Kirgo

@johnvboy
You shouldn't be grateful for free online, as that should be the absolute norm. By your logic pretty much every gaming company aside from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft would be saints, since you can play their games online without having to pay a monthly fee. They all could charge you for that after all.
Thank you EA for letting me play FIFA without having to constantly pay you money for the priviledge of using your infrastructure.
You may now say that it is different, but it really isn't. Both Nintendo and EA have to provide very similar things for us to be able to play their games online.
This is also where your argument falls flat about how PC is a different eco system. The problem being that there is just no relevant difference.
Servers and services are still being provided just the same as they could be provided by Nintendo, just on one side they are free and on the other they are not.
The main difference being that a console manufacturer has total control over their own plattform. No one has that kind of control over the PC.

But this is especially why we should not let these companies do whatever they want. If we just take every price increase like it is normal, then they will just continue to increase prices. Not because they have to, but simply because they know they can get away with that.

This is simply the power the consumer has over the industry. The consumer is, dare I say "entitled", to say 'no' and not buy their product. Letting the company know what they think is also useful in the hopes that it never comes to this.

Furthermore, if we follow your logic through, you would still be grateful even if Nintendo charged 1000$ per year, as long as Sony and Microsoft charge 2000$.

I have no idea why we are talking about this while adressing my previous points though, as this is completely beside the point I was trying to make.
I am not angry at Nintendo, even if I do think that they shouldn't charge for online. The price is low enough for me to still look past that. I pay for Nintendo online right now and I do not have a huge problem doing that.
If Nintendo were to increase the prices right now during the generation I would be angry, as I bought games under the assumption that the online price is what it is. Me having to suddenly pay more or lose access to important parts of said games would be very consumer unfriendly, but they are not doing that, so it is fine.

What I actually have a problem with is how some fans want Nintendo to increase the price (under the condition of getting more features).
For a consumer, that is a very foolish thing to do, especially considering there would be far better option than this.
It is also very selfish as these people do not care about what others think. They basically say "I don't care if everyone has to pay more money, as long as I get what I want".

@johnvboy
Yes, I think the services by Sony and Microsoft are way worse than what Nintendo is offering, at least for someone like me. It's one of the main reasons why I don't have these consoles.
This is why whataboutism like yours doesn't work.

All this stuff costs almost nothing for these companies to implement and we, the consumers, have the power of fighting back against this kind of nonsense.
But instead of doing it, and instead of maybe just not caring so much about the price (I can understand that much, if it's just not your concern), people are actually asking Nintendo to raise the prices. This is just about the worst thing you could possibly do as a consumer. And again, it especially screws over people like me.
I am not angry about Nintendo as much as I am annoyed by the fans here.

But I think it is also telling that you mention Sony and Microsoft in comparison, but ignore the pc, where all of those features are actually free.
I am already a Nintendo and PC gamer, and it could very well happen that I will go PC only if this stuff happens.
It just sucks that I would lose the Nintendo part of my hobby, not even because of corporate greed or anything, but because of some fanboys on the internet.
And no amount of saying "you don't have to buy" changes that. I either pay more money, or loose the games and just because of you guys and no one else. And if this were implemented during a generation, like right now, I would even loose access to a part of the games that I already have and payed money for.
It's a sad world where you are being called "entitled" for being against this kind of stuff.

And let's be clear about something:
I wouldn't say anything if you were to just ask about the features that you want. But people here regularly ask to please make the entire service more expensive so that we can have these features, as if there are no other options.
Make it an option that you don't need to play online. How about that, for example?

If you guys want to get screwed over even more than you already are, great, do what you want.
Don't pull others like me into your garbage though.

@xRidley15x
Under the condition that I do want to play online, yes it is.
I can't play those games online without having to pay.

Sure I can choose not to play online at all, but that would mean loosing something that I have right now.

If people here get away with their wish, I can either pay a ridiculous amount of money, or I loose the ability to play online games.
Call it however you want, but it shouldn't be hard to see why this annoys me. A lot.

@CodyMKW
They literally are forcing me, if I want to play online.
If I want to play online, they force me to pay for tons of features that I don't want.

I wouldn't buy these games again. Makes no sense to me to do so.
On the other hand, why would I be bothered about them releasing something I don't want?

So: I simply don't care.
None of the choices seem to reflect that stance, since I do care about Zelda as a franchise.

