I was interested in buying one, as I game primarily on the go and something smaller would've been nice, and I would've been able to leave the other Switch docked at home for the family to enjoy, but alas, Nintendo made that impossible, as someone can only have ONE main system that can play games without being connected.
Let's say I make my Lite my "main" Switch (so I can play offline), then all my downloaded games would be unplayable at home on the other Switch UNLESS if using my profile, and UNLESS I'm not playing on the Lite while connected. My kids, my wife, no one would be able to play the games I purchased with their own profiles (and saves).
I mean, Nintendo obviously doesn't want my money.
Nice for those not having a Switch already and preferring a portable unit, but apparently, Nintendo haven't figured out families of gamers yet....
The problem is that a lot of these old games sometimes get released at a price that doesn't make any sense for what they are. I understand the whole issue about licencing and certifications, and rights to whatever, if any, need to be renegotiated. But seriously, asking about 2/3 of a AAA production (that cost tons and tons more money to make) is stupid.
Sometimes these releases make sense when they're bundled up in a collection with extra features and functionalities (The Sega Genesis/Megadrive collection, the MegaMan collections, etc...) with a price to match. At $40, the Sega one was worth it given how many games it has. The MegaMan ones, when on sale (it's capcom after all), are also worth it. So these CAN be done right. I can also mention the RARE Replay I bought on the Xbox One. Tons of value in there.
But then again, at the other end of the spectrum, you can also get a Street Fighter collection for like $50, or old Resident Evil remakes for almost full retail price. Which is insulting.
I think the tricky part is with old games that were too niche to warrant a release on their own. You'd probably have to bundle them up with other games, but then again, you're also multiplying all those licensing problems as well... So yeah.... not much hope for those titles....
According to someone who worked on The OA, it seems Netflix is more concerned with shows that have the potential of drawing in more subscribers, hence shows being cancelled after one or two seasons, despite them being good or not, if Netflix feels the show is unable to draw additionnal people to the service anymore.
Personnaly, I find this business strategy terrible. Because you know where that leads? People being fed up and eventually moving elsewhere when they get the chance. Since Disney+ was released, Netflix lost over a million subscribers. Apparently, people stop caring when you continually cancel good shows. Who knew, right?
Right now, I always get hesitant before starting any new series on Netflix because I don't want to invest many hours into something that won't ever get any closure because of the inevitable cancelation.
Now this is what I call a sleek console. Highly unpractical one, because it won't fit under my television, and I'm not about to put my console on the floor in front of it, so I'm not going to buy one, but it is nonetheless a sleek, minimalist design.
Now, the PS5... THAT is fugly. Looks like what an 80s teenager would think a console of "the future" should look like. Logos, buttons, lights, ridiculous curves, and so on... It's also the type of thing that would make me feel I have a freaking toy under the TV, not a piece of high-tech electronics...
That new Xbox does look the part though. Just sad that the format is just highly unpractical to so many people out there.... I mean, didn't anyone at Microsoft think about the space most people have to put their pieces of entertainment equipment in? Like, you know, the standard places in TV furniture where most STANDARD AV equipment goes in?
Even the YouTube app for the Switch is useless. I mean, using it for looking at game-related hints and stuff while playing a game would've been nice, but the app can't run while a game is running in the background, so yeah... useless (for me at least).
I mean, I don't see anyone who would pick up their Switch for playing YouTube vids instead of their phone, tablet, or going to a PC. The only reason (I can think of) that would be truly usefull would be to look at something while in the middle of a game session to avoid having to rely on a second device for that. But no, doesn't work.
Spotify would be nice if working while playing games, but I'm sure it won't. So useless. Like YouTube.
I was actually looking forward to this, but one island only per system is killing a good chunk of my interest, as we ALL love Animal Crossing in our house (my wife and both my kids love the series).
And I'm not to buy a Switch system for everyone just so each can have their own island. This is ridiculous. Such a family-friendly game that turns out to be one that would generate a lot of conflicts... I mean... come on. We all know kids... One day one will cut all trees just to piss off his sister, or vice-versa...
I love the series... but I may have to sadly pass on this one... too much family conflicts potential here....
"I get it. If the newest game in a series doesn't sell well, that tells the company/studio that people aren't interested in the IP anymore..."
That's not true at all. Well, I get that's what might be understood by stupid business people that only understands stats and the bottom line on some spreadsheet, but if people don't buy the new game in a beloved IP, it often only means that the game is BAD or NOT UP TO EXPECTATIONS, not that people aren't interested in the IP anymore.
I mean, if you put out a not-so-good game in a series, would you say people aren't buying it because they lost interest in the franchise? I think it's much more probable they didn't buy it because it was not-so-good to begin with, no?
The way SEGA is handling this reeks of incompetence. Even from a business standpoint. Not working on games that would probably sell more than the current one (I mean come on, a compilation of both games from the Gamecube era would sell like hotcakes) is just stupid. It is literraly asking people to buy something they don't want in the hope of maybe getting what they want in the future.
Show support for something you don't want if you want us making what you want. I don't know who the marketing VP at Sega is, or who takes such decisions, but I surely wouldn't want any of these people in my business if I had one.
I agree with most saying that it looks horrible. Looks awfully dated.
If you want something that feels like an arena shooter with tons of ennemies to shoot at, I suggest looking for Immortal Redneck, which does actually look good, plays tight, and is tons of fun (especially since it mixes in some roguelike elements). No multiplayer though.
But this Demon Pit game looks like something you'd expect out of a cheap mobile game given away for free because it tried to sell at $1.99 and no one bought it.
Bought the first Telltale Batman for under $5, which is in my mind the really true Black-Friday-Level bargain I've bought.
I also bought the re-release of Puzzle Quest for $10 (played this to death on the PSP years ago), and Gris, for $10 as well. Both were fair deals, but not exceptional ones (as in, deals you might come across sometime during the year in some sale or another).
In the week leading to Black Friday, I also bought Yooka Laylee for about $15, which is a title I waited for a decent sale to purchase on Switch (was always pricier there than anywhere else, even in previous sales), and Asterix and Obelix XXL 2 also for about $15, which, while a nice repackage of an old game, deeply miss a 2-player mode....
VR is awesome.... like a roller-coaster ride or going to an anmusement park. Those are all fun activities (unless you have motion sickness), but would you do that every day? Some may say yes. The majority would say no.
If you play game as an escape from reality, VR is awesome and you might be inclined to play more of it.
If you simply play games to relax, or to be entertained, then VR is still cool, but it's not something you'd be driven to play every day. It's like, a cool experience, a special one, like going to an amusement park. Or the theatre to watch a movie on the big screen.
I love VR. But then again, I only play VR here and there from time to time. I'm not going out of my way to play in VR. I much prefer sitting on a sofa, controller (or Switch) in hand, and just play a game.
I still might buy an Occulus Quest though. Because VR is still cool. Just not something I consider the same as regular gaming. When I want to play games, I usually just want to relax. Not "live an experience". But to each their own.
LOL at Skyrim being 50% off and STILL be double the price of what I paid for it YEARS ago. Oh well, seems I still won't be playing this anytime soon on my Switch!
Same for DOOM. Like, it's regularly around $15-$25 everywhere else. Asking $40 for it (and that is being 50% off!!!) is really laughable. Oh well.
There are many other games on sale right now than those listed up here. And some true deals among those too. I'm thinking of buying those two Batman Telltale games for less than $5 each, among many other games on sale...
@dougphisig Especially the games in which we were able to create our own characters. I never was a big player of wrestling games, but I played WWF Attitude to hell back then.... I mean, I still miss character creators like these in games... We were litterally able to create wrestling versions of Ronald McDonald, The Hulk, KFC Colonel Sanders, and so many more... this was hilarious... especially with friends and when alcohol was involved.
I'm not the one who'll talk about homophobia here. Although I think that, more often than not, it's not as much an "agenda" as it's just taking creative freedom with a character to somehow add more "diversity" to the whole thing, just in an extremely awkward manner.
It all depends on context too. If the intent of a show is clearly to do a reinterpretation of existing characters, well, then that's fine by me. But if a show more or less tries to insert itself into some sort of cannon, it should be extra careful with changing some aspects of those characters.
What I hate most, isn't having gay characters in a show. Frankly, I don't care about the sexual orientation of characters. What I hate, is when shows are using their sexual orientation as some sort of plot device. For instance, one thing that turned me off of Star Trek Discovery (one among many), is how in one early episode, the "big reveal" of the episode was that one character was gay. The show was litterally using homosexuality as a "surprise" element, and thus by doing so, made homosexuality something worth highlighting, as if it was something "special", you know? It felt artificially forced in the scenario for no reason. Like being gay still has some "shock" value!!! OMG! He's GAY! That CHANGES EVERYTHING! No. Doesn't change a thing. Sorry. He's gay. So what? Being gay isn't something weird or anormal.
And while that was happenning, you have another show called The Orville, in which you have a crew member being part of an "all-male" species, and its relation with its mate is treated like it's a completely normal thing (the comedy aspect comes more from their cultural difference than other things). But I never felt that this show was disrespectful towards homosexuality. On the contrary. While on ST:D, their attempt to integrate homosexuality felt so awkward that it ended having the opposite effect on me. Using it a a plot device makes it exactly what it shouldn't be: something special, not something normal.
It's all about context and how it's integrated in a story.
Personnaly, I like when shows take a political stance. Be it in line or not with my own beliefs. Being challenged in your own beliefs is a GOOD thing. That's what make us evolve. And frankly, most things are political to some extent anyways. Problem is, I hate when shows or movies are forcing things because it often ends up having the opposite effect. But when done properly, I feel it often elevates it above the ranks of simple brainless popcorn chomper.
I don't see Nintendo dropping their prices anytime soon. Nintendo is Nintendo. I understand the idea of pricing games according to cost of development, but at some point, it becomes hard for people to justify paying almost $100 for a single game.
