Nintendo: 4K market is "too limited"

Andy

Well-Known Member
Cornerstone Member
Sep 11, 2013
14,514
4,619
14,180
Nintendo Isn’t Pursuing the 4K Market Right Now, “It’s Too Limited"

Asked about 4K, Reggie had this to say:

"The Nintendo mission is to reach as many consumers as possible and to have them engage and have fun with our [intellectual property]. That’s what we try and do. So inherently, we go for a more mainstream audience. Inherently, we want our products to be affordable. We want our products to be easy to pick up and experience, low learning curve. We want our IP to shine as we deliver these experiences.

"That’s the way we approach it. And so, what that means is, a sweet spot of $300 for the Nintendo Switch, a platform that has Mario and Zelda and Splatoon. Going against a more limited consumer pool, a higher price point, requiring investments in other ways — 4K TVs, what have you — that is a strategy that for us, candidly, is a bit too limited."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/...4k-esports-reggie-fils-aime-interview-e3-2017

He's got a point. Despite all the marketing attention 4K is getting, and all the talk around 4K content for the new consoles, it really is a very limited market. Only a minority (15 to 20%) of people own 4K TVs. It won't be the industry standard for quite a while. The outlay required to get 4K gaming is pretty steep -- thousands of dollars for the TV, plus $400 to $500 for the console. In return, you get somewhat better game visuals (arguable how big a difference), and it's not going to be consistent 4K for many years. We only recently attained 1080p games with any real consistency, after many years of hype around the "HD revolution."

So it makes sense to me that Nintendo is forgoing the push for 4K for now and instead focusing on 900/1080p. It makes sense in general, and it also makes sense in particular for Nintendo, who appeal to a more casual crowd that is more interested in fun gameplay, less likely to want to spend thousands to have better visuals.

His comments actually make me more inclined to pick up a Switch. The more I read about 4K, the less convinced I am that I need to spend the money on that. I also like what Reggie is saying about their philosophy. "Affordable, mainstream, pick up and play, low learning curve." Sounds good.
 
His comments actually make me more inclined to pick up a Switch. The more I read about 4K, the less convinced I am that I need to spend the money on that. I also like what Reggie is saying about their philosophy. "Affordable, mainstream, pick up and play, low learning curve." Sounds good.

Wrong! Reggie is the devil and can't be trusted. You need that 4K...
 
Totally agree. It's a wait and see for TV. I remember when 3D was a huge thing, but that gimmick faded fast.
 
Well, I don't think it's a gimmick. It's coming. I just think it's going to be a few years before it is really established as the norm. Until then, it makes sense to wait.

I might get a Switch, I'm not sure. I can see spending $300 on that -- something that would give me a whole range of new gaming experiences -- before I'd spend thousands of dollars to upgrade my TV (just so I can play games I would already be able to play on a nice TV).

I like Nintendo's focus on simple, accessible, fun gameplay. In a way, after listening to all the nitpicky talk about resolutions and visual minutae, that statement of Reggie's feels refreshingly on point to me.
 
I think he's just using the small number of 4K TVs in homes as an excuse for releasing an underpowered console again...on top of investing a lot less time and money into making games that would take advantage of better hardware. I'd rather see companies creating reasons to make consumers want to upgrade, not sit around and be content with technology that's been around for nearly a decade. It's not necessary to spend "thousands of dollars" for the TV at all.
 
I think he's just using the small number of 4K TVs in homes as an excuse for releasing an underpowered console again...on top of investing a lot less time and money into making games that would take advantage of better hardware.

I don't think he's making excuses. I think he's expressing Nintendo's business strategy.

I'd rather see companies creating reasons to make consumers want to upgrade, not sit around and be content with technology that's been around for nearly a decade.

I don't think it's Nintendo's job to motivate consumers to upgrade their TVs. They don't benefit from that. Why should they care what kind of TV you have? Sony benefits from you buying new TVs. Nintendo doesn't.

It's not necessary to spend "thousands of dollars" for the TV at all

I've followed several GAF threads where they talk about recommended TVs, and when I look them up, they're always running at least $1500 - $2000, for the sizes I'd be looking at. I'm sure you can get a small TV or one that is not so great for under a thousand, but I wouldn't want to bother with that.
 
I don't think he's making excuses. I think he's expressing Nintendo's business strategy.



I don't think it's Nintendo's job to motivate consumers to upgrade their TVs. They don't benefit from that. Why should they care what kind of TV you have? Sony benefits from you buying new TVs. Nintendo doesn't.