@F_Destroyer
Well if the discs are the problem, you could just plug in a suitable drive. Most people here seem to be talking more about at least getting the digital games, in which case discs are irrelevant.
Though, as I have argued before here, I personally believe that owners of the physical versions would be angry about that.

But however we may look at that point, it would still not change that the Switch almost certainly can't emulate Wii U games in the first place.

Emulators have poor performance pretty much by definition.
A PS5 could obviously still run PS2 games of course, the hardware is more then capable enough to do that very very easily.

@alexybubble
So the only thing you actually want to change is essentially being able to use the same names?
Something like the story you can already copy, as long as not everything is called the same, so it is really just names with your argumentation.
You are not really defining anything in your argumentation though, which we would need to press on, since this is one of the big problems. It is not easy.
Mario 64 Star Road is already legal as a modification, it would just not be legal to ship it as its own thing without having to own Mario 64. Is that not sufficient in this case?
How do you define things like "cosmetic" changes? Is AM2R still a cosmetic change, since it is essentially Metroid 2 with better graphics? You would probably say no, but we would need clear definitions and lines that could be used in court. How many lines of code may I copy?

Problem with that of course being able to cause customer confusion. When there are a thousand different "Pokemon" games on the same shelf, then that is not exactly a good situation for customer or original creator. But you can have a different opinion on that, I can see why.

Apart from that, I would argue that you in fact still cherry pick.
Let's get away from entertainment for a change.
Let's take for example Medicine. Companies invest billions into developing a new, let's say cancer treatment.
If another company can just copy that shortly after, then there would be no reason to develop that treatment in the first place, as they would never be able to get their investment back.
There are als no fans here who will say "Yes, I will happily pay 2000$ instead of 20$ because I like that company so much".
And yes, this would 100% happen.

I am a software deleoper in a smaller company myself. We produce business software. We don't sell to people, but to other businesses. We don't have these kinds of fans either.
Every innovation you make could be copied very quickly, so then why even try to innovate? If someone else does it, then just copy it, otherwise don't bother, it is not worth the investment.
And medicine is only one example of many many. You would have to solve these kind of issues in a lot of different businesses.

About the final point:
You are right that it will take time to copy something, but how much time it will take varies a lot. For it to work there, the original producer needs a high chance of recuperating more then their investment. Otherwise there would be no point to the innovation and that would hurt everyone. This happens especially easily, if there are milllions or even billions on the line.
If the only thing you want to not be protected anymore are names though, then this is less of an issue of course.

Also friendly reminder that similar products can already exist within current laws, since you are bringing it up again.

What you could do of course make more important things not something private companies do and if less important things are not worth the investment anymore, then who cares?
In which case we are mostly at communism.
If communism is what you want, then say so, because that is an entirely different basis.

@F_Destroyer
You are focusing waaaay too moch on discs an especially disc sizes. If that was the only issue than worst case would be that you have to plug in another disc drive, not to mention digital games.

What is important here is hardware architecture, so what type of CPU are you using? X86? ARM? Something else? Among other things.
Then there is also different operating systems, though that is more of a solvable problem.
And that is just me listing the simple to explain problems you might have when trying to run a game on a different system.

So no, a PS5 could not natively run PS3 games as they are completely different systems and that is exactly why the concept of an emulator exists. Emulator are there to make exactly this kind of thing possible, using software on a system with different hardware.
Though for an emulator to work you need hardware that is one hell of a lot more powerful than the other hardware you want to emulate.
Which is why I am pretty sure the Switch could never emulate Wii U games.

@sixrings
Apart from the problem that this would cause publicity problems since it would mean Nintendo essentially screwing over physical owners (you know people would interpret it that way).
And even if you solve the Gamepad problem, which isn't impossible.

At the end you would still run into the issue, that the Switch probably just can't run Wii U games.
The hardware architecture is entirely different so you would need full hardware emulation.
To run a game through hardware emulation like that, you need much more powerful hardware than the original.

Is the Switch that much more powerful than a Wii U?
I doubt that it is enough.

3DS games would be possible, but that opens the question about the second screen again.

The Wii was backwards compatible to the Gamecube.
The Wii U was backwards compatible to the Wii.
The handhelds were basically all backwards compatible to the predecessor. The DS even had a second cartridge slot just for that.

The Switch isn't backwards compatible, but I also don't see how that would be possible. There is no way the Switch could emulate Wii U games.
Also some "smaller" problems like possibly needing the Wii U Gamepad, needing the Wii pointer feature (for Wii games), needing a disc drive...