Personnaly, I only pay that amount for games I know I'll end up playing to death for many, many, many hours. Breath of the Wild is one of those. Recently, the Witcher III is another one of these. But as much fun some of those games are, I can't justify spending that much money on games that'll only raise my stack of played games after being played for a couple of hours only.
I still haven't bought Mario Odyssey (and unless Nintendo move it into a "classics" line, I'll probably never will). I was tempted to buy Luigi's Mansion 3, but.... $100... geez.... And let's not talk about all these other games on the Switch still selling for full price and available elsewhere for less than $20...
The Switch is the most expensive current platform to game on.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Switch. But man.... those games are costly. It's probably one of the first generation of consoles on which I'll end up skipping games altoghether. Usually, on other platforms, I often wait a bit for prices to drop slightly, but they don't on Switch (for 1st party games at least), so it means some games I want I may never end up playing.
I'm aware of the costs of development for a game. But cost of development doesn't equal value for the customer. A game could've cost 10 millions to make. If I can get through it in 4 hours, with no replayability in sight, it's not worth paying $100 for it, really.
Well, I may try it (although no offline mode limits its apeal a lot as I do most of my gaming on the go, in the train ride everyday).
Sure, "Get Skyrim instead". Which is still $80 (near $100 if you add sales tax) over here. For such an old game I already bought for less than $15 on PC... hmmm.... Nope. lol!
But aside from that... I find it ironic that the team at Bethesda found that having your hands over the screen to play a game is not ideal... which is the whole point of why many find gaming on mobiles (other than casual stuff) to be not worth their time.
I think it all depends on how you look at things (and this is very personnal). Everyone has stuff that they love, and stuff that annoys them. And for most people, things are pretty simple, things need to have advantages that outweights the stuff that annoys them.
What complicates the situation is that something that might annoy somehow might be irrelevant for someone else.
In my case, the future of gaming seems to have a lot more negative aspects than positive ones. But that's me. Not having control over what I can and can't play (my game library) is a big one to me. Not having any guarantee whatsoever that a game I paid for will be playable for as long as I want is another. Games being yanked out of services while I was still playing them. Connection reliability is also a big factor, especially if you have kids that use the internet for everything (especially now that we've cut cable).
Sure, online everything and streamable everything is sure great for its convenience aspect. But it's not for a multitude of other reasons. I admit, many may not care about these reasons and that is probably why these have so much success. But the truth is that it's harder nowadays to find the movies and series you want to watch (unless you only care about mainstream stuff), and to find the music you want to listen to (again, unless you care mostly for top 40 hits).
But hey! All these services have algorithms that will suggest you new things to try that are indeed good recommendations about 10% of the time (in my case at least).
I may sound like I'm complaining a lot like an old man yelling at clouds, but I can't help by looking at where we came from and where we're going, to feel a bit depressed and worried. Oh, how I would like to have your optimism. I truly do. But everywhere I look, I see greatness for corporate greed, not for the consumer. I see greatness for corporations wanting control over what we're allowed to play, listen and watch, not for us.
Cool game, but this whole "ony code in the case" crap needs to cease. This is because companies want shelf visibility, but without having to offer the actual product on the shelf.
Now, about those discussions regarding the Switch not being worth it anymore once the PS5 or next Xbox comes out... Can I play the PS5 or next Xbox on the go? No? Well I rest my case then.
Anyone who buys the Switch thinking this is a console that competes with even the current PS4 or Xbox One is just delusionnal. I don't think many people actually put all of these in the same league. I don't know of anyone who'd be hesitant between a PS4 or a Switch. They're completely different animals. Most of the selling points of the Switch are hardware features not available on other platforms. Sure, the big Nintendo franchises like Zelda and Mario play a role as well, but let's leave the graphic tarts to the other platforms. Because if someone cares THAT MUCH about graphic performance, why in hell would that person buy a Switch in the first place? These persons are not part of the target market.
@Pod Well, in the short term, it sure won't disappear. And I'm pretty sure there will always be a form of indie game industrie who'll still provide people with games in the form of locally executable programs. Exactly like most truly creative music and movies nowadays still exist, but they rarely get any screentime in theatres, and they are often labelled as "too niche" for streaming services to pick them up. You need to go out and find these on your own. But they still exist.... Like these, gaming will continue to be made by passionate individuals who will sell their games to us for running on our own hardware.
But I'm speaking more about the big guys of the game industry. All those AAA productions most gamers are excited about and end up buying. Those are the things I can assume will eventually be mostly cloud-based in the future. Subscription-based content is what we're all heading into for practically everything now, as the various industries actually succeeded in convincing the masses that the convenience is worth never owning anything anymore.
The streaming industry usually requires a lot of server power to run, and thus, require a lot of money. So most of these services will naturally seek out AAA products to put on their network because that's what sells. And given how many people will end up getting most of their content through these services, if you're not on one of these, you'll be mostly unknown.
What will happen, is that all of this will simply mimick the consequences of modern capitalsm. The rift between the biggest and the smallest players will simply expand, eliminating all that's in the middle. In the case of gaming, it'll simply mean that it'll mostly be big productions on streaming services, or smaller indie games available locally, with almost nothing in-between.
I admit I'm a bit worried about the future gaming.
Still, gaming is headed in the same direction movies and music went into, and the result for those so far is not something most audiophiles and cinephiles like.
The future for gaming (if streaming is the future, and I think it will be at some point) means we're either not in control of our libraries anymore, or a third party decides in our place what we're allowed or not to play.
Personnaly, the day this streaming business becomes the norm, is the day I quit being interested in new games and turn exclusively to all the games I missed before. I have quite a backlog. One that could last me dozens of years, probably, all platforms combined. lol! So I won't lack anything to play...
@Pod I'm not upset about Stadia in itself either, but more about the potential it has to eventually ruin gaming as we know it. Not completely, but the gaming landscape will change for sure if it's moderately successful (which I doubt, but hey, we never know).
The fact that we're posting on a gaming forum shows that we're close to the gaming equivalent of what audiophiles are for audio and music, and what cinephiles are for cinema. And from the perspective of many (if not most) audiopile and cinephile, the transition to digital and streaming has been affecting their field often in a negative way. Overall sound quality of recordings is lower these days than what it had been over 30 years ago, artists can rarely live from their art anymore, wireless audio is worse than cabled audio, etc. Image quality from movie and TV streaming services is worse than physical discs (that are on their way out). Some movies aren't available in digital (no one picked them up for distribution, even if they won prizes in festivals), and not on physical either (too costly for niche movies)
We live in a world in which "convenience" always win over "quality" or "performance". People buy convenience, so that is where the big bucks are, and so that is where companies put their money.
Artful music and movies are harder to find these days. They still exist, but you need to get out of the beaten, popular paths to find them. This is a direct result of movies and music having transitionned to purely and simply new commercial products like anything else. Digital streaming has been the catalyst for these changes. And it will eventually happen to games.
So Stadia in itself doesn't get me angry. Nor are the people who think it's a good idea (well, a little, maybe). It's mostly where this trend will inevitably leads that worries me, as a gamer.
@Big-Pepsi I had a GPD Win (first one) and I loved the thing. Having a huge library on Steam, it meant I was able to play tons of games on it right away. I replayed the whole Mass Effect Trilogy on it, the first Borderlands, many Lego games, Burnout Paradise, Fuel (love that open-world racing game!), Street Fighter IV, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Xcom, and many more...
Also, most PC games are much less pricier than their Switch version. Like, it's sometimes not even fair. lol!
BUT, the big drawback of such devices is actually the Windows system. Windows wasn't made to put its system to sleep instantly like the Switch does, and if you do it while playing almost any game, it's a recipe for a serious crash once you wake it up. It's eventually what made me sell it, as I game mostly on the go, and a proper sleep feature is somewhat important to me.
People often like to say that gameplay is king and graphics don't matter, but they sure do put a lot of importance on them for something that supposedly doesn't matter.
I'm playing it on Switch. I read and hear people talking about bad graphics and the game looking horrible. What the hell are they talking about? And what the hell are they expecting? It seems to me like they aren't playing the same game. The graphics are awesome for a Switch game. Again, what people are expecting, really?
Popup? Sure. Saw it. Doesn't affect the game that much. And I've seen it only in some places here and there, it's far from being distracting to me. Resolution? I mainly play on portable mode, and I don't play with the screen glued to my face, so it's perfectly fine to me.
That game is awesome. Even moreso when considering it runs on a portable game console that costs $400 (Canada). A portable gaming PC like a GPD Win 2 (let's compare Apples to Apples, please) runs it, but not as well, and it costs more than double the price of a Switch. Comparing this to XB1 or PS4 or a $1500-$2000 PC setup is ridiculous. I mean, if you care THAT MUCH about graphics and need your games to always be 4K 60fps HDR, may I ask why in hell you bought a Switch?
$400 portable console. Expects a game like this to run 60fps at 1080p with full details and no compromise compared to PC version. LOL! LOL! LOL!
I'm a big fan of AC since the first one. But having one island only per console is a recipe for family conflicts. From a game as family-friendly as this one, it's going to be annoying to manage my kids, all wanting their own island.
For that reason alone, it kind of jeopardize my purchase of this game. I mean, really, Nintendo? One island per console? Maybe they want families to buy Switches for every member?
I gave it a try and so far so good. But I always find it funny when F2P games say buying the biggest pack of in-game consumables (for an insane price) is the "best value". I mean, I get what they're saying, but the term "value" sounds particularly weird to me.
I mean, paying for a game download means something as you pay for a licence to play a game. But here... you pay real money in exchange of in-game currency to progress faster in the game. The "value" you get is just paying to speed up time, in a way.
So far I haven't paid a thing and the game is enjoyable. I would've paid a one time fee for it (let's say, $40) to remove all F2P shenanigans from the game, but oh well, they're not getting any money from me. I guess there are a lot of people paying a lot of money to compensate those like me who would never pay for in-game consumables.
