ElkinFencer10

Definitely should have been a pack-in, but I don't think it really matters. People won't buy a Switch 2 for Welcome Tour (people did buy a Wii specifically for Wii Sports), so they wouldn't have profited, per se, from making it a pack-in, and most people probably wouldn't play it for more than five or ten minutes if it were. Most people won't buy it, but they'll have at least some miniscule revenue coming in from selling it separate. So yeah, it definitely should have been a pack-in, but I don't think it's as big a missed opportunity as having 1-2 Switch be a pack-in was.

That's SO cool

@Jeronan All launch lineups are a "Your mileage may vary" situation depending on an individual gamer's preferences, but Switch was a great one for me.

1-2-Switch, Fast RMX, I Am Setsuna, Snipperclips, and Breath of the Wild remain among my favorite games on the system. Five games on day one that I still adore playing eight years later? Yeah, for me, that's a stellar lineup.

Probably unpopular opinion here, but I think Wii U takes the cake. A handful of its exceptionally good launch titles were ports, sure, they were ports of REALLY GOOD games. Switch and Switch 2 are a very close tie for #2 in my book. But really, only N64, GBC, Virtual Boy, and 3DS had bad launch lineups imo.

I'll be getting the NSO GCN controller because I'm a foolish man who makes foolish decisions with his small income, but I'm glad that I'll be able to use my adapter for multiplayer games (heck yes, Soul Calibur 2)

1. When will we in America get to preorder?
2. Why haven't you brought Wind Waker HD and Twilight Princess HD to Switch/2?
3. Is there a chance of getting Namco to port Soul Calibur 2 HD to Switch 2 since we can play the Gamecube verison on it?
4. When is Mother 3 coming to NSO in English?
5. Why do you hate F-Zero?

Ew 480p? What is this, 2004?

@Ramouz lol not wanting to take a loss with rising manufacturing costs, inflation, and tariffs is greedy? No, that's just business. The only prices in what you listed that is, in my opinion, debatably excessive is Welcome Tour, and that's debatable. $400 to $500 is what pretty much everyone expected for the console, and tacking on an extra $50 for a game that sells for $80 separately is hardly a ripoff. $70 - $80 is standard for a new controller, and while I could see $90, I think $80 is far more likely. Extra Joycons? There's a lot of tech in a small package there, so $80 for a new pair is fair since that's essentially a controller. As for $60 for the camera, that might be a bit high, but given that we don't have specs for the camera, we really don't have enough information to make that determination yet. Yeah, DK is $70 like most AAA games on every platform. $10 to $15 upgrade packs? Hardly unreasonable, and while not as nice as Xbox's Smart Delivery free upgrades, Sony's PS5 has done the same thing for five years.

I'm really not seeing the outrage aside from entitled gamers who think they have some bizarre inalienable right to having Nintendo consoles, games, and accessories stay cheap forever. Everything gets more expensive over time, and that's especially true when your last console refresh was eight years ago.

I really don't mind Friend Codes. It's obnoxious to type in, but at least I don't have to worry about finding which variation of the same username is my friend's like I often have to on Steam.

I know the $10 price tag on Welcome Tour is controversial, but I'm personally looking forward to it. I definitely think it should have been preinstalled on every system, but $10 isn't a huge amount, and it looks like a really neat even if not groundbreaking experience.

What I expect is Switch 2 to launch at $500 or maybe even $550 instead of $450 and then see a price drop when the president comes to his senses and realizes that these tariffs are a horribly ill-advised idea.

It's a little higher than I wanted, but I can swallow that.

I was expecting $10 or $15, but it's nice to see the lower end of my expectations confirmed. I'm still expecting $15 for the ones that add new content, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're $20. And I'd be okay with that; if they add enough content on top of the performance boost, it could easily be worth $20.

Looks like there's a little more antialiasing or post processing in the Switch 2 version vs PS4, but otherwise, they look pretty identical. Although the PS5 version of this game doesn't exactly wow me visually compared to PS4.

Native 1080p will always look better than the original upscaled, and they made some major QoL improvements with WWHD especially with the Triforce hunt at the end. This is definitely the version we need.

Okay, so this isn't ideal, and I'm definitely not happy about it, but it's not a scam or false advertising or anything ridiculous like that as I've seen people say online. Nintendo never said "The Switch 2 version will come with a Switch 2 cartridge that contains the full Switch 2 version of the game." If you inferred that, that's on you. Beyond that, though, it's hardly the worst thing we've seen. The Resident Evil 4/5/6 collection on Switch only gave you one game actually on the cartridge; 67% of your physical purchase was a download. Let's not pretend this is some unprecedented affront to our sensibilities.

The pricing is definitely not ideal. The current global economy isn't ideal, though. At the end of the day, things cost what they cost, and Nintendo is not your friend; they exist to make a profit, bottom line. Our hobby is a luxury, and unfortunately, economic realities are going to force gamers to make unhappy choices.

That's pricey for an amiibo, but inflation and tariffs made that inevitable.

@Ryu_Niiyama Same dude, I'm stoked. I remember seeing Resistance: Fall of Man on my friend's PS3 the day it came out and thinking "Holy crap, this looks incredible," and it looked like it was just PS2 game rendered in 720p instead of 480i. Fast forward to The Last of Us, and it didn't even look like the same system. With how good Switch 2 games seem to look now, imagine what the 2030s will bring.

@Ryu_Niiyama Same. I've got a PS5 and a Series X, but the Switch was always my favorite just for what they managed to do with a handheld. I'm stoked to see what Switch 2 is capable of for a $450 handheld.