Imo. Nintendo has been pretty decent with backwards compatibility, I just don't see how that would even be possible for the Switch.
It was also possible to play Twilight Princess on Wii U without buying the HD remaster...

@alexybubble
This is a topic I thought a lot about as well, because I generally agree that the current system isn't ideal. I have trouble to come up with a better system that actually works though.

Your argumentation has big flaws as well.
First of all you say direct copies should still be protected, but where do you draw the line on that? You can play BotW with tons of mods and in 4k, could that version be sold without Nintendo? If you say yes, then what if I just change Links model? If you say no, then what if I change more details?
We would need a clear definition here.
And that is already what the current system is doing.
For example, you are bringing up games like Bloodstained. Bloodstained is essentially a Castlevania clone, yet still legal in the current system though.
If copies still aren't allowed, then you don't want to change much, you just want to draw the line somewhere else, which would need to be defined exactly. That is not as easy as it might seem at first btw.

Your whole argument about how people will still support the original work is very flawed, as you basically cherry pick cases where it works.
Generally in gaming it has a bigger chance of working, since people can become fans of some of the work, which are then the customers that will support you.
Good luck with that in many other businesses. Don't just think software either.

You are mentioning megacorps making this impossible, but you don't need to go that far, as even a small team of 10 people already has very big advantages over a developer that works alone for example.

@alexybubble
The flipside of that is that others could easily copy your creation even exactly, and if a big company does it, it would even be of higher quality than your original. You wouldn't be able to make any money like that, no matter how great your idea is.
This also means that many people have no reason to ever produce something to sell in the first place, if they can just be copied and outclassed easily.

Your idea sounds nice on paper, in reality it can easily destroy innovation.

@Sonos
Well, it's not illegal in China, so I guess they don't even see it as stealing.

@Greatluigi
Why would it overheat? It's not like a system just continues to get hotter forever if it stays on.

@Rayquaza2510
I use my OLED TV a lot for watching Podcasts and the like in background throughout the day, which is not much less of an issue than desktops because of all the static images.

0 issues after 5 years of usage...

Modern screens can protect themselves quite well against that sort of thing, which is why it isn't a usual issue on modern devices.
As long as the software does what it is supposed to...

Also the test they are showing here. If they always have it running on the same image like that for all 7000 hours, then they already tortured this Switch more than anyone ever would through normal usage.

@Serpenterror
Which is why they tested it for 7000 hours and continue.
That is already pretty old, especially for a problem like this.

I find it interesting how some people don't even want a new Nintendo console.

I understand not caring too much about graphics, but the Switch is really stretching it at this point imho.

@TheBigK
Tbf. Furukawa is just about the last person I would trust in that aspect.
He will say what he needs to say to sell more products.
"Yeah, the Switch is near the end of its lifecycle" would, if anything, make some people wait for the next console instead of buying a Switch.

And "middle" can also mean a lot of different things to different people.

@wicktus
I think you are essentially talking about a different topic.
An upgraded Switch, or the "powerfull dock" idea are just there for existing games to maybe run at higher resolutions, not to enable new games.

If you want games that have not been possible on the regular Switch, then naturally you wouldn't want a "Switch Pro", but a "Switch 2" so to say.
These would be two different things.

@Abes3 Well, as technology prgoresses, naturally it's possible to produce more powerful machines without making them bigger or more power hungry.

When it comes to the poweful dock idea, I still don't know if this is even possible in a way that makes sense.
I mean that on a purely technical level, I mean you would need a second GPU working together with the first one in the Switch itself.
We do know that just putting two GPUs in a PC is already not efficient (their capabilities aren't just added to each other) and in a PC we actually have a direct and very fast connection through the board. On a Switch, these GPUs would have to be connected through a much much much worse USB port.

I am not saying it's impossible, maybe there is some trick Nintendo could use, maybe in terms of what exactly the GPUs do, to avoid as much communication as possible... But when people at places like IGN casually say stuff like that, I would really like to know how exactly they think that could work.

@NintendoEternity
What annoys me far more is the fact that the same people are apparently happy to pay far larger amount of money for those features.
Let's not kid ourselfs here, none of the online features any of the big three give us should cost anything, aside from maybe the "free" games.