Why would I download this on my mobile phone when I can play MK8 on my Switch that I have with me or near me most of the time?
If it was available to buy for a single price without any microtransaction after, AND would work without an internet connection, maybe I'd buy it. I don't know. I bought standalone mobile games for $20 in the past, this isn't an issue.
I consider any game tweaked so that it forces artificial mechanics to incite players to pay money as broken games. I mean, when gameplay is specificaly adjusted to include monetary exchange for an improved experience, it's like taking perfect gameplay and then breaking it by including features that have NO OTHER purpose than to make us want to pay. So to me, it's like a game that constantly breaks down and you need to pay (or wait) to have it fixed.
Got it physical, and while it's fun, it is also very frustrating at times because you don't always know why everything was fine and then a second later you're on the ground with a "mission failed" screen. Some sections had me killed near their end, requiring me to redo the whole thing again instead of restarting moments before I died, which ended up being very frustrating.
It's also not always clear where you need to go when you're in the middle of some action and you hear someone say you need to follow them. Sure, cool. If you just TELL ME where you are it might help because I don't see you right now.
But other than that, it's still pretty fun, although Bill Murray's performance is not very good. Sounds like he was half asleep when he recorded them.
I know, me saying these negative things might sound like it's a bad game, but it's not. It's just that there are some annoyances in there that I think they could've fixed for the remaster (although I know they wouldn't re-record Bill Murray's performance, so let's live with that).
My son (aged 12) played Fortnite for about a month. Then it bored him and he went on to play something else. Of course, we always supervise what he plays, and how much time he spends playing games.
What irks me in this case is... these people are the PARENTS. It is THEIR JOB to supervise what their children do. I mean, the minute your kid starts showing some signs of being completely addicted to a game (or anything, for that matter), it is YOUR JOB to help him overcome this. If you don't do anything because you don't want to be "that type of parent", then it's not society's fault. It's still yours.
Now, there is an interesting thing going on in this case, is that it may be exposed publicly that many game companies out there (especially those dealing with mobile games) hire psychologists to help them craft more "profitable" schemes for them by understanding players behaviors better. It's similar to how companies like Google and Amazon are tracking whatever they can about you so this data can be used to better sell you crap. This is no secret that game comapnies are analyzing game data to make people part with their money more efficiently.
Although, that being said, I don't understand how a parent can blame a game company for not having been able to to their job as parents.
I'm so sad that games are so expensive. Can't buy everything.
Definitely buying Ghostbusters at some point, as well as Hat in Time, Luigi's Mansion, the Witcher 3 and Trine 4.... but I can't buy them all at the same time....
anyone knows if the patch fixes the freezing issues when waking up the system from sleep? It is insane that this isn't yet fixed.
Also, get rid of that splash screen asking me to log in. Even if you can select "cancel", you have to go down to the cancel button, and doing so pops up a "connect to a network" if you're not online. And doing most of my playing in the train ride everyday (offline), this is annoying as hell.
Fix those issues (freezing and nagging popup automatically starting the find network screen). Make the goddamned game work as a proper game should first, THEN, get on with improving the performance. Priorities, folks. Priorities.
Contra has been mostly dead since the 16-bit days... So it's more like it failed at being resurected than being dead. It's been dead for quite some time already. I think there was one game half-decent during the PS3 years (or was it PS2?) and one on the DS that was cool too.... but that's pretty much it....
Do we still need to setup a "main" Switch (this one can go offline) and all other Switches on that account need to be online all the time to validate licences?
If that's still the case, that means if I buy a Switch Lite to complement my current Switch (which the whole family plays), I would only be able to play my games on it when online? What's the point then, to have a strictly portable unit that won't work outside of your home wifi?
I could set my Switch Lite as my "main" Switch, but then again, that's just backwards.... as I suspect family members will then have issues playing games on their own profiles on my "non-main" Switch.. or does that work ok?
I think Nintendo only thought of the Switch Lite as something people not having a regular Switch would buy....
I'm interested in one, but not if I have to jump through stupid hoops to have it play my games outside of my home....
@Agramonte To add to this, I've heard that the next gaming portable from GPD is going to use an AMD chipset, which will be awesome as AMD integrated GPUs are generally much more powerful than their Intel equivalent. Given the GPD Win 2 used an Intel Core M (and was quite a decent machine), maybe they plan on using one of those new low-power AMD chipsets....
@SwitchForce We can play the fanboy game all we want, you know. This is like saying every PC manufacturer who started including a mouse with their PC were copying the Mac despite Apple having copied it from Xerox first. Or that Google copied the iPhone system from Apple despite HP, Palm and others having similar products out already.
I don't particularly like Razer, I own absolutely nothing from them, I'm just saying that their first iteration of this (a PC tablet with detachable side controllers) was out in 2013. Accusing them of profiting of Switch's popularity is a bit weird, given that this isn't even targeting the same market (PCs costing over $1000). It could very well be that this successor to their 2013 model was in development for quite some time already, who knows? I'm not saying Razer invented it. This layout for a portable device with detachable controllers existed before that too. And I don't think these were all "failed" attempts. Countless of side controllers for tablets would like to have a word with you.
You just assume that because it works in a similar way to the Switch (an aspect that others featured before the Switch was even known about), that it, of course, was meant to profit from it.
You know, portable gaming, detachable controllers... this has been around for quite some time... Looks like the Switch? As the PS Vita layout somewhat was similar to the GBA, which was similar in layout to the old GameGear... I mean, we could go on.... but this is just stupid.
It's not a crime, nor something wrong, to inspire yourself from stuff made previously and improve upon it. That's what drives technology forward. And it does not mean others are copycats from getting inspired by what you've done.
But, you know, ok. Believe what you want to believe and keep thinking that everyone out there building detachable side controllers is copying the Switch.
I think Gears 5 is built as an UWP app (Universal Windows) which is new to Windows 8/10. These are the type of apps and games that can be bought and downloaded from the Windows store, and aren't compiled the same way as a regular x86 app. I think apps built like that are more friendly to quick shutdowns and sleep mode. Their drawback are that as far as I know, these apps are "self-contained" in some way that makes them un-modable. (Unless this changed recently, I don't know). But they should be more stable than x86 apps regarding sleep mode.
That may explains why Gears 5 works better.
I also know that it usually helps when you minimize a game before putting the system to sleep. But what makes the Switch great for me these days, is that even in the middle of a game, you can hit the power button and put the system to sleep instantly. Never worked as well on my GPD Win.
@SwitchForce Huh.... That form factor and detachable controllers predates the Switch by quite some time, if you didn't know. All of those joystick attachments for phones and tablets that were around for years existed long before the Switch... even Razer themselves had a similar concept (not 100% the same as both side controllers were linked in a single shell you dropped the tablet into), in 2013. I myself had a "clipping" controller on each side of my tablet way before anyone knew about the Switch.
Nintendo didn't invent anything here. They just designed a whole console around the idea, and made it work very well because it was designed like this from the start instead of having controllers being an "add-on" to something else.
Sure, Nintendo made the idea much more popular and mainstream than it was back then, but to say companies like Razer waited to release an update to what they already had in 2013... because of the Switch is a bit stretched. I mean, sure, they might've noticed that the Switch made the idea more mainstream and that might be beneficial to them, but the idea in itself... they had it (and it was on the market) in 2013. This is an evolution of that idea. Yeah, the Switch was surely influencial. So what?
@Agramonte I think the same as well. I have an insane ton of games on PC (near 700 on Steam alone from years and years of sales and Humble Bundles), so a console like this would be worth it even if price is much higher than the Switch.
My only "problem" with this, and this is a big one IMO, is if Razer solved the "problem" of Windows' sleep function that completely mess up most games being played. Windows is just not build as a tablet-friendly system and will mostly wreck havoc in the stability department when you have to instantly close your game session. This is one of the factor made me not buy a GPD Win 2 (I had the first one, loved it, but same issue with Windows). This is what makes the Switch great IMO, as I game a lot in my daily train ride.
But if that is not a concern (of if it works better on this device), it could end up replacing my Switch as my default portable gaming device.
But.... right now... it looks pretty uncomfortable.... (Although the Switch is too, in long portable gaming sessions).
@NEStalgia I appreciate that Nintendo isn't doing the same things as others, but those lootbox processors aren't what consumers want either (these are what shareholders want).
Is it too much to ask for a major gaming company to actually listen to their customers? Or are they too big and remote to their clients to actually know what they really want?
I appreciate Nintendo for what they are, and appreciate that they don't do the same thing as others, but there is, nonetheless, something called "listening to what your customers want", that gets very frustrating when apparently thrown out the window.
This got me very interested, being a fan of the series (and having bought a 3DS basically to play a true AC on the go back then), but my life now with a family and kids that also love the series have me worried.
One island per system? I was expecting one per account/user. Why is this stupid limitation in place? For a company as family friendly as Nintendo, I was NOT expecting something that will no doubt generate battles of epic proportion from sibblings over who will get to have "his" or "her" island on the system. I mean, seriously Nintendo???? This might seriously jeopardize my purchase of this game as I don't want to create MORE issues for my kids to argue over.
And what about if I want my own island too? What about if I plan on getting a Switch lite and leave the regular one at home for the kids? Does that mean I won't ever be able to play my Switch Lite AC game on the big screen at home because I can't sync my save to the cloud (and the fact that only one island per system will be allowed)?
I'm just surprised at these decisions from Nintendo. This is about as remote from being "family-friendly" as it can be...
I was ready to be obsessed with AC again.... now... not so much... sadly.
I think it's fair to assume that mostly everyone in here just stopped trying to understand Nintendo. There are some relatively basic features a lot of people have been wanting since the Switch got released (folders, simple themes, to name two), and Nintendo is spending time and man-hours on an alarm feature and QR code login for their phone app or something.