@Gamer83 Then buy it on Switch 1 for $60 (maybe $70)

I played Cyberpunk on Xbox One at launch and on Series X when that version was released. I was horrifically disappointed with the former and utterly blissful with the latter. Regardless of how high or low the resolution is or how high or low the frame rate is, the fact that we're getting this port on Switch 2 at all is amazing in my book. I'll definitely be double dipping on this one.

I'd rather have a port of Wii U's Wind Waker HD than an emulation of the original game, but it's a heck of a lot better than no Wind Waker on Switch 2 at all.

@Spider-Kev It was supposed to, but that's not how the world economy works anymore. Protective tariffs went the way of the dodo decades ago for good reason; globalization makes products cheaper when countries specialize. Autarky is horrifically inefficient, and economies seek efficiency.

I think he looks great.

@Medic_alert I wish it were a little more novel, too, but improving a proven success is the smart move here. I do, however, hate the name. Even Super Switch would have been better. That said, given the absolute debacle that the "Wii U" name caused (other reasons for the system's failure aside), I understand wanting to make it ABSOLUTELY UNMISTAKEABLE that this is a successor system, not just a different model of the same system or some similarly absurd misunderstanding.

I'm stoked. 4K is an amazing option and one that I honestly didn't expect - I expected native 1080p for all games, maybe 1440p - but the solid 60 fps and occasional 120 fps is really what has my hyped. Generations since 2006 aren't like generations in the 90s. The improvements are always relatively incremental and usually not truly evident until a year or two into the system's lifespan when developers have had a chance to really learn the new system's architecture and capabilities.

I'm finna drop like $800 on games alone on launch day T.T

For a Switch game that's been enhanced for Switch 2, this looks fantastic. I can't wait to see what Nintendo's games made specifically for Switch 2 are going to look like because they always look better than remasters or upgraded ports.

@Jawz32U No one is holding a gun to your head and making you buy it. If you're worried about privacy, just...don't buy the camera?

As I probably won't use the camera often anyway, I'd happily take a modest resolution drop for this. For comparable resolution, I'd happily pay 20 quid above the price of Nintendo's camera. This is just cool.

Gamers need to learn the basic economic principle of inflation; $60 in 2017 = $80 in 2025. $70 games are actually cheaper than the Switch's $60 launch games, and $80 games actually cost the same (wealth, not dollars). The games aren't more expensive; the dollar is less valuable. That's not Nintendo's fault, and it's not their responsibility to eat the loss. And that's just pure inflation over the past eight years. That doesn't even begin to address the hit to profit margins that tariffs the United States's new tariffs will bring if companies don't raise prices. You don't have to like the prices - I certainly don't - but you can't logically claim that they're just being greedy or unreasonable. They're making a completely logical business decision that is backed by math and rationality.

That's what I expected and a completely reasonable price. Would I prefer a free upgrade like Series X provides? Absolutely. But this is reasonable and right on par with Sony's PS4 to PS5 upgrade costs.

I'm not a fan of the big banner at the top of the Switch 2 cases, but at least they're different instead of the Xbox Series X cases being literally identical to Xbox One cases except for saying "Series X" instead of "Xbox One."

I don't understand how people on here are so up in arms about this. I simply do not understand. This is super cheap, and regarding game prices, people should learn the basic economic principle of inflation; $60 in 2017 = $80 in 2025. $70 games are actually cheaper than the Switch's $60 launch games, and $80 games actually cost the same (wealth, not dollars). The games aren't more expensive; the dollar is less valuable. That's not Nintendo's fault, and it's not their responsibility to eat the loss.

@Flynnsworth I expected a higher price. Most of the world - especially the West - has faced relatively drastic inflation since the Switch launched eight years ago. They also try to keep relatively parity in console prices across regions, and our president here in America is implementing numerous tariffs which will either drive up the cost of the console or drive down the profit margin (which is usually negative at launch anyway) of the console here which may translate into a higher-than-otherwise price across the pond.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm excited about the price. I'm just not surprised given the technical and economic circumstances of the day.

Definitely not outstanding. While Nintendo's website had some of these details, the direct made no mention of MSRP for the console, no mention of MSRP for the games that are launching in two months, no mention of MSRP for the pro controller or camera, no mention of when preorders will open, no mention of how much those digital upgrade packs will cost. The presentation itself was quite exciting in my opinion, but there were a lot of frankly very critical details that weren't mentioned at all.

@gabrigoes On the one hand, I know you're right. On the other hand, I'm a PokeManiac and impatient as heck lmao

@Orpheus79V I'm hoping, but I never count on anything physical at all from Microsoft.

I take this to mean that Gen X is still a ways off.

I wonder if it will require the game card to be in the Switch to play it?

This sucks, but if the alternative is digital-only, then it's better than nothing in my opinion. At least there's SOMETHING to put on my shelf as a collectable even if it's just an empty shell. Still, though, that's scummy af and defeats the purpose of physical media.

@Orpheus79V I can't put a Steam download in a Switch case to add to my Switch shelf.

They should release each game separately for $30 or $40. That's a price point gamers would swallow - especially those who are only interested in some of the games - and would almost certainly make them more money than a complete collection at $70.

Y'all had me in the first half

@Audiogore0733 I wanted to say Wolfenstein II in the poll if it hadn't been restricted to Nintendo-published games.

@PikminMarioKirby I imagine these "Switch 2 editions" would be either a free upgrade like Xbox does or a $10 upgrade like Playstation does rather than a full blown $70 re-release.

lol I've had it for three weeks #LRG

I understand his reasoning as it wasn't the original version, but I strongly disagree with him. I haven't played the HD remaster yet, but between PS2 and Wii, I found Wii to be a much more natural feeling experience.

Jesus Christ, they already ruined the look by replacing the proper character with a stupid angry looking brown bird, and now they've delayed it more than a Zelda game. wtf guys