And all three companies know this full well, since they force people to pay just so they can play online.
If the features were actually worth their money, they would just sell it to all the people who want it and not force everyone to pay.

I don't care for any of the features any of the big three give me. I do want to play online though.
Therefore, for me, it is the cheapest who wins (which is PC of course, but of the consoles it is be Nintendo).
Yet look at all these people who want to force someone like me to pay more.

@Max_the_German
If we go by this definition of "actress", it seems irrelevant:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actress

Not that being 'woke' should matter here anyway. the usage of the word is either correct or it is not, regardless of what Twitter says.

@BenAV
I am always unsure about whether the MH games are getting easier or I am just getting better at them.
World + Iceborn weren't a big challenge to me either, not including the later patched in quests like Alatreon and Fatalis.

I do agree with the general problem though. In either way, the games are losing their challenge more and more. Maybe these updates will help, as they did in Iceborn.
Not that I would stop playing future MH games, I am way too addicted for that .

@steventonysmith
I am using Epic Games Store on the side myself.
I even usually defend them, because many people basically hate them to an unreasonable degree imo.
Generally, I like the fact that there are more big options when it comes to stores on PC, Steam was getting a bit to big by itself, for my taste.

But even I wouldn't argue that Epic is better. Not even by a long shot.
All the missing features alone...
And I also don't agree about the UI. I have way more games on Steam, yet I have a better overview of my games than on Epic. The store itself as well. Really don't like the Epic version.

I don't know why I should care about whether the Studio behind it still produces games. Not like there is this much coming from Epic anyway. (Did they even release anything in the last few years? Valve actually did with Half Life Alyx.)

Considering Epic outright refuses to give users some of the major things they want, like proper user reviews, also doesn't scream pro consumer to me. Buying exclusivety rights doesn't either.
Valve on the other hand is regarded as very consumer friendly for good reasons.
For example, you can get your money back on games if you don't like them and tons over tons of useful features that they really didn't have to implement. I mean they even support Joy Cons now, which is what this news is about.
I for example am using my Switch Pro Controller via Steam and I can even use the Gyro and everything without any further software.
Epic doesn't ever seem to give us any nice features like that.

Giving out free games is great, but anyone can see that they are just doing it to win you over, it is not a moral win in my books. Not to mention that Steam sales give you games to such low prices, that they are almost free too.
Nice for us that they do that, but I don't believe for a second that they would do this, if roles were reversed. It also doesn't make up for all the other shortcomings to me.

@steventonysmith
Interesting.
I honestly think you may be the only person on the planet who thinks the Epic store, of all possibilities, beats Steam.
Yes they give out free games and that is about the only positive there is in comparison.
It's almost a meme at this point that no one likes the Epic Store.

@steventonysmith
You mean because they (almost) don't make games anymore? It's a shame, but they easily made the best store in existence.
Great service, great deals all the time, tons of features... I have nothing to complain.

@steventonysmith
Whatever you mean by that.

I also have yet again no idea why the "lazyness" of Valve matters or why it matters that you don't want to give them money.

@steventonysmith
If the difference between Witcher 3 on both systems is not significant to you then fine.
To me it definitly is, the Switch version is way too blurry and lacking details for my taste, but how important that is to you is subjective.
If you don't care then that is great, you could turn down the graphics further and achieve a better framerate, or better battery life. You may subjetively not care about the differences, from a technical standpoint they are there and cost ressource you can use otherwise. With which we are back at square one of my argument.

"Alright have fun with your Steam Deck hope it works out as well as your Vive Pro, Steam Box, Steam Controller. I'll continue to play an actually proven successful system with a fantastic library of games that will never come to PC"
I am not @Mii_duck , but let me tell you my take on that.

First of all, you don't need to be a fan of the Steam Deck, Valve or even just PC gaming to point out faults in your arguments.

Secondly, the Vive Pro isn't made by Valve, though they did help.
Valve has the Valve Index VR headset instead, which seems to be going strong.

Thirdly, the Vive Pro 2 is still available. Vive Pro 1 was only discontinued because of a successor.

Fourthly, even if he has a Vive Pro, a Steam Machine AND a Steam Controller, why would it matter if they are discontinued? All of these devices still work perfectly well, whether they are discontinued or not.

Fifthly, whether the Switch is proven sucessfull is irrelevant again, in comparison. Sure, for consoles it matters since they don't get many games anymore when they are discontinued. A Steam Deck will not have this problem, making success far less important from a consumer perspective.