I'll go with what someone else was saying earlier: my old Vita (from 2012!!!!) had a more functionnal user interface since LAUNCH than what the Switch is offering two and a half year post launch.
The Switch Lite is tempting me (as I'm playing mostly on the go) but I have the sad impression that Nintendo will make it a living hell to manage two Switch systems, as I still want to keep my original one (and be able to play my purchased games on BOTH, online or off).
Nintendo does what Nintendo wants. It just happens that sometimes, it's also what the consumers want as well, but this seems to be unrelated. lol!
I wasn't aware. Thanks for the info! Hope this gets a release over here! Although, I kind of hate it that retro games on the Switch are all scattered across different apps. I like when all games from a single platform are tied togheter under the same app. Like, there won't be any Megaman or Castlevania or Contra on these NES and SNES apps because those are sold separatly as collections....
@Cyrax77 I think it depends on how you see things. Nowadays, all consoles out there figured that you can't just make people pay for online play alone because you're limiting the appeal of your paid service by targeting only those using one feature. Those services, on all platforms, became much more than just "pay for online play". Sony's own service wasn't even about online play at first, this was only added when the PS4 was released.
Personnaly, I rarely play online. It happens sometimes, but that's hardly a reason for me to invest in the service. Cloud saves are a much more important feature to me. And the NES and SNES games are a cool feature I don't mind paying for as well, as I like playing those.
Now, I'm not complaining, as at $25 per year, it still is A LOT LESS than PSN or XBL (for which I don't pay anymore, I used to have both), and it gives, I think, good value for the money. I'm just surprised that Nintendo is probably planning to release less of them, as this gives value to their subscription.
Both Sony and Microsoft realised at some point that they also needed to provide cloud saves and "free games" to provide incentives to those who play less online. Their games are often some older retail ones mixed with lots of indies, not just emulated old games, but then, their sub is $80 per year, which is much more than for the Switch.
I think, even if Nintendo releases less games, that it is good value. It's just that I'm surprised that they probably plan on releasing less of them, as I don't understand why having 2 or 3 per month seems to be unsustainable. Maybe not 2 or 3 per system, but at least 2 or 3 spread across both, that would be pretty fine by me.
Anyway, not going to cancel my sub over that. Just a little bit let down by this.
Well, I'm still playing some of these from time to time... Just yesterday (before the SNES app became available) I was playing through the old Ninja Gaiden. Still a classic and eminently playable, epsecially if you like challenging games (although the rewind feature and save states can now make it far easier if it's too challenging).
A lot of old NES games are still classics IMO, and some are still more fun than many titles being released today. The selection available now still needs more RPGs though (come on, Nintendo, I know there could be licensing issues, but try to put the old Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior games and Final Fantasy on there....)
Usually, when a company make some changes to their services and refuse to comment about the value of said change to the consumer, it's usually because it'll actually mean less value.
Most companies out there will never miss a chance to advertize how good they are, and how better for the consumers they are, when it's the case. It's good marketing. So when they don't say anything, it's usually because telling the truth would negatively affect their image.
But then, it can also be the sign of a clueless company, truly not knowing a lot or not having a clear plan, and not wanting to overpromise and then underdeliver.
But.... is 2 games a month really something that could be considered overpromise? Like others said, it's like... a minimum.
Maybe... just maybe... licensing issues with 3rd party games is more complex than anticipated... But still, I presume many Nintendo games don't need any kind of licencing since it's their own ganes.... So really... I don't know.
To me, it is the other way around; I find that devices with almost no bezels look silly. I rarely see any point to extending it that much to the edge other than to say "look Ma! No bezel". You need at least a small one, especially if the screen is touch-enabled. And especially for portable devices. The only ones I think look good without one are TV sets. And even though, they always have a very small one at least.
Also, the less bezel you have, the more risks you get to crack the screen if dropped, unless you add pretective sleeves or cases. The Switch being handled by many different people in my house, kids included, I don't want to have even more reasons for me to get a heart attack if it is dropped on the floor. Not saying we "need" huge bezels. Just that a small one is better (and looks better) to me, than almost none at all, just for the sake of its look. Sure, a larger screen could improve visibility and readability, but I don't think, at that size, that it would make a noticeable difference.
Maybe the bezel could've been a bit smaller on that new unit. But not by much IMO. I value the unit's smaller size much more than gaining only a couple of millimeters of screen size.
Yes, freezing. Everytime I put the system to sleep, when I get back to it, the game is completely frozen, and no amount of button presses of any kind can get it working again. The only thing that work is the home button, which brings me back to the Switch interface, where I can close the game and start it again. And this happens whether or not the system has access to the net.
This is the first time I encounter such a poor port of a game on the Switch, with bugs like these, and annoying log in screen that ends up looking for a network while offline, and while I'm not picky enough to worry about the performance issues as some others do, the fact it has those as well is just insulting for the consumers.
Even for a low-price port of an old game, this is completely innacceptable. It is baffling that this actually got past any kind of serious testing before being released. I actually think it didn't get any.
Are they going to also fix the freaking freeze issue that happens to me every goddamned time I wake the console from sleep?
Also, appreciate the optional login, but that login window should go away completely and be a menu option instead. Everytime I start the game while in the train each day, it tries to connect to a network, have to wait for the scan to finish, cancel that, go down to the "cancel" or "skip" button (don't remember how it's called), and then click and access the main menu... that is beyond ridiculous. Fix that mess please before working on "performance improvements".
Let's say we toss aside the fact that digital distribution gives the entire control of your library to a third party, and toss aside the fact that you won't be able to redownload stuff you paid for when the servers goes down in the future (because it WILL happen).
While quality is not a concern with games (download is same game as the one distributed on cart), movies and music isn't the same. Most digital downloads (or streams) are of inferior quality compared to physical media releases. Maybe it doesn't matter if you watch movies on a small screen, or listen to music trough earbuds that came with your phone or cheap ones. But I can guarantee you that most Blu-Rays and 4K discs are vastly superior in terms of image and sound to the compressed downloads and streams you can get/buy. Regarding audio, some stores stream or sell FLAC or other lossless files, but most people prefer to buy compressed versions. And in some cases, even vinyls get a superior sound than CD (especially true with rock/pop these days, that are mastered like crap for CD/digital).
For movies and music, physical media will ALWAYS have a place for those who actually care about quality.
As for games, the whole point of physical medias is to avoid being dependent on a third-party server for "rights management". It's about, mostly, future proofing. Downloads are, more or less, only long-term rentals. If you're ok paying for that, fine. I am too in some cases. But in others, I much prefer buying physical.
What happenned to listing CDN prices? Last time I checked, Canada is still a part of NA. And we don't have those prices. Example: Redout is $37.49 up here, not $29.99
I remember you guys mentionning CDN prices at some point in the past. I found that this was a nice touch.
If it's too much work to do (I understand!), at least, replace "Current Price (NA)" with "Current Price (US)". This will be more accurate.
I was thinking that my son (who loved the movie) would be interested in this, but after looking at the trailer, it definitely look like a sub-par crap movie tie-in game. And you tell me this is from the PS4 version? If it looks that bad on the PS4, I'm wandering how it'll end up looking on the Switch...
Those characters animations... outch. Not good.
It looks like something I'd expect from a "freemium" mobile game. Not from a proper console game.
Comments 466
Re: Talking Point: Switch Lite Expanded The Console's Reach In 2019
I was interested in buying one, as I game primarily on the go and something smaller would've been nice, and I would've been able to leave the other Switch docked at home for the family to enjoy, but alas, Nintendo made that impossible, as someone can only have ONE main system that can play games without being connected.
Let's say I make my Lite my "main" Switch (so I can play offline), then all my downloaded games would be unplayable at home on the other Switch UNLESS if using my profile, and UNLESS I'm not playing on the Lite while connected. My kids, my wife, no one would be able to play the games I purchased with their own profiles (and saves).
I mean, Nintendo obviously doesn't want my money.
Nice for those not having a Switch already and preferring a portable unit, but apparently, Nintendo haven't figured out families of gamers yet....
Re: Best Of 2019: Why You'll Never Get To Play Your Favourite Retro Game On Switch
The problem is that a lot of these old games sometimes get released at a price that doesn't make any sense for what they are. I understand the whole issue about licencing and certifications, and rights to whatever, if any, need to be renegotiated. But seriously, asking about 2/3 of a AAA production (that cost tons and tons more money to make) is stupid.
Sometimes these releases make sense when they're bundled up in a collection with extra features and functionalities (The Sega Genesis/Megadrive collection, the MegaMan collections, etc...) with a price to match. At $40, the Sega one was worth it given how many games it has. The MegaMan ones, when on sale (it's capcom after all), are also worth it. So these CAN be done right. I can also mention the RARE Replay I bought on the Xbox One. Tons of value in there.
But then again, at the other end of the spectrum, you can also get a Street Fighter collection for like $50, or old Resident Evil remakes for almost full retail price. Which is insulting.
I think the tricky part is with old games that were too niche to warrant a release on their own. You'd probably have to bundle them up with other games, but then again, you're also multiplying all those licensing problems as well... So yeah.... not much hope for those titles....
Re: Boob-Filled Borefest Or Game Of Thrones Successor? Reviews For Netflix's Witcher Series Are In
@LUIGITORNADO
According to someone who worked on The OA, it seems Netflix is more concerned with shows that have the potential of drawing in more subscribers, hence shows being cancelled after one or two seasons, despite them being good or not, if Netflix feels the show is unable to draw additionnal people to the service anymore.
Personnaly, I find this business strategy terrible. Because you know where that leads? People being fed up and eventually moving elsewhere when they get the chance. Since Disney+ was released, Netflix lost over a million subscribers. Apparently, people stop caring when you continually cancel good shows. Who knew, right?
Right now, I always get hesitant before starting any new series on Netflix because I don't want to invest many hours into something that won't ever get any closure because of the inevitable cancelation.
