Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@rallydefault I agree that Smash needs to be soon. Nintendo's still using the Wii U branding a lot because the Switch doesn't have a Smash game. Once Smash is on Switch (either a port or a new game), the only things you'll hear Wii U related from Nintendo is the announcement of ports coming to Switch and even then Nintendo will treat them like new games (like they have done for Tropical Freeze).

On another note, my biggest concern about the paid online service is how you pay for it. I'm of course hoping for prepaid cards like XBL/PS+, really don't want some nonsense like the early PS3 and 3DS eras where the only way to buy something was having a debit/credit card attached to your account.

@Octane,

2020?! Naaah, won't happen!

@Alber-san Yeah I've heard that before and wanted to try it but can't find my can of compressed air. Might have used it all up for all I know.

I've found that a good can of C02 is almost mandatory for moving electronics.

Have a new setup in my house with my 1990's TV, Switch, N64, and Sega Genesis all hooked up now. It's a miracle it doesn't look like a mess.

http://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-seems-to-be-publishing...

Whew, it seems Nintendo are being SE's publishers for tons of games. Octopath then this... kind of surprised since TWEWY was quite a hit isn't it?

@darkfenrir I’m not. Nintendo publishing it means they foot the bill on cartridges. The more Nintendo pony’s up the more square will give them.

People said Nintendo wint moneyhat games.

With the exception of Bethesda, because the boxes say one thing and websites say another, it seems Nintendo is coughing up dough for a lot of thirdparty support from Square and probably Bandai and Ubisoft too.

@YummyHappyPills I would like to see Nintendo cough up some of that dough to get some bigger exclusive games aside from JRPGs. But that isn't going to happen aside from Bayonetta.

Nintendo paying 3rd parties seems to be more the "this game won't exist at all otherwise" type than the "paying to prevent the competition from getting this game" approach that Sony uses a lot. Like look at Bayonetta 2, that game wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for Nintendo.

@Grumblevolcano ''uses a lot'', like when? It's a stupid conspiracy theory.

@Octane Nintendo's coverage of tournaments.

@Grumblevolcano No, I meant the idea that Sony is specifically paying for a game not to appear on another system. That's silly, and it only fuels the stupid console wars.

@Octane This is not that silly.
When I bought Switch in the morning on launch day I passed in front of a Gamestop (I bought Switch in a different shop but there's a GS along the way) and there was just for that day a REALLY crazy discount on PS4. I don't exactly remember how much it was but I have never seen a discount like it on PS4 after or before.

@LuckyLand I just checked the price of the PS4 early last year, and it was €279 at its lowest in March, it was actually €275 in February and €249 in May. Whatever that sale was, it was not a worldwide sale. Probably a retail specific sale (in this case Gamestop), and I can't find anything about a PS4 price drop either. And to be fair, the people that are picking up a new console day one, are often the core fans, they're not the kind of people that walk into a store with the idea of buying one console, and walking out with another.

Plus the Switch was pretty much sold out at launch, so even if they dropped the price of the PS4, I doubt it would've had much effect either way

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an observation and fact very few would actually deny. Both MS and Sony moneyhat the living flip out of games. Be it the full game forever (Street Fighter V), timed exclusives (Crash Bandicoot probably falls in this camp, we'll know if it gets announced for X1 or Switch later), exclusive DLC (Destiny), games with "PS4 exclusive" plastered on the box (Yakuza Kiwami, KoF XIV- which how could they advertise that unless they specifically paid to ensure it's true for a specified time), etc. The ease of porting between PS4 and X1 means practically any game that doesn't come to both... money was quite possibly involved (collab projects like Bloodborne and Cuphead excluded, obviously).

And it's why a lot of people (including myself) have grown to resent them (both Sony and MS) over the years. Thankfully, I am able to draw a line between not liking a particular company and not liking their products. I'm no fan of Sony (not really a fan of MS either, heck I'm not even really a fan of Nintendo the company, but rather their dev teams and games and hardware). Paying to fund new games we wouldn't otherwise have gotten... totally support that. But both these companies have veered off into "paying funds for games already being created to keep it from releasing on one or more rival platforms", be it indefinitely, or for a time. The fact they do it so openly for exclusive content and timed DLC makes me wonder how anyone could truthfully believe they draw the line there out of a sense of moral obligation.