Sixtly, the Steam Deck also has a fantastic library of games, that will never come to Switch, a far far bigger one even.
Enough money provided, you can even own both, believe it or not. I have a Switch and a PC and therefore both libraries at my fingertips, you can do the same with the Steam Deck instead of a PC. You are saying this as if there necessarily is an either or...
Which games you prefer is subjective of course.
(And yes, I am not going into emulation. I don't need that discussion to make my argument.)
Someone who prefers Nintendo games and only wants to buy one system, then of course that person will buy a Switch. I don't think anyone argues that.

@steventonysmith
Which would again be completely irrelevant.
Let them abandon it, so? Does not seem like they have a lot of reason to do so but fine, who cares?
But again, I don't care if they abandon it and it doesn't even matter much to those who already own one.

As I have just shown, I have countered all of your arguments and you were unable to say anything back without completely changing the topic.
If that is "putting PC players in their place" to you, than I don't even know what to say.
I also never said that the Steam Deck is better than sliced bread. I don't even own one because I am not interested.
I said it has more powerful hardware and can therefore make games look much better than the Switch and that battery consumption should vary a lot depending on the situation. That is all. Putting words in my mouth seems to be the only way you can argue at all though.

Sorry, but you are just making a fool out of yourself at this point.

@steventonysmith
I used Terraria as an example because it happens to be one of my most played games. But ok, just assume I digged deep.

I am not going to entertain your argumentation anymore though, since you still aren't saying anything relevant to any of the topics at hand.
Let's say every single game sells more if you count all consoles together and pitch it against PC. So what? It would still not mean anything to all the topics we had before.

It doesn't mean that the comparison of battery capacity between Steam Deck and Switch OLED is necessarily fair.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a noteable difference of graphics between Deck and Switch that the screen can hardly make up for.

It doesn't mean that people have a problem with the option of changing some settings. There are, even if you only look at active Steam gamers, many more players than on Switch for example, showing that people do not have a problem with that. You also didn't refute that, instead you just confirmed that.

etc.

The discussion about how much games sell on consoles is irrelevant to any of those topics you already burned through, no matter what the truth is.
You are the one digging here. You are digging through several layers of completely different topics to hopefully find one that you can win. Which doesn't even matter to me, since I never said that PC gaming is better or more successful in every way possible.

@steventonysmith
So even if we take that at face value.
How is any of this relevent to the topic?
You said that people don't want to tinker with settings, I presented the fact that there are a lot of pc gamers as a counter. For my argument, it is completely irrelevant what games exactly these people play.

You changed topics several times during this discussion now.
You are saying something, then I am countering it and instead of adressing that, you change topics and completely move the goalposts with it.

Your argument now also is, again, not saying anything. Just because the most played Steam game is old, doesn't mean that newer PC games are not being sold a lot, which wasn't even the topic anyway. My arguments still stand.
You are literally just using logical fallacies at this point.

"I've always said when games that start on PC want to make real money they get ported to consoles."
Again completely besides the topic.
Also, games are generally released multiplattform, unless there are specific reasons not to do so. A Total War game, for example, would not normally be released on a console, because these games wouldn't work very well on consoles.
If you want to sell as much as possible, you need to release on as many platforms as possible and that is what companies usually do.
And just saying that the money always lies mostly on consoles is not so simply true either as it heavily depends on the game.
Some games sell better on console, others sell better on PC. Terraria, a game where sales are kinda known for a change, for example sold much more on PC.

"However games now are coming out on consoles first and eventually they may come to PC."
On the contrary, in the past consoles had a lot of exclusives, now most exclusives are being released on PC.
Those are mostly the games that release later on PC now. Only Nintendo games seem to remain exclusive at this point.
Meaning the PC platform has been getting stronger.

@steventonysmith
Yes, certain games sell more on console than on pc, that hardly proves anything.
Generally speaking console gamers seem to prefer the typical big name titles. Also some console gamers had to double dip because the game was on multiple generations of hardware. Without having checked I could believe that GTA sold more on console. So?
Though it would interest me how you even checked that for sure, considering actual worldwide sales numbers, especially on the PC platform, are kinda hard to get, usually.