Re: Random: Xbox Series X? That's Just A Tall GameCube, The Twitter Masses Say
Now this is what I call a sleek console. Highly unpractical one, because it won't fit under my television, and I'm not about to put my console on the floor in front of it, so I'm not going to buy one, but it is nonetheless a sleek, minimalist design.
Now, the PS5... THAT is fugly. Looks like what an 80s teenager would think a console of "the future" should look like. Logos, buttons, lights, ridiculous curves, and so on... It's also the type of thing that would make me feel I have a freaking toy under the TV, not a piece of high-tech electronics...
That new Xbox does look the part though. Just sad that the format is just highly unpractical to so many people out there.... I mean, didn't anyone at Microsoft think about the space most people have to put their pieces of entertainment equipment in? Like, you know, the standard places in TV furniture where most STANDARD AV equipment goes in?
Re: 11,000 People Ask Spotify To Support Nintendo Switch, The Response Is Underwhelming
Even the YouTube app for the Switch is useless. I mean, using it for looking at game-related hints and stuff while playing a game would've been nice, but the app can't run while a game is running in the background, so yeah... useless (for me at least).
I mean, I don't see anyone who would pick up their Switch for playing YouTube vids instead of their phone, tablet, or going to a PC. The only reason (I can think of) that would be truly usefull would be to look at something while in the middle of a game session to avoid having to rely on a second device for that. But no, doesn't work.
Spotify would be nice if working while playing games, but I'm sure it won't. So useless. Like YouTube.
Re: New Animal Crossing: New Horizons Screenshots Reveal More Series-First Customisation Options
I was actually looking forward to this, but one island only per system is killing a good chunk of my interest, as we ALL love Animal Crossing in our house (my wife and both my kids love the series).
And I'm not to buy a Switch system for everyone just so each can have their own island. This is ridiculous. Such a family-friendly game that turns out to be one that would generate a lot of conflicts... I mean... come on. We all know kids... One day one will cut all trees just to piss off his sister, or vice-versa...
I love the series... but I may have to sadly pass on this one... too much family conflicts potential here....
Re: Buy Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD And Sega Might Remake The Original Games
@SteelSunglass
"I get it. If the newest game in a series doesn't sell well, that tells the company/studio that people aren't interested in the IP anymore..."
That's not true at all. Well, I get that's what might be understood by stupid business people that only understands stats and the bottom line on some spreadsheet, but if people don't buy the new game in a beloved IP, it often only means that the game is BAD or NOT UP TO EXPECTATIONS, not that people aren't interested in the IP anymore.
I mean, if you put out a not-so-good game in a series, would you say people aren't buying it because they lost interest in the franchise? I think it's much more probable they didn't buy it because it was not-so-good to begin with, no?
The way SEGA is handling this reeks of incompetence. Even from a business standpoint. Not working on games that would probably sell more than the current one (I mean come on, a compilation of both games from the Gamecube era would sell like hotcakes) is just stupid. It is literraly asking people to buy something they don't want in the hope of maybe getting what they want in the future.
Show support for something you don't want if you want us making what you want. I don't know who the marketing VP at Sega is, or who takes such decisions, but I surely wouldn't want any of these people in my business if I had one.
Re: Doom Spiritual Successor Demon Pit Brings Hellish FPS Action To Switch This Christmas
I agree with most saying that it looks horrible. Looks awfully dated.
If you want something that feels like an arena shooter with tons of ennemies to shoot at, I suggest looking for Immortal Redneck, which does actually look good, plays tight, and is tons of fun (especially since it mixes in some roguelike elements). No multiplayer though.
But this Demon Pit game looks like something you'd expect out of a cheap mobile game given away for free because it tried to sell at $1.99 and no one bought it.
Re: Talking Point: What Did You Pick Up On Black Friday And Cyber Monday?
Bought the first Telltale Batman for under $5, which is in my mind the really true Black-Friday-Level bargain I've bought.
I also bought the re-release of Puzzle Quest for $10 (played this to death on the PSP years ago), and Gris, for $10 as well. Both were fair deals, but not exceptional ones (as in, deals you might come across sometime during the year in some sale or another).
In the week leading to Black Friday, I also bought Yooka Laylee for about $15, which is a title I waited for a decent sale to purchase on Switch (was always pricier there than anywhere else, even in previous sales), and Asterix and Obelix XXL 2 also for about $15, which, while a nice repackage of an old game, deeply miss a 2-player mode....
Re: CD Projekt Red Not Worried About VR, As It Remains A "Very Small" Market
VR is awesome.... like a roller-coaster ride or going to an anmusement park. Those are all fun activities (unless you have motion sickness), but would you do that every day? Some may say yes. The majority would say no.
If you play game as an escape from reality, VR is awesome and you might be inclined to play more of it.
If you simply play games to relax, or to be entertained, then VR is still cool, but it's not something you'd be driven to play every day. It's like, a cool experience, a special one, like going to an amusement park. Or the theatre to watch a movie on the big screen.
I love VR. But then again, I only play VR here and there from time to time. I'm not going out of my way to play in VR. I much prefer sitting on a sofa, controller (or Switch) in hand, and just play a game.
I still might buy an Occulus Quest though. Because VR is still cool. Just not something I consider the same as regular gaming. When I want to play games, I usually just want to relax. Not "live an experience". But to each their own.
Re: Deals: These Are The eShop Games You Should Download This Black Friday
LOL at Skyrim being 50% off and STILL be double the price of what I paid for it YEARS ago. Oh well, seems I still won't be playing this anytime soon on my Switch!
Same for DOOM. Like, it's regularly around $15-$25 everywhere else. Asking $40 for it (and that is being 50% off!!!) is really laughable. Oh well.
There are many other games on sale right now than those listed up here. And some true deals among those too. I'm thinking of buying those two Batman Telltale games for less than $5 each, among many other games on sale...
Re: These Are The Best-Selling Third-Party Games On Nintendo Platforms In America
@dougphisig
Especially the games in which we were able to create our own characters. I never was a big player of wrestling games, but I played WWF Attitude to hell back then.... I mean, I still miss character creators like these in games... We were litterally able to create wrestling versions of Ronald McDonald, The Hulk, KFC Colonel Sanders, and so many more... this was hilarious... especially with friends and when alcohol was involved.
Re: The Witcher Showrunner Doesn't See "Rabid" Fans As The Enemy
@Zuljaras
I'm not the one who'll talk about homophobia here. Although I think that, more often than not, it's not as much an "agenda" as it's just taking creative freedom with a character to somehow add more "diversity" to the whole thing, just in an extremely awkward manner.
It all depends on context too. If the intent of a show is clearly to do a reinterpretation of existing characters, well, then that's fine by me. But if a show more or less tries to insert itself into some sort of cannon, it should be extra careful with changing some aspects of those characters.
What I hate most, isn't having gay characters in a show. Frankly, I don't care about the sexual orientation of characters. What I hate, is when shows are using their sexual orientation as some sort of plot device. For instance, one thing that turned me off of Star Trek Discovery (one among many), is how in one early episode, the "big reveal" of the episode was that one character was gay. The show was litterally using homosexuality as a "surprise" element, and thus by doing so, made homosexuality something worth highlighting, as if it was something "special", you know? It felt artificially forced in the scenario for no reason. Like being gay still has some "shock" value!!! OMG! He's GAY! That CHANGES EVERYTHING! No. Doesn't change a thing. Sorry. He's gay. So what? Being gay isn't something weird or anormal.
And while that was happenning, you have another show called The Orville, in which you have a crew member being part of an "all-male" species, and its relation with its mate is treated like it's a completely normal thing (the comedy aspect comes more from their cultural difference than other things). But I never felt that this show was disrespectful towards homosexuality. On the contrary. While on ST:D, their attempt to integrate homosexuality felt so awkward that it ended having the opposite effect on me. Using it a a plot device makes it exactly what it shouldn't be: something special, not something normal.
It's all about context and how it's integrated in a story.
Personnaly, I like when shows take a political stance. Be it in line or not with my own beliefs. Being challenged in your own beliefs is a GOOD thing. That's what make us evolve. And frankly, most things are political to some extent anyways. Problem is, I hate when shows or movies are forcing things because it often ends up having the opposite effect. But when done properly, I feel it often elevates it above the ranks of simple brainless popcorn chomper.
Re: Nintendo Wants To Sell Switch "For As Long As Possible", Has "No Plans" To Cut Pricing
I don't see Nintendo dropping their prices anytime soon. Nintendo is Nintendo. I understand the idea of pricing games according to cost of development, but at some point, it becomes hard for people to justify paying almost $100 for a single game.
Personnaly, I only pay that amount for games I know I'll end up playing to death for many, many, many hours. Breath of the Wild is one of those. Recently, the Witcher III is another one of these. But as much fun some of those games are, I can't justify spending that much money on games that'll only raise my stack of played games after being played for a couple of hours only.
I still haven't bought Mario Odyssey (and unless Nintendo move it into a "classics" line, I'll probably never will). I was tempted to buy Luigi's Mansion 3, but.... $100... geez.... And let's not talk about all these other games on the Switch still selling for full price and available elsewhere for less than $20...
The Switch is the most expensive current platform to game on.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Switch. But man.... those games are costly. It's probably one of the first generation of consoles on which I'll end up skipping games altoghether. Usually, on other platforms, I often wait a bit for prices to drop slightly, but they don't on Switch (for 1st party games at least), so it means some games I want I may never end up playing.
I'm aware of the costs of development for a game. But cost of development doesn't equal value for the customer. A game could've cost 10 millions to make. If I can get through it in 4 hours, with no replayability in sight, it's not worth paying $100 for it, really.
Re: The Elder Scrolls: Blades For Switch Requires An Online Connection
Well, I may try it (although no offline mode limits its apeal a lot as I do most of my gaming on the go, in the train ride everyday).
