Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

By my logic, Game Pass = scam.
I will not support that business practice.

@FragRed I thought it started when Nintendo gave up on the "most powerful console" battle so pretty much a case of people wanting Nintendo games on a console that isn't weak for its time?

Though in the end what they don't realize is that power is a double edged sword. Switch is the only current system to have a consistent 1st party lineup even through COVID. Xbox can't seem to have a decent 1st party lineup without resorting to an acquisition power grab, PS has been having Wii U esque game droughts at times meanwhile Nintendo always seems to have a good quality 1st party game incoming within a month or two of the last one.

@Grumblevolcano
It's not even about that, it's about the value offered by a hybrid handheld, which for many is more than worth the tradeoff in power.

For those who don't share those values, it may seem perplexing why anyone would prefer playing on a less powerful system with less impressive visuals and performance. But for those who do share those values, the answer is obvious. The freedom to play games however, wherever and whenever provides more entertainment value than the graphics do.

Once Switch 2 releases, that graphical disparity will shrink quite a bit though.

I upgraded to the OLED a month ago, and I noticed today, that the home screen Sort Games by Most Played feature doesn't relect total hours played, it appears to sort the games by how much they've been played on the OLED.

The hours logged on my user page are still correct, that time tally is still accurate.

@FragRed I never get that "the cost of them all is equal to the old price' argument for streaming services. Like, yeah, of course it is, but with streaming services I can pick 1 or 2 to subscribe to at a time, then switch the next month. There's no reason to have them all at once. And if you do, well, nothing has changed. So it's still better all around.

@FragRed
Yea, definitely. I'm not a subscription guy when it comes to the TV stuff. Someone who has Netflix, Disney+ bundle or Amazon, and one other (HBO, Paramount, Discovery, whatever) is already at the price of a mid-tier cable package where I live. I guess it just comes down to what you want to watch, which I suppose translates pretty well to gaming or anything, really. But yea, you can juggle them every month to try and keep your costs down, but I'd bet for most people it comes out to a wash more often than not.

I just don't like those subscriptions. You don't actually own anything, you need an internet connection to watch anything (for most of them), and for some like Netflix, movies and shows can and are taken away at some points. Prices are always increasing, too. And I know it doesn't apply to most people, but it's possible to JUST have a cable connection (or even an antenna) and not pay for internet. With the sub stuff, you HAVE to pay for internet and then the subs. Probably not a boon for majority of people, but it may apply to some folks who really don't need a highspeed internet connection in their home and can use their phone's data or even set up a hotspot using their phone's plan.

I think it goes to the idea of ownership changing in general, though. For entertainment like games, movies, and music, consumers have voted with their wallets that they don't mind not actually owning the content.

@link3710
Indeed.

Cable TV was like $50/mo. Netflix started at around $8/mo. Everyone switched.

Nowadays, full 4k Netflix package is $20, and many also have Amazon Prime and Disney+. The total cost per month is probably close to $35 now for all 3, but we're getting way more content for our money, and without all the commercials, and tons of original content. So in the end, even if we end up paying the same, we're getting many multiples of value more than we were previously.

@rallydefault It’s worse for us in the U.K. We get very little of what you get in the U.S but pay the equivalent price, for Netflix at least. With Disney+ it’s actually got all of 20th Century part of it, because Hulu doesn’t exist over here.

@JaxonH Woah, $50 a month? Most packages around me were around $120-200 a month before I quit. I usually still only spend like... max $20 a month (I don't bother with 4k streaming, just basic packages).

Admittedly, actually having competition (since... well... there was only one provider in our area) has definitely made them drop their prices.

Just use a VPN which you can get for free. It will change your address to show you're in America and you can use the same login to access them. I've done it before for both for Netflix and Disney+.

@link3710
I pay between 100-120 bucks to Comcast for a mid-tier cable package, phone, and mid-tier internet. I get something like 150ish channels including the ESPN channels (which seems to be one of the big cut-offs between package levels). And the internet is plenty fast. I've never noticed it, really. I don't even have the phone line hooked up, but it's part of the package. And this is after the 2-year promotional price.