Steam alone has around 120 million active monthly users, which already blows the Switch completely out of the water (that should be enough to counter your argument that people don't want a pc platform, because of whatever).
And many big games are not on Steam, like Minecraft and Fortnite, Blizzard games, just to name a few with a high player count.
There are also a lot of people who only have an old machine but just casually like to play, let's say the Sims or something.
But even if you do not count this sort of people, PC will still savely outpace any one console.

And no, a PC is not a luxury for everyone. If you need it for work, it is not a luxury.
And a pc that can be used for work, can also be used for games.

@steventonysmith
You do realize that there are far more PC gamers in total than console gamers, right? Plenty of people also like the OPTION of tinkering with settings. Not that anyone ever needs to do that if he doesn't want to. Not sure why anyone would have a problem with tinking with settings for a minute before sinking hours into a game though.
Also not sure why you care so much?

Nobody cares whether the Steam Deck ends up being more or less successful than the Switch. It is successful enough for Valve, that much is already pretty clear.
It also doesn't matter whether the next Nintendo console has better or worse hardware.
Steam Deck has its own strengths and even if Nintendo releases the Super Switch tomorrow that is just better hardware in every possible way, Steam still has a massive library of games, that is more than enough for a lot of people.
I mean heck, if I cared more about portable gaming, you bet I would buy a Steam Deck. I already have many many games on Steam, and with the Deck I could just access all of that on the go. This alone is a pretty big deal.

@steventonysmith
Ok?
When did I ever argue that Nintendo wouldn't be able to release a better Switch now?

@RCGamer
Well, the Switch Pro Controller is already supported on Steam with motion controls, so I would be surprised if it didn't work with the Joy Cons.

@steventonysmith
Never said that.
I very specifically wrote that the N64 example is a extreme example to make a point about how a better screen can't just make up for everything else.
It is funny though how you again want to make it into a discussion about how powerful the systems are, even though the main topic was a comparison of battery life.

But let me entertain that topic again.
Yes, the difference is significant, even if we just go by those numbers you used this would be a 60% more powerful machine.
Not that a comparison between two machines with very different hardware should ever be made by just looking at the teraflops (even a gpu with less teraflops can literally produce a better result than the "stronger" one, as can be seen looking at benchmarks. It is not even rare.).
What would work better is to actually look at the games. If you do that and don't have problems with your eyeside, you will see that there is quite a big difference between the two systems. At least not one you can just deny by pointing at the OLED screen.
There are comparisons of Witcher 3 between both systems out there for example.

@steventonysmith
There are people saying that the Steam Deck can hit over 9 hours through experience. We are talking Indie games for that of course, but that is what you need to hit that mark on Switch as well.
I also don't find this hard to believe, since any computer (including consoles) can have a several times higher power consumption if the hardware is stressed a lot.

"The newer switch units and the oled are rated for 5-9 hours, meaning a graphically intense game will still net you near 5 hours"
My point is that a graphically intense game on the Switch, is not intense by Steam Deck standards, since the Deck is a much more powerful system. If you run a game that looks like, and has the framerate of, a Switch game, that will not make the Deck go full power, meaning it will not have its maximum power consumption.

"Also it doesn't matter if the Steam Deck can play games at settings when the screen is a cheap 720p screen."
First of all, the Switch OLED also has a 720p screen, so I am not sure why you are bringing the resolution up.
Not to mention that the Switch struggles to even deliver that resolution on some games.
But more importantly, higher graphic settings change the looks of a game in a much different way than a better screen does.
Extreme example: Does an N64 game on an OLED TV look better than a PS5 game on a cheap LCD? Answer: Hell no.

The OLED makes games look better in one way, but through better hardware you get a much better picture in a completely different way. And the differences in capabilities between Switch and Deck are not so small that a different screen can easily make up for it.
If you love OLED so much that you would rather have way worse graphics than miss it, great, but that would be 100% subjective.
In no way is it enough to just generally state that the difference in graphics doesn't matter.
Also, I don't know why we are suddenly talking about this, considering that originally wasn't my argument. I only said that you can improve battery life by lowering the settings if you need. If you say it doesn't matter to you, than great, take the better battery life option at all times for the Deck. It defeats your own argument.

I am saying this as a proud owner of a great OLED TV, who regularly plays Switch games on it and would never want to buy another kind of TV ever again.
I know how great OLED can be, I love OLED.

@steventonysmith
Not sure a battery life comparison like that makes a lot of sense, as it heavily depends on how graphically intensive the games are.
Considering the Steam Deck can run games with much better graphics, it can also probably keep up with the Switch battery life if used with a game with similar graphics settings.
(some people talk about it running over 9 hours in small games, which would be similar to an OLED Switch on the same games. as far as I know).