Sure, "Get Skyrim instead". Which is still $80 (near $100 if you add sales tax) over here. For such an old game I already bought for less than $15 on PC... hmmm.... Nope. lol!
But aside from that... I find it ironic that the team at Bethesda found that having your hands over the screen to play a game is not ideal... which is the whole point of why many find gaming on mobiles (other than casual stuff) to be not worth their time.
Re: Darksiders Genesis Hits Switch On Valentine's Day 2020, But Google Stadia Is Getting It Earlier
@Pod
I think it all depends on how you look at things (and this is very personnal). Everyone has stuff that they love, and stuff that annoys them. And for most people, things are pretty simple, things need to have advantages that outweights the stuff that annoys them.
What complicates the situation is that something that might annoy somehow might be irrelevant for someone else.
In my case, the future of gaming seems to have a lot more negative aspects than positive ones. But that's me. Not having control over what I can and can't play (my game library) is a big one to me. Not having any guarantee whatsoever that a game I paid for will be playable for as long as I want is another. Games being yanked out of services while I was still playing them. Connection reliability is also a big factor, especially if you have kids that use the internet for everything (especially now that we've cut cable).
Sure, online everything and streamable everything is sure great for its convenience aspect. But it's not for a multitude of other reasons. I admit, many may not care about these reasons and that is probably why these have so much success. But the truth is that it's harder nowadays to find the movies and series you want to watch (unless you only care about mainstream stuff), and to find the music you want to listen to (again, unless you care mostly for top 40 hits).
But hey! All these services have algorithms that will suggest you new things to try that are indeed good recommendations about 10% of the time (in my case at least).
I may sound like I'm complaining a lot like an old man yelling at clouds, but I can't help by looking at where we came from and where we're going, to feel a bit depressed and worried. Oh, how I would like to have your optimism. I truly do. But everywhere I look, I see greatness for corporate greed, not for the consumer. I see greatness for corporations wanting control over what we're allowed to play, listen and watch, not for us.
Nice discussion though. Cheers!
Re: Call Of Juarez: Gunslinger Is Riding Onto The Nintendo Switch This December
Cool game, but this whole "ony code in the case" crap needs to cease. This is because companies want shelf visibility, but without having to offer the actual product on the shelf.
Now, about those discussions regarding the Switch not being worth it anymore once the PS5 or next Xbox comes out... Can I play the PS5 or next Xbox on the go? No? Well I rest my case then.
Anyone who buys the Switch thinking this is a console that competes with even the current PS4 or Xbox One is just delusionnal. I don't think many people actually put all of these in the same league. I don't know of anyone who'd be hesitant between a PS4 or a Switch. They're completely different animals. Most of the selling points of the Switch are hardware features not available on other platforms. Sure, the big Nintendo franchises like Zelda and Mario play a role as well, but let's leave the graphic tarts to the other platforms. Because if someone cares THAT MUCH about graphic performance, why in hell would that person buy a Switch in the first place? These persons are not part of the target market.
Re: Darksiders Genesis Hits Switch On Valentine's Day 2020, But Google Stadia Is Getting It Earlier
@Pod
Well, in the short term, it sure won't disappear. And I'm pretty sure there will always be a form of indie game industrie who'll still provide people with games in the form of locally executable programs. Exactly like most truly creative music and movies nowadays still exist, but they rarely get any screentime in theatres, and they are often labelled as "too niche" for streaming services to pick them up. You need to go out and find these on your own. But they still exist.... Like these, gaming will continue to be made by passionate individuals who will sell their games to us for running on our own hardware.
But I'm speaking more about the big guys of the game industry. All those AAA productions most gamers are excited about and end up buying. Those are the things I can assume will eventually be mostly cloud-based in the future. Subscription-based content is what we're all heading into for practically everything now, as the various industries actually succeeded in convincing the masses that the convenience is worth never owning anything anymore.
The streaming industry usually requires a lot of server power to run, and thus, require a lot of money. So most of these services will naturally seek out AAA products to put on their network because that's what sells. And given how many people will end up getting most of their content through these services, if you're not on one of these, you'll be mostly unknown.
What will happen, is that all of this will simply mimick the consequences of modern capitalsm. The rift between the biggest and the smallest players will simply expand, eliminating all that's in the middle. In the case of gaming, it'll simply mean that it'll mostly be big productions on streaming services, or smaller indie games available locally, with almost nothing in-between.
I admit I'm a bit worried about the future gaming.
Re: Darksiders Genesis Hits Switch On Valentine's Day 2020, But Google Stadia Is Getting It Earlier
@Pod
Still, gaming is headed in the same direction movies and music went into, and the result for those so far is not something most audiophiles and cinephiles like.
The future for gaming (if streaming is the future, and I think it will be at some point) means we're either not in control of our libraries anymore, or a third party decides in our place what we're allowed or not to play.
Personnaly, the day this streaming business becomes the norm, is the day I quit being interested in new games and turn exclusively to all the games I missed before. I have quite a backlog. One that could last me dozens of years, probably, all platforms combined. lol! So I won't lack anything to play...
Re: Darksiders Genesis Hits Switch On Valentine's Day 2020, But Google Stadia Is Getting It Earlier
@Pod
I'm not upset about Stadia in itself either, but more about the potential it has to eventually ruin gaming as we know it. Not completely, but the gaming landscape will change for sure if it's moderately successful (which I doubt, but hey, we never know).
The fact that we're posting on a gaming forum shows that we're close to the gaming equivalent of what audiophiles are for audio and music, and what cinephiles are for cinema. And from the perspective of many (if not most) audiopile and cinephile, the transition to digital and streaming has been affecting their field often in a negative way. Overall sound quality of recordings is lower these days than what it had been over 30 years ago, artists can rarely live from their art anymore, wireless audio is worse than cabled audio, etc. Image quality from movie and TV streaming services is worse than physical discs (that are on their way out). Some movies aren't available in digital (no one picked them up for distribution, even if they won prizes in festivals), and not on physical either (too costly for niche movies)
We live in a world in which "convenience" always win over "quality" or "performance". People buy convenience, so that is where the big bucks are, and so that is where companies put their money.
Artful music and movies are harder to find these days. They still exist, but you need to get out of the beaten, popular paths to find them. This is a direct result of movies and music having transitionned to purely and simply new commercial products like anything else. Digital streaming has been the catalyst for these changes. And it will eventually happen to games.
So Stadia in itself doesn't get me angry. Nor are the people who think it's a good idea (well, a little, maybe). It's mostly where this trend will inevitably leads that worries me, as a gamer.
Re: Random: God Of War Director Praises Witcher 3 On Switch, Says It's "Some Kind Of Dark Sorcery"
@Big-Pepsi
I had a GPD Win (first one) and I loved the thing. Having a huge library on Steam, it meant I was able to play tons of games on it right away. I replayed the whole Mass Effect Trilogy on it, the first Borderlands, many Lego games, Burnout Paradise, Fuel (love that open-world racing game!), Street Fighter IV, Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Xcom, and many more...
Also, most PC games are much less pricier than their Switch version. Like, it's sometimes not even fair. lol!
BUT, the big drawback of such devices is actually the Windows system. Windows wasn't made to put its system to sleep instantly like the Switch does, and if you do it while playing almost any game, it's a recipe for a serious crash once you wake it up. It's eventually what made me sell it, as I game mostly on the go, and a proper sleep feature is somewhat important to me.
Re: Random: God Of War Director Praises Witcher 3 On Switch, Says It's "Some Kind Of Dark Sorcery"
People often like to say that gameplay is king and graphics don't matter, but they sure do put a lot of importance on them for something that supposedly doesn't matter.
I'm playing it on Switch. I read and hear people talking about bad graphics and the game looking horrible. What the hell are they talking about? And what the hell are they expecting? It seems to me like they aren't playing the same game. The graphics are awesome for a Switch game. Again, what people are expecting, really?
Popup? Sure. Saw it. Doesn't affect the game that much. And I've seen it only in some places here and there, it's far from being distracting to me. Resolution? I mainly play on portable mode, and I don't play with the screen glued to my face, so it's perfectly fine to me.
That game is awesome. Even moreso when considering it runs on a portable game console that costs $400 (Canada). A portable gaming PC like a GPD Win 2 (let's compare Apples to Apples, please) runs it, but not as well, and it costs more than double the price of a Switch. Comparing this to XB1 or PS4 or a $1500-$2000 PC setup is ridiculous. I mean, if you care THAT MUCH about graphics and need your games to always be 4K 60fps HDR, may I ask why in hell you bought a Switch?
$400 portable console. Expects a game like this to run 60fps at 1080p with full details and no compromise compared to PC version. LOL! LOL! LOL!
Re: Review: Dragon Quest - A Classic JRPG Marred By Odd Choices And Technical Issues
Oh cool! A Dragon Quest remake for the Swi......
..... urgh..... no thanks....
Re: Lack Of Animal Crossing Getting You Down? These New Horizons Booth Photos Should Help
I'm a big fan of AC since the first one. But having one island only per console is a recipe for family conflicts. From a game as family-friendly as this one, it's going to be annoying to manage my kids, all wanting their own island.
For that reason alone, it kind of jeopardize my purchase of this game. I mean, really, Nintendo? One island per console? Maybe they want families to buy Switches for every member?
Re: Review: Asphalt 9: Legends - Likeable Burnout-Style Racing Action, If You Play The Right Way
I gave it a try and so far so good. But I always find it funny when F2P games say buying the biggest pack of in-game consumables (for an insane price) is the "best value". I mean, I get what they're saying, but the term "value" sounds particularly weird to me.
I mean, paying for a game download means something as you pay for a licence to play a game. But here... you pay real money in exchange of in-game currency to progress faster in the game. The "value" you get is just paying to speed up time, in a way.