I figure it's a good value. If I wanted Amazon, Netflix, and Disney, that would be 50 bucks with taxes and stuff included. Then add a decent internet speed at around 50-70 bucks with taxes and fees, you're talking the same kind of money. It's really down to what shows I want. I watch mostly live sports, so most of the streaming services offer me very little.

@link3710
Well, they'd bundle it with landline and internet, but the cable portion was $50-60 when I canceled it.

I figure if I have a 4K OLED TV, I'd like to enjoy 4K content on it, so I opted for the 4K tier, which also helps due to quality degradation via streaming. 1080p when streaming appears sub-1080p, and while 4K streaming isn't as good as UltraHD BluRay, it's at least on par with 1080p BluRay, maybe better.

I did drop Disney+ though after watching 2 seasons of The Mandalorian. It felt like paying for EA Play. They just don't have enough content to justify the price.

Amazon Prime though is a must. I was getting the student offer for half price for like 4 years but they just upped my price back to $120/yr. I love the fast, free shipping as I'm constantly ordering small price items. The Video service is just a bonus.

Honestly I think the vast majority of people that have Prime have it for the shipping, not for Prime Video.

Most mainstream anime seems to be available for Hulu and HBO Max, so Funimation/Crunchyroll aren't really necessary unless you're watching something more niche.

Disney+ I don't even pay extra for - it was included as a bonus as part of my phone plan with Verizon

Yeah, I have Crunchyroll atm just to watch Digimon Ghost Game (so good), I'll end that when I catch up and probably jump back to Netflix or something.

...back on the topic of Switch, is there any news on the new Digimon game actually coming out this year?

Yeah, once upon a time you paid like a tenner or whatever for Netflix and that got you the same amount of content that is now like 200 quid a month across 15 individual streaming platforms. Everyone wanting their piece of the pie, partitioning the content into smaller and smaller slices at ever increasing prices.

I think the difference though is generally gaming is a much more expensive hobby than watching TV, even if you have an outdated TV package, you probably still pay less per month for that than you do videogames (unless you only buy like one indie title a month or something). So to me, as it stands right now, if you have Gamepass for the entire year and play three brand new day one releases that year on Gamepass you've already saved money, anything you play in between is a bonus.

But if Sony have a Gamepass and then a Nintendo have a Gamepass then maybe things will become different conversations. But to be fair like EA and Ubisoft and others have had their own subscription services and I don't feel they cause as much disruption as some of the video streaming platforms do. Especially as Gamepass seem to just absorb those smaller ones into their library at no extra cost.

And there is the whole conversation about game ownership, but I feel like with the move to digital storefronts and less of a focus on physical titles, I don't know if physical editions will ever fully go away completely, but I think the traditional concept of "ownership" has already changed and will continue to do so.

To me game ownership in the sense that these people argue just isn't that important to me, anyway. Outside of like live service games/looter/ARPG sorts of games which promote repeated dips, I tend to finish games and never touch then again unless they are truly special. Before COVID I used to effectively just rent all my games, by just constantly trading in a game when I was finished for something else, effectively spending no money.

To me the value is paying as little as I can for a title, rather than having say a physical copy gathering dust in the corner, that is why Gamepass feels like such a good answer for me. Digital gaming can sometimes be more expensive than physical and in some ways gives you less "ownership" making it all feel like a bit of con, really but Gamepass gives me all the convenience of a digital library with a much lower cost. However, that is just me and how I game, I know others are different.

That is why, for my needs, Nintendo can kinda suck for me. Digital Switch games are like crazy expensive, first party stuff rarely goes on sale and even if it does, it is by a tiny amount. It isn't like say PC gaming where you can get deep discounts usually pretty soon afterwards. Some may see that as a good thing, but to me I can spend as much in a year on PC games as I can do in like a month on Switch. I'd love for a Switch Gamepass to play all of those extortionate first parties, but I think Nintendo would lose too much money. Those prices are as high as they are because Nintendo gives you no choice, you pay them or don't play them.

I just find most of these services are not for me. I had HBO Max for a little over a year, and while part of it is that my interest in watching a movie (or watching nearly anything for more than an hour and a half in a row outside of an actual movie theater) has been difficult nowadays for me, I could have watched more stuff. Or watched movies in multiple sessions (which I've done before). But I just didn't. The only one I have now is Netflix, and my brother pays for that one.

