Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryanlarsen | Hacker News Reader

The wired review is much more negative, if you want a contrasting view: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/review-nintendo-switch/

View on HN

>"At this point, with Nintendo not having commented on or fixeds the issue, I can only go forward assuming the Switch consoles going on sale this Friday will all potentially have this problem, and that Nintendo is about to sell you a $300 game system requiring some kind of fix before it performs its basic functions."

Yikes, that sounds disastrous.

From what I've gathered - the antennae in the Joy-Cons do not get enough power. GameXplain did a video showcasing the issue. The right Joy-Con also has the issue, to a lesser extent.

Nintendo might be able to adjust the gain on the Joy-Con radios, at the expense of battery life. They might have to re-certify with the FCC to do so.

It definitely looks bad, but I've seen a few videos demonstrating the issue and it only really happens if you have the joycon entirely covered by your hands, or behind your back.

This could be a software bug that is fixable with an update, but that seems unlikely considering it affects the left controller more than the right one, which would indicate a hardware design flaw.

I'm not following your train of logic where it isn't that bad if a joycon doesn't work if covered by your hands. For a real product it needs to work in all cases, not if you put your hands a certain way.

Sounds like another big-name product, for which the advice "not if you put your hands a certain way" was touted as a complete disaster.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying it's not a complete disaster.

Well if you weren't sold on waiting for the next release, you should be now. I was super excited about getting one of these, but now I will probably hold out for the Switch "S". At the very minimum, wait to see if the buggy left joy cons are being shipped with this initial batch.

Not all of us can delay playing Zelda in 900p@30fps for that long. I mean, if I don’t get it on Friday, I will be pissed. Also, note that there’s the Pro controller, which is better for playing on the TV anyway, so at least in that case, this is a non-issue.

I thought it was going to be 60fps on the Switch, did that change?

I'm sure you know the Pro controller is 70$ =/

The Xbox One controller is 60. Paying $10 extra for HD Rumble seems like a bargain.

The xbox one/ps4 controllers are packed in, pro controller is not.

That’s because Nintendo decided to include a different kind of controller with the system, and have the “normal” controller be a separate purchase. I think, this was a good decision. My point was that the price point for the Pro controller seems fair.

Maybe some places. They're $40 on Amazon and $48 on Newegg.

Honest question, why not buy it on the Wii U then?

I wrote 900p@30fps for a reason ;) The Wii U version runs at 720p, and the frame rate is a bigger problem (both versions aim for 30fps, but “dips” happen much more often on Wii U, from what I’ve read). In addition to that, loading times are much faster on Switch due to the switch to cartridges.

And if that’s not enough, there’s also the “fact” that many of us want to play other Switch games this year, so why wait?

I'm considering just that, but the Wii U version is 'only' 720p, plus from what I hear it might struggle with performance.

Not everyone has a Wii U either

ArsTechnica is also tending towards negative, with optimistic parts: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/nintendo-switch-revie...

Ars has been against the switch from the beginning. I was actually surprised by the optimistic parts.

I know the author of that is huge Nintendo geek too, so that doesn't bode well for it. Although he does say most of these issues could be ironed out soon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com