Of course, MS started all this BS in the first place (Titanfall and Rise of the Tomb Raider come to mind, although MS was doing this long before the 8th gen started), and Sony, in truth, likely decided to respond by fighting fire with fire. But now that Pandora's box has been opened there's no shutting it. That all said, it's not a life or death thing. An aggravation, yes. But it is what it is. It's less of a problem when you own multiple consoles.

9th Impact are bringing Danger Mouse: The Danger Games to Nintendo Switch, it'is a racing game that's currently available on iOS and Android.

The Danger Games Trailer

PLAY as the world’s greatest secret agent Danger Mouse or even Penfold, Colonel K, Baron Greenback, Jeopardy Mouse and more…

PICK your race deck carefully from over 20 pieces of Tech including Shrinkatizer, Freeze Ray, Carrot Rocket and the Danger Car.

RACE through streets crammed with menacing creatures, insuperable obstacles and serendipitously located pieces of Tech to pick up.

BATTLE real players from all over the world– shrink them with a Shrinkatizer, stun them with a Carrot Rocket, throw Milk Bombs at them or cover the track behind you in Jam – that should put them in a sticky position!

PANIC as you have to complete mini-game challenges as fast as you can during the race.

WIN the race by having the best deck, the best race strategy and the best tactical race performance.

COLLECT more character and tech cards each time you race.

SWAP cards with your friends to build the ultimate race deck.

BUILD your Star Power by upgrading and gifting cards to unlock new Race Arenas.

BE THE BOSS of your own Dream Team of other contestants and get rewards based on how they perform.

BECOME FAMOUS by winning trophies and claiming your place on the superstar leaderboards.

A new kind of race battle you can play with one hand.
– Swipe to Move/ Slide/ Jump
– Tap to Shoot
– Hold for Speed Boost

@JaxonH Paying for exclusivity is something different though. That's as old as gaming itself. However, I don't think that means that every game that is exclusive had to be paid for either. The Switch has a couple of exclusive games, and apart from Bayonetta 3, I don't think Nintendo paid for any of them. Heck, something like Crash may as well have not existed if Sony didn't pay for it in the first place. I think they have some kind of deal with Activision. Sony wanted another Crash, Activision wanted money, and it's quite possible that Crash gets ported to other consoles if it fails to meet a certain amount of sales, despite Sony paying for it in the first place. And apart from a few games like Cuphead, No Man's Sky and SFV, I don't think it happens as often as some are suggesting.

Anyway, this wasn't about paying for exclusivity, this was about paying companies to keep certain games off the other consoles. Sony isn't paying Capcom to keep MHW off the Switch, nor have they paid Square to keep Nier: Automata off the Xbox One. So yes, the notion that this is a tactic that ''Sony uses a lot'' is foolish, and there's no reason to believe it's true.

@Octane

I never claimed all exclusives are paid for. Obviously that's not the case. But that's not an adequate defense to say they don't do it.

You can't say with definitive proof whether Sony did or didn't pay Capcom to keep MH World off Switch. I can't say with definitive proof whether they did either. But I do know what I see with other games and I do know that rumors have come out about it that have (let's be honest here) proved true in every other respect, so it's quite possible. It's quite possible Capcom took the deal figuring Nintendo wouldn't have a proper platform anyways, so it's a low risk payoff. Of course we now know that would've been completely wrong and that Nintendo does in fact have a viable platform, and we've heard rumors of the scrambling once they realized that fact for themselves.

Again, I don't know if they paid to keep Nier off Xbox One, but I know I see a dozen other games that by all rights have no reason not to release on Xbox One. You can't say definitively whether they did or didn't, and neither can I. But we can look at all the evidence as a whole and come to a evidence-based conclusion. At the end of the day, it's not about those two games- it really doesn't matter whether they did or didn't with regard to those specific titles. There are so many other examples out there it's not even necessary. They do money hat and that's not even up for debate. Maybe it wasn't those two games, maybe it was one and not the other, maybe it was both. It's certainly not every exclusive game, we know that just from common sense. But we also know their hands are by no means clean.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Jeez that Danger Mouse game looks awful!

@JaxonH All I know is that it is not a viable strategy. And if they were doing it to the degree some suggest they are doing, they would've been bankrupt by now.