Furthermore, you can heavily influence the battery life of the Steam Deck yourself by lowering the graphics and/or limiting the framerate. Giving you the option to play for short amount of times with greatness or for longer times with graphical limits (which usually still aren't worse than what the Switch is doing all the time).

Also, about the dock: Steam Deck doesn't even necessarily need one. A cheap USB - HDMI cable is enough.

@NintendoEternity
Not only does the Steam Deck seem to sell very well.
It ultimately wouldn't even be a waste of money if it were to "die off", since, unlike a console, it would still get tons of new games every month, even if Valve does not support it anymore.

Also funny that you argue about comfortability. Generally I would much rather hold something bulkier in my hands than the thin Switch. Not that the Switch doesn't do a fine job, but still, just based on looks, the Steam Deck seems more comfortable to me.

Never thought about it, but actually kind of surprising that it took so long.
Steam does support all modern controllers after all. The Switch Pro Controller, for example, has been supported for ages.

Also potentiatially useful. Think what you want about the Joy Cons, but having more controllers in your house that you can use for multipayer on one system is not a bad thing.

I understand the problem with day one patches and the like, but "laziness" is simply the wrong word. Heck, the word "laziness" is getting used inapropriately most of the time at this point, seems like...

As others have already pointed out, it is because the management on top wants to make more money more quickly. That is also why crunch is a thing.

I honestly don't understand how BotW was "empty" for some people.
I couldn't take two steps without finding 5 points of interest in the distance that I wanted to explore and find some cool stuff along the way.
I NEVER had the feeling of just running around for minutes without doing anything, even if I ran through a place I had already seen, there was always something new.
In fact, I didn't even ride horses all that often because I usually don't need to run that far to reach some kind of destination.
Even if it's just a Korok, there is always something everywhere.

On the contrary, I really dislike the typical modern open world were you just have markers on your map.
I want to explore the game organically, which I find way more immersive. And no, turning off markers, if possible, usually is not a solution, because those worlds tend to be designed around having those. Stuff doesn't look that interesting, so without the markers you will miss way too much.
Many devs seem to have no idea how to make stuff look interesting without slapping a marker on it.

When it comes to Fifa, EA barely cares about PC gamers either.
Last year, PC only got the last gen version and only now PC gets the same as PS5 and Series X. This isn't even unusual for them to do...

The situation on Switch is of course much worse than that.
It seems like EA only really cares about PS/Xbox though.
Perhaps there are the players who pay all that money for Ultimate Team mode. Ultimate Team literally brings EA billions after all, so that might make them prioritise the biggest spenders.

@Franklin
I don't know if it is different on the Switch version, but World Cups are usually just part of the career mode and not so much their own thing.

@Ashunera84
Never understood why some people fear some skin so much. Heck, I only need to go out my house to see women showing of more skin then some can seemingly handle. And I am not exactly living at a beach.

Anyway, for them it's still a nice option. No reason not to have it, I guess.

@Fizza
Though just as much as they play CoD anyway, they will also play Bayonetta without this option anyway.

@rustedtin
If you really only want to play one of the games, i would suggest 5.
Each of the games has it's own strengths, but 5 is probably best to get into, mainly because of QoL and gameplay, which is the strongest point of P5, compared to the other games.

That being said, each of the games has some big basic improvements over its predecessor. That makes it potentially hard to go back, once you played one of the later games.

@SonOfVon
You can boycott something while talking about it every day.
One does not rule out the other.

@TheCrabMan
It's interesting to me how you seem to mix the pure shareholder perspective with the moral argument of him not being proven guilty by court.

These are two completely different perspectives to me.
If I were a shareholder of this company (note: I am shareholder of several companies. Just not this one),
I would be against him, regardless of whether he is actually guilty or not. In any case, him being reelected is massively bad publicity regardless of whether you think that is fair.

You can see everywhere, even including just here in the comments, that people plan on boycotting their games because of him.
Sure, the company will still be successful over all, because games like CoD always sell, no matter who is CEO,
but because of said reasons, sales would likely be higher if he was thrown out.

You need to believe that all the other candidates for the post are so much worse at their job, that Kotick is over all still better for the company even with the reduced sales.

At least from the outside, this seems doubtful.