I've followed several GAF threads where they talk about recommended TVs, and when I look them up, they're always running at least $1500 - $2000, for the sizes I'd be looking at. I'm sure you can get a small TV or one that is not so great for under a thousand, but I wouldn't want to bother with that.
Late last year, and this year, is the first year that, I feel, 4k TVs have matured and came in at a reasonable price for you you get. Late last year's models can be had for around a grand now that are great sets. Come this fall, the TVs out now will be around that price. Stating this year, you don't need to spend more than $1250 to get a TV set that will last for a long time. 8K is decades away for home delivery.
 
He's certainly got a point. But I'm still getting a X1X anyway. But I may end up getting a Switch too. On one hand you have good graphics and on the other hand you actually have interesting games.
 
He's certainly got a point. But I'm still getting a X1X anyway. But I may end up getting a Switch too. On one hand you have good graphics and on the other hand you actually have interesting games.
CIAbP7j.jpg
 
I agree the 4K market isn't as big as the 1080p market and less. Luckily, the Xbox and the PS cater to the 4K market and less. Nintendo caters to the 720p market and less. It seems Nintendo is the one who has limited themselves. But what it DOES do for them is give them an entry level price point. Then again, the PS4 Slim and Xbox One S are less than the Switch, have more games than the Switch and can do 720, 900, 1080, HDR and 4K upscale....and costs less than Switch.
 
Nintendo caters to the 720p market and less.

Huh? I thought Switch was 1080p/900p.

Yeah, I checked. Switch goes up to 1080p, docked.

Then again, the PS4 Slim and Xbox One S are less than the Switch, have more games than the Switch and can do 720, 900, 1080, HDR and 4K upscale....and costs less than Switch.

Sure, but the subject is the 4K market, not the 720-1080p market.
 
Yeah, but he's talking about the 4K market.
I know. But why limit yourself (other than the fact it allows them to have entry level pricing) to TV's that are 1080p or less. They should NOT limit themselves and instead support 4K TV's and less.
 
Last edited:
"Huh? I thought Switch was 1080p/900p."

Switch, when not docked, is 720p. When docked, games can be up to 1080p. But we are seeing DOCKED 720p games coming out on the Switch now, such as Rocket League, Minecraft, Rime...
 
Last edited:
Late last year, and this year, is the first year that, I feel, 4k TVs have matured and came in at a reasonable price for you you get. Late last year's models can be had for around a grand now that are great sets. Come this fall, the TVs out now will be around that price. Stating this year, you don't need to spend more than $1250 to get a TV set that will last for a long time. 8K is decades away for home delivery.

Ok, $1250, not $1500. Still a fairly big expenditure, especially if you already have a nice 1080p TV and no other reason to upgrade.
 
I just looked at Best Buy. They have 26 TV's that are 4K that are $250-$500. They have 20 TV's that are 4K that are $500-$1000.

An even more interesting stat:

Best Buy has 158 TV's that are 4K
Best Buy has 65 TV's that are 1080p
 
I know. But why limit yourself (other than the fact it allows them to have entry level pricing) to TV's that are 1080p or less. They should NOT limit themselves and instead support 4K TV's and less.

Well, when you're in charge of Nintendo, maybe they'll change strategy. But for now, he's saying it's not worth it for them to build a console that targets 4K, because the audience is too limited, and because it doesn't fit their business model.

"Huh? I thought Switch was 1080p/900p."

Switch, when not docked, is 720p. When docked, games can be up to 1080p. But we are seeing DOCKED 720p games coming out on the Switch now, such as Rocket League, Minecraft, Rime...

Doesn't mean they are "catering to the 720p and below market," as you said.

Which market do you think is bigger?

  • 720p-4K
  • 720p-1080p

Missing the point. Reread what he said.
 
Ok, $1250, not $1500. Still a fairly big expenditure, especially if you already have a nice 1080p TV and no other reason to upgrade.
gqqzqlf.jpg


But seriously, the jump to 4k is substantial when HDR is included. AT 4k, it's nice over 1080p, but adding in HDR, it becomes a wow moment. Chances are you'll need a receiver upgrade as well.
 
I just looked at Best Buy. They have 26 TV's that are 4K that are $250-$500. They have 20 TV's that are 4K that are $500-$1000.

An even more interesting stat:

Best Buy has 158 TV's that are 4K
Best Buy has 65 TV's that are 1080p

Neat. I saw a 4K TV in Walmart yesterday for $300. I'm sure it's great.

I'm not going to buy some mediocre TV. I spent about $1700 on my 1080p Sammy a few years ago, and it's a great TV, I get a lot of compliments on it. If I upgrade to 4K, it's going to be a good 4K TV, not something middle of the road, and it'll be 65." I'd like to give it a couple years for the technology to improve and stabilize more, because I still feel it's in the growing phase, not quite mature yet.
 
gqqzqlf.jpg


But seriously, the jump to 4k is substantial when HDR is included. AT 4k, it's nice over 1080p, but adding in HDR, it becomes a wow moment. Chances are you'll need a receiver upgrade as well.