And there's just more to a lot of games, just in terms of time spent with them. So a gaming service is largely not for me. (which is why I plan on actively playing a lot more N64 and Genesis games in the near future, than I would have if they were simply bought separately)

Game Pass will likely get a price increase at some point after the Activision acquisition has been finalized. If we look at the day 1 Game Pass 1st party releases over Game Pass' lifespan so far (note that PC Game Pass was introduced in June 2019 so anything released before then will have been console only):

2018

• Sea of Thieves
• State of Decay 2
• Forza Horizon 4

2019

• Crackdown 3
• Gears 5
• Halo Reach (MCC)
• Age of Empires II Definitive Edition [PC only]

2020

• Wasteland Remastered
• Ori and the Will of the Wisps
• Bleeding Edge
• Minecraft Dungeons
• The Bard's Tale Remastered and Resnarkled
• Grounded
• Battletoads
• Tell Me Why
• Wasteland 3
• Gears Tactics
• Gears 5 Hivebusters (DLC expansion got added to Game Pass day 1)
• Age of Empires III Definitive Edition [PC only]
• Flight Simulator [PC only]
• Halo CE, 2, 3, ODST and 4 (MCC) [PC]

2021

• Flight Simulator [console]
• Psychonauts 2
• Forza Horizon 5
• Halo Infinite
• Age of Empires IV [PC only]

I think the current Game Pass pricing meshes with the fact either not many 1st party titles come to Game Pass in a year or in the case of 2020 they are a lot of cheaper priced titles (Gears Tactics and Flight Sim PC were the only full price games that year).

I already see Gamepass going in the wrong direction, to be honest, with it making up for a lack of day one first party with these 3rd party deals where they get mediocre/bad titles from other companies day one instead. If they do the Netflix thing of increasing the price and bloating the platform with filler content, I won't be happy. I think Gamepass could increase the price and the value proposition is there, I just think a properly curated collection of great games, is better than a massive platform of mostly filler like modern Netflix is.

That is sorta why a Switch Gamepass would be both great for the consumer and probably bad for Nintendo. Such a strong first party line up they could offer us via a subscription, but why would they when they get away with selling them at the prices they do?

I think gamepass also works for MS in part because they have been in the business for a shorter period of time. Most of the companies they have made agreements with are likely still in business or they are being bought by MS and MS can also afford to bleed any costs while the ecosystem is built and then do a price creep.

Nintendo has been churning out games for what 4 decades now? A lot of studios have gone under and licenses are in limbo or mothballed and look at NSO how people complain about what games are on the service...aside from first party games any type of Nintendo pass would be more of the same. Plus the work needed for wrapping the roms for emulation has a cost. Before someone pulls the "but free emulators do what Nintendon't!", they also don't have a budget or project timelines. And they got their start reverse engineering the games and systems they emulate with usually no thought or concern to hardware throughput. A game that was only licensed by Nintendo can't be reverse engineered legally. Opensource/pirates can do lots of things because they have free time (which costs money), a limitless resource pool (coders can drop in and out willy nilly...bad from an organization perspective but still something HR has to hire and train for...which costs money), and technically a limitless budget (not saying that these people have the best machines on the planet but if someone wanted to splash out...there is no budget or equipment requisition red tape to go through.)

And right now GPU is at a cheap price...one that even if all Nintendo could do was dump what was in VC (all versions) on to the switch I would be concerned about the ROI for such a thing. Nintendo games sell, at full price, years later... (a great deal of GPU is current games) so that would cut into profits especially if they offer a GPU style discount. Also MS pays devs upfront to be featured on Game Pass, something that I would think would make shareholders nervous (the idea of that makes me nervous) when devs don't really promise dedicated support or it tapers off quickly after initial agreements to Nintendo. MS doesn't have to worry about being snubbed on anything multiplat (and with PC being a MS wheelhouse and sony putting games on PC...they really don't have to worry). Nintendo likes to cultivate devs by giving them projects, but outright acquisitions aren't their thing (with good reason as given their business model it would not be fiscally sound), and considering how they lease out projects rather than getting a ton of custom made games I can't see how going acquisition crazy will help them as they won't acquire a bevy of IP (which is more important than the staff).

Who need Gamepass if I can get the games in physical?