggestion that Batman killing does not go against the canon of the character, because it does. Or, suggesting that not wanting to see his character kill is being inflexible. As I stated before and as I close here, Batman NOT killing is a virtue that goes very deep. There are those to fault Batman for not killing and in particular The Joker and have blamed him for all of the people that The Joker has killed afterwards. Batman is not a government official (e.g. CIA, FBI etc.,) a police officer, or a military solider. He is a civilian. Therefore, killing criminals is murder punishable by law. Also, how many times has Batman turned in literally every villain in Gotham to the police only for them to be back out on the streets. If the justice system in Gotham cannot "kill" these criminals, why it is Batman's responsibility to do so? Isn't it the fault of the justice system that these criminal are not executed? Thank about that. Batman not killing is one of the major reasons why Superman and others in the Justice League respect him so much, because they know that he can easily do it with no one ever finding out it was him. Even in that act, he is leaving the door open for redemption for each criminal he apprehends and rehabilitation (if possible) is more useful than execution. Having Batman kill just makes him like every other vigilante and in turn that.......is what truly would make him "irrelevant." Nah, you missed the mark on this one Zack.