Anyone here bought a 4K TV and not been particularly impressed? I hear lots of those stories on GAF.
 
Well, when you're in charge of Nintendo, maybe they'll change strategy. But for now, he's saying it's not worth it for them to build a console that targets 4K, because the audience is too limited, and because it doesn't fit their business model.



Doesn't mean they are "catering to the 720p and below market," as you said.



Missing the point. Reread what he said.
I didn't miss the point. I actually acknowledged his point. He wants entry level pricing to cater to a wider audience. If he put in hardware to support 4K, then the price point would increase, thus potentially less sales. I know WHAT he is saying. He doesn't want the 1080p and less consumers to pay for a 4K experience for the smaller 4K population out there.

But he IS limiting himself to a market of TV's that are 1080p and less and skipping out on the 4K zealots. For me personally, I will be getting a Switch once we get a Donkey Kong. I am fine with it being less than 4K, because I am not a graphics pig.

If I was in charge of Nintendo, I would make the princess in Mario games modeled after Bee Olson.
 
Neat. I saw a 4K TV in Walmart yesterday for $300. I'm sure it's great.

I'm not going to buy some mediocre TV. I spent about $1700 on my 1080p Sammy a few years ago, and it's a great TV, I get a lot of compliments on it. If I upgrade to 4K, it's going to be a good 4K TV, not something middle of the road, and it'll be 65." I'd like to give it a couple years for the technology to improve and stabilize more, because I still feel it's in the growing phase, not quite mature yet.
Well of course. I bought a 70" 4K HDR and paid a couple grand. I like my toys!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy
Anyone here bought a 4K TV and not been particularly impressed? I hear lots of those stories on GAF.
Only people I know that aren't particularly impressed are the ones when they didn't view content with HDR. Nobody I know that actually purchased one. I was the same. I wasn't particularly impressed with 4k. Once I saw HDR, yeah, different story.
 
Ok, $1250, not $1500. Still a fairly big expenditure, especially if you already have a nice 1080p TV and no other reason to upgrade.

I thought I read before that you bought a Pro...
 
Only people I know that aren't particularly impressed are the ones when they didn't view content with HDR. Nobody I know that actually purchased one. I was the same. I wasn't particularly impressed with 4k. Once I saw HDR, yeah, different story.

I've read a lot of posts on GAF from people who've gotten a 4K TV and who say they see a difference but it's not as big a deal as they were expecting. Some say they don't see any difference at all, but most seem to say they see a difference, but it's not a huge game-changer. (Granted, I've seen lots of posts from people with new 4K TVs who are gushing about how much they love them.) It's hard to know who has HDR and who doesn't; they often don't say. I've also read several articles talking about the marginal benefits of 4K vs. 1080p, along with repeated references to the fact that HDR is more impactful than 4K.

I'll go back to what Reggie said, though -- it's a limited market, because upgrading to 4K is an expensive proposition: you buy a console (400-500), buy a new TV (1250-2000), maybe buy a new receiver (400?). That's two thousand dollars or more. A lot of people don't care that much about having the latest, greatest, newest, and best tech. I know we have a bunch of hardcore gamers here with lots of disposable income who think nothing of spending that kind of money to get the best toys, but I think we lose sight of the fact that we are not normal.
 
I've read a lot of posts on GAF from people who've gotten a 4K TV and who say they see a difference but it's not as big a deal as they were expecting. Some say they don't see any difference at all, but most seem to say they see a difference, but it's not a huge game-changer. (Granted, I've seen lots of posts from people with new 4K TVs who are gushing about how much they love them.) It's hard to know who has HDR and who doesn't; they often don't say. And as you know, HDR comes in different flavors, so even if they have HDR, it's not clear whether they have the right kind of HDR. I've also read several articles talking about the marginal benefits of 4K vs. 1080p, along with repeated references to the fact that HDR is more impactful than 4K.

I'll go back to what Reggie said, though -- it's a limited market, because upgrading to 4K is an expensive proposition: you buy a console (400-500), buy a new TV (1250-2000), maybe buy a new receiver (400?). That's two thousand dollars or more. A lot of people don't care that much about having the latest, greatest, newest, and best tech. I know we have a bunch of hardcore gamers here with lots of disposable income who think nothing of spending that kind of money to get the best toys, but I think we lose sight of the fact that we are not normal.
See gaf is part of the problem here. It's a gaming forum. Now spend time at avsforums and the amount of people that enjoy the difference is lopsided to the majority.