So far I haven't paid a thing and the game is enjoyable. I would've paid a one time fee for it (let's say, $40) to remove all F2P shenanigans from the game, but oh well, they're not getting any money from me. I guess there are a lot of people paying a lot of money to compensate those like me who would never pay for in-game consumables.
Re: Poll: Have You Downloaded Mario Kart Tour On Your Mobile Device Yet?
Why would I download this on my mobile phone when I can play MK8 on my Switch that I have with me or near me most of the time?
If it was available to buy for a single price without any microtransaction after, AND would work without an internet connection, maybe I'd buy it. I don't know. I bought standalone mobile games for $20 in the past, this isn't an issue.
I consider any game tweaked so that it forces artificial mechanics to incite players to pay money as broken games. I mean, when gameplay is specificaly adjusted to include monetary exchange for an improved experience, it's like taking perfect gameplay and then breaking it by including features that have NO OTHER purpose than to make us want to pay. So to me, it's like a game that constantly breaks down and you need to pay (or wait) to have it fixed.
No thanks.
Re: Review: Ghostbusters: The Video Game Remastered - Bare-Bones, But A Thrilling Nostalgia Trip
Got it physical, and while it's fun, it is also very frustrating at times because you don't always know why everything was fine and then a second later you're on the ground with a "mission failed" screen. Some sections had me killed near their end, requiring me to redo the whole thing again instead of restarting moments before I died, which ended up being very frustrating.
It's also not always clear where you need to go when you're in the middle of some action and you hear someone say you need to follow them. Sure, cool. If you just TELL ME where you are it might help because I don't see you right now.
But other than that, it's still pretty fun, although Bill Murray's performance is not very good. Sounds like he was half asleep when he recorded them.
I know, me saying these negative things might sound like it's a bad game, but it's not. It's just that there are some annoyances in there that I think they could've fixed for the remaster (although I know they wouldn't re-record Bill Murray's performance, so let's live with that).
Re: Fortnite "Ruined Our Child's Life", Claims Family At The Centre Of New Class-Action Lawsuit
My son (aged 12) played Fortnite for about a month. Then it bored him and he went on to play something else. Of course, we always supervise what he plays, and how much time he spends playing games.
What irks me in this case is... these people are the PARENTS. It is THEIR JOB to supervise what their children do. I mean, the minute your kid starts showing some signs of being completely addicted to a game (or anything, for that matter), it is YOUR JOB to help him overcome this. If you don't do anything because you don't want to be "that type of parent", then it's not society's fault. It's still yours.
Now, there is an interesting thing going on in this case, is that it may be exposed publicly that many game companies out there (especially those dealing with mobile games) hire psychologists to help them craft more "profitable" schemes for them by understanding players behaviors better. It's similar to how companies like Google and Amazon are tracking whatever they can about you so this data can be used to better sell you crap. This is no secret that game comapnies are analyzing game data to make people part with their money more efficiently.
Although, that being said, I don't understand how a parent can blame a game company for not having been able to to their job as parents.
Re: Video: 16 Exciting New Games Coming To Nintendo Switch In October
I'm so sad that games are so expensive. Can't buy everything.
Definitely buying Ghostbusters at some point, as well as Hat in Time, Luigi's Mansion, the Witcher 3 and Trine 4.... but I can't buy them all at the same time....
Decisions... decisions....
Re: Classic DOOM And DOOM II Receive Performance Improvements On Switch
anyone knows if the patch fixes the freezing issues when waking up the system from sleep? It is insane that this isn't yet fixed.
Also, get rid of that splash screen asking me to log in. Even if you can select "cancel", you have to go down to the cancel button, and doing so pops up a "connect to a network" if you're not online. And doing most of my playing in the train ride everyday (offline), this is annoying as hell.
Fix those issues (freezing and nagging popup automatically starting the find network screen). Make the goddamned game work as a proper game should first, THEN, get on with improving the performance. Priorities, folks. Priorities.
Re: Review: Contra: Rogue Corps - An Ugly And Unfocused Mess That Shames The Contra Name
@RetroGamerAndrew
Contra has been mostly dead since the 16-bit days... So it's more like it failed at being resurected than being dead. It's been dead for quite some time already. I think there was one game half-decent during the PS3 years (or was it PS2?) and one on the DS that was cool too.... but that's pretty much it....
Re: Nintendo Switch Lite Has Slow Start In UK, But Retailers Expect That To Change
Do we still need to setup a "main" Switch (this one can go offline) and all other Switches on that account need to be online all the time to validate licences?
If that's still the case, that means if I buy a Switch Lite to complement my current Switch (which the whole family plays), I would only be able to play my games on it when online? What's the point then, to have a strictly portable unit that won't work outside of your home wifi?
I could set my Switch Lite as my "main" Switch, but then again, that's just backwards.... as I suspect family members will then have issues playing games on their own profiles on my "non-main" Switch.. or does that work ok?
I think Nintendo only thought of the Switch Lite as something people not having a regular Switch would buy....
I'm interested in one, but not if I have to jump through stupid hoops to have it play my games outside of my home....
Re: Razer's New Gaming Tablet Is One Of The Most Blatant Nintendo Switch Clones Yet
@Agramonte
To add to this, I've heard that the next gaming portable from GPD is going to use an AMD chipset, which will be awesome as AMD integrated GPUs are generally much more powerful than their Intel equivalent. Given the GPD Win 2 used an Intel Core M (and was quite a decent machine), maybe they plan on using one of those new low-power AMD chipsets....
Good things ahead for tech enthusiasts!
Re: Razer's New Gaming Tablet Is One Of The Most Blatant Nintendo Switch Clones Yet
@SwitchForce
We can play the fanboy game all we want, you know. This is like saying every PC manufacturer who started including a mouse with their PC were copying the Mac despite Apple having copied it from Xerox first. Or that Google copied the iPhone system from Apple despite HP, Palm and others having similar products out already.
I don't particularly like Razer, I own absolutely nothing from them, I'm just saying that their first iteration of this (a PC tablet with detachable side controllers) was out in 2013. Accusing them of profiting of Switch's popularity is a bit weird, given that this isn't even targeting the same market (PCs costing over $1000). It could very well be that this successor to their 2013 model was in development for quite some time already, who knows? I'm not saying Razer invented it. This layout for a portable device with detachable controllers existed before that too. And I don't think these were all "failed" attempts. Countless of side controllers for tablets would like to have a word with you.
You just assume that because it works in a similar way to the Switch (an aspect that others featured before the Switch was even known about), that it, of course, was meant to profit from it.
You know, portable gaming, detachable controllers... this has been around for quite some time... Looks like the Switch? As the PS Vita layout somewhat was similar to the GBA, which was similar in layout to the old GameGear... I mean, we could go on.... but this is just stupid.
It's not a crime, nor something wrong, to inspire yourself from stuff made previously and improve upon it. That's what drives technology forward. And it does not mean others are copycats from getting inspired by what you've done.
But, you know, ok. Believe what you want to believe and keep thinking that everyone out there building detachable side controllers is copying the Switch.
Re: Razer's New Gaming Tablet Is One Of The Most Blatant Nintendo Switch Clones Yet
@Agramonte
I think Gears 5 is built as an UWP app (Universal Windows) which is new to Windows 8/10. These are the type of apps and games that can be bought and downloaded from the Windows store, and aren't compiled the same way as a regular x86 app. I think apps built like that are more friendly to quick shutdowns and sleep mode. Their drawback are that as far as I know, these apps are "self-contained" in some way that makes them un-modable. (Unless this changed recently, I don't know). But they should be more stable than x86 apps regarding sleep mode.
That may explains why Gears 5 works better.
I also know that it usually helps when you minimize a game before putting the system to sleep. But what makes the Switch great for me these days, is that even in the middle of a game, you can hit the power button and put the system to sleep instantly. Never worked as well on my GPD Win.
Re: Razer's New Gaming Tablet Is One Of The Most Blatant Nintendo Switch Clones Yet
@SwitchForce
Huh.... That form factor and detachable controllers predates the Switch by quite some time, if you didn't know. All of those joystick attachments for phones and tablets that were around for years existed long before the Switch... even Razer themselves had a similar concept (not 100% the same as both side controllers were linked in a single shell you dropped the tablet into), in 2013. I myself had a "clipping" controller on each side of my tablet way before anyone knew about the Switch.
Nintendo didn't invent anything here. They just designed a whole console around the idea, and made it work very well because it was designed like this from the start instead of having controllers being an "add-on" to something else.
Sure, Nintendo made the idea much more popular and mainstream than it was back then, but to say companies like Razer waited to release an update to what they already had in 2013... because of the Switch is a bit stretched. I mean, sure, they might've noticed that the Switch made the idea more mainstream and that might be beneficial to them, but the idea in itself... they had it (and it was on the market) in 2013. This is an evolution of that idea. Yeah, the Switch was surely influencial. So what?
Re: Razer's New Gaming Tablet Is One Of The Most Blatant Nintendo Switch Clones Yet
@Agramonte
I think the same as well. I have an insane ton of games on PC (near 700 on Steam alone from years and years of sales and Humble Bundles), so a console like this would be worth it even if price is much higher than the Switch.
My only "problem" with this, and this is a big one IMO, is if Razer solved the "problem" of Windows' sleep function that completely mess up most games being played. Windows is just not build as a tablet-friendly system and will mostly wreck havoc in the stability department when you have to instantly close your game session. This is one of the factor made me not buy a GPD Win 2 (I had the first one, loved it, but same issue with Windows). This is what makes the Switch great IMO, as I game a lot in my daily train ride.
But if that is not a concern (of if it works better on this device), it could end up replacing my Switch as my default portable gaming device.
But.... right now... it looks pretty uncomfortable....
(Although the Switch is too, in long portable gaming sessions).
Re: Nintendo Switch System Update 9.0.0 Is Now Live
@NEStalgia
I appreciate that Nintendo isn't doing the same things as others, but those lootbox processors aren't what consumers want either (these are what shareholders want).
Is it too much to ask for a major gaming company to actually listen to their customers? Or are they too big and remote to their clients to actually know what they really want?
I appreciate Nintendo for what they are, and appreciate that they don't do the same thing as others, but there is, nonetheless, something called "listening to what your customers want", that gets very frustrating when apparently thrown out the window.
Re: Guide: Animal Crossing: New Horizons – Everything We Know So Far
This got me very interested, being a fan of the series (and having bought a 3DS basically to play a true AC on the go back then), but my life now with a family and kids that also love the series have me worried.
One island per system? I was expecting one per account/user. Why is this stupid limitation in place? For a company as family friendly as Nintendo, I was NOT expecting something that will no doubt generate battles of epic proportion from sibblings over who will get to have "his" or "her" island on the system. I mean, seriously Nintendo???? This might seriously jeopardize my purchase of this game as I don't want to create MORE issues for my kids to argue over.
And what about if I want my own island too? What about if I plan on getting a Switch lite and leave the regular one at home for the kids? Does that mean I won't ever be able to play my Switch Lite AC game on the big screen at home because I can't sync my save to the cloud (and the fact that only one island per system will be allowed)?
I'm just surprised at these decisions from Nintendo. This is about as remote from being "family-friendly" as it can be...
I was ready to be obsessed with AC again.... now... not so much... sadly.
Re: Nintendo Switch System Update 9.0.0 Is Now Live
I think it's fair to assume that mostly everyone in here just stopped trying to understand Nintendo. There are some relatively basic features a lot of people have been wanting since the Switch got released (folders, simple themes, to name two), and Nintendo is spending time and man-hours on an alarm feature and QR code login for their phone app or something.
I'll go with what someone else was saying earlier: my old Vita (from 2012!!!!) had a more functionnal user interface since LAUNCH than what the Switch is offering two and a half year post launch.
The Switch Lite is tempting me (as I'm playing mostly on the go) but I have the sad impression that Nintendo will make it a living hell to manage two Switch systems, as I still want to keep my original one (and be able to play my purchased games on BOTH, online or off).
Nintendo does what Nintendo wants.
It just happens that sometimes, it's also what the consumers want as well, but this seems to be unrelated. lol!
Re: Nintendo Updates The Switch Online NES App To Version 4.0.0
@NEStalgia
I wasn't aware. Thanks for the info! Hope this gets a release over here! Although, I kind of hate it that retro games on the Switch are all scattered across different apps. I like when all games from a single platform are tied togheter under the same app. Like, there won't be any Megaman or Castlevania or Contra on these NES and SNES apps because those are sold separatly as collections....
Re: Switch's NES And SNES Games Will No Longer Be Added Monthly
@Cyrax77
I think it depends on how you see things. Nowadays, all consoles out there figured that you can't just make people pay for online play alone because you're limiting the appeal of your paid service by targeting only those using one feature. Those services, on all platforms, became much more than just "pay for online play". Sony's own service wasn't even about online play at first, this was only added when the PS4 was released.
Personnaly, I rarely play online. It happens sometimes, but that's hardly a reason for me to invest in the service. Cloud saves are a much more important feature to me. And the NES and SNES games are a cool feature I don't mind paying for as well, as I like playing those.
Now, I'm not complaining, as at $25 per year, it still is A LOT LESS than PSN or XBL (for which I don't pay anymore, I used to have both), and it gives, I think, good value for the money. I'm just surprised that Nintendo is probably planning to release less of them, as this gives value to their subscription.
Both Sony and Microsoft realised at some point that they also needed to provide cloud saves and "free games" to provide incentives to those who play less online. Their games are often some older retail ones mixed with lots of indies, not just emulated old games, but then, their sub is $80 per year, which is much more than for the Switch.
I think, even if Nintendo releases less games, that it is good value. It's just that I'm surprised that they probably plan on releasing less of them, as I don't understand why having 2 or 3 per month seems to be unsustainable. Maybe not 2 or 3 per system, but at least 2 or 3 spread across both, that would be pretty fine by me.
Anyway, not going to cancel my sub over that. Just a little bit let down by this.
Re: Nintendo Updates The Switch Online NES App To Version 4.0.0
Well, I'm still playing some of these from time to time... Just yesterday (before the SNES app became available) I was playing through the old Ninja Gaiden. Still a classic and eminently playable, epsecially if you like challenging games (although the rewind feature and save states can now make it far easier if it's too challenging).
A lot of old NES games are still classics IMO, and some are still more fun than many titles being released today. The selection available now still needs more RPGs though (come on, Nintendo, I know there could be licensing issues, but try to put the old Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior games and Final Fantasy on there....)
Re: Switch's NES And SNES Games Will No Longer Be Added Monthly
Usually, when a company make some changes to their services and refuse to comment about the value of said change to the consumer, it's usually because it'll actually mean less value.
Most companies out there will never miss a chance to advertize how good they are, and how better for the consumers they are, when it's the case. It's good marketing. So when they don't say anything, it's usually because telling the truth would negatively affect their image.
But then, it can also be the sign of a clueless company, truly not knowing a lot or not having a clear plan, and not wanting to overpromise and then underdeliver.
But.... is 2 games a month really something that could be considered overpromise? Like others said, it's like... a minimum.
Maybe... just maybe... licensing issues with 3rd party games is more complex than anticipated... But still, I presume many Nintendo games don't need any kind of licencing since it's their own ganes.... So really... I don't know.
Re: Torchlight II Might Receive A Special Switch Lite Patch In The Future
@Heavyarms55
To me, it is the other way around; I find that devices with almost no bezels look silly. I rarely see any point to extending it that much to the edge other than to say "look Ma! No bezel". You need at least a small one, especially if the screen is touch-enabled. And especially for portable devices. The only ones I think look good without one are TV sets. And even though, they always have a very small one at least.
Also, the less bezel you have, the more risks you get to crack the screen if dropped, unless you add pretective sleeves or cases. The Switch being handled by many different people in my house, kids included, I don't want to have even more reasons for me to get a heart attack if it is dropped on the floor. Not saying we "need" huge bezels. Just that a small one is better (and looks better) to me, than almost none at all, just for the sake of its look. Sure, a larger screen could improve visibility and readability, but I don't think, at that size, that it would make a noticeable difference.
Maybe the bezel could've been a bit smaller on that new unit. But not by much IMO. I value the unit's smaller size much more than gaining only a couple of millimeters of screen size.
But that's me. And I know many will disagree.
Re: Classic DOOM And DOOM II Ports To Receive Performance Improvements In Future Patch
@SepticLemon
Yes, freezing. Everytime I put the system to sleep, when I get back to it, the game is completely frozen, and no amount of button presses of any kind can get it working again. The only thing that work is the home button, which brings me back to the Switch interface, where I can close the game and start it again. And this happens whether or not the system has access to the net.
This is the first time I encounter such a poor port of a game on the Switch, with bugs like these, and annoying log in screen that ends up looking for a network while offline, and while I'm not picky enough to worry about the performance issues as some others do, the fact it has those as well is just insulting for the consumers.
Even for a low-price port of an old game, this is completely innacceptable. It is baffling that this actually got past any kind of serious testing before being released. I actually think it didn't get any.
Re: Classic DOOM And DOOM II Ports To Receive Performance Improvements In Future Patch
Are they going to also fix the freaking freeze issue that happens to me every goddamned time I wake the console from sleep?
Also, appreciate the optional login, but that login window should go away completely and be a menu option instead. Everytime I start the game while in the train each day, it tries to connect to a network, have to wait for the scan to finish, cancel that, go down to the "cancel" or "skip" button (don't remember how it's called), and then click and access the main menu... that is beyond ridiculous. Fix that mess please before working on "performance improvements".
Re: The Physical Version Of Spyro Reignited Trilogy On Switch Will Require A Sizable Download
@Old_Man_Nintendo
Let's say we toss aside the fact that digital distribution gives the entire control of your library to a third party, and toss aside the fact that you won't be able to redownload stuff you paid for when the servers goes down in the future (because it WILL happen).
While quality is not a concern with games (download is same game as the one distributed on cart), movies and music isn't the same. Most digital downloads (or streams) are of inferior quality compared to physical media releases. Maybe it doesn't matter if you watch movies on a small screen, or listen to music trough earbuds that came with your phone or cheap ones. But I can guarantee you that most Blu-Rays and 4K discs are vastly superior in terms of image and sound to the compressed downloads and streams you can get/buy. Regarding audio, some stores stream or sell FLAC or other lossless files, but most people prefer to buy compressed versions. And in some cases, even vinyls get a superior sound than CD (especially true with rock/pop these days, that are mastered like crap for CD/digital).
For movies and music, physical media will ALWAYS have a place for those who actually care about quality.
As for games, the whole point of physical medias is to avoid being dependent on a third-party server for "rights management". It's about, mostly, future proofing. Downloads are, more or less, only long-term rentals. If you're ok paying for that, fine. I am too in some cases. But in others, I much prefer buying physical.
Re: Nicalis Hosts Switch eShop Sale, 12 Games Discounted For A Limited Time
What happenned to listing CDN prices? Last time I checked, Canada is still a part of NA. And we don't have those prices. Example: Redout is $37.49 up here, not $29.99
I remember you guys mentionning CDN prices at some point in the past. I found that this was a nice touch.
If it's too much work to do (I understand!), at least, replace "Current Price (NA)" with "Current Price (US)". This will be more accurate.
Re: Here's Your First Look At Jumanji: The Video Game's Gameplay
I was thinking that my son (who loved the movie) would be interested in this, but after looking at the trailer, it definitely look like a sub-par crap movie tie-in game. And you tell me this is from the PS4 version? If it looks that bad on the PS4, I'm wandering how it'll end up looking on the Switch...
Those characters animations... outch. Not good.
It looks like something I'd expect from a "freemium" mobile game. Not from a proper console game.