I also think a "Netflix-like" service for games, priced fairly, could be something interesting if there's a varied enough offer of games available for that price.
But then again, a passive service like Netflix can use buffering to compensate for the ton of things that can affect your immediate bandwidth. You can't do that with games as they need to be instantly reactive to your commands. Hence why game streaming will always require a really, really good ISP with a rock-solid connection, and your home fitted with a high-performing network as well. And pray the lord your network can handle multiple devices and users doing various things all at once, especially if you have a connected family.
I don't think we're at a point where most people out there have access to that kind of high-performing connections, and at an affordable price.
Streaming works well for me from inside my network (Plex server, Steam in-home streaming) but anything coming from outside that requires interaction (games) is horrible. My previouos ISP gave me 300mbsp and GeForce game streaming was suffering fdrom hiccups all the time, and image compression was bad. Now I backtracked to 25-50mbps (can't keep up constantly with price increases), so yeah, fine for unidirectional services like Netflix, but forget it for services like Stadia.
Besides, most of my gaming happens on the go on my Switch. I'm not going to pay a ridiculously high fortune for mobile data to play games on Stadia on the go....
The problem with financing a game through microtransaction is that you need to build the game around the concept. You have to shoehorn in artificial barriers in the game to hamper player progress unless they pay real money. Barriers that would make absolutely no sense at all in a normal game. You never see something like this in a regular game. You don't see your character saying that he did all he could for today (your day) and is exhausted so just stop playing and come back tomorrow.
To me, I see most of these games as riddled with game-altering, game-breaking features. I completely understand the need to make money, but doing it this way kind of ruins what I like about games. I play them to escape the mundane world, not to be constantly reminded that I need to pay for whatever premium currency with my real world money. This turns me off.
It's fine if people don't mind this. I do. I much more prefer paying a bigger one-time fee and be done with this gaming nonsense and not have to think about it anymore, than being constantly asked for money.
Who cares about Stadia, really? I mean, there are so many things going against it that I hardly see anyone out there being legitimately interested in it.
First, there are too many issues related to connectivity. ISPs, especially in the US, are moving towards imposing more bandwidth caps, not less. Add to that whatever equipment and software in-between the user and the ISP (routers, VPNs, etc...), the rising prices in many places (we just downgraded our connection ourselve because it's becoming ridiculous), AND, the fact that you're rarely alone in your house doing stuff on the net if you have a family. What if I'm on Stadia, my wife is trying to watch Netflix on her tablet, my son's downloading something on Steam.... on a variable 25-50mbps connection shared among us all.... Yeah, right.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that even if you "buy" your games on Stadia, there is NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that you'll be able to play it in, let's say, 5 years. There's no physical cart, you can't keep your downloads on an SD card, there's nothing you can do about it if Google retires a game from its service because the game publisher lost the right to its freaking soundtrack. Even if you paid full price for it.
And Google also has a proven track record regarding killing off apps and stuff that fails to meet expectations. So... yeah.... interested?
While I'd be interested in compilation of older games from EA coming to the Switch (Mass Effect Trilogy, Burnout 3 and/or Paradise, NFS Most Wanted, Mirror's Edge, etc...) I have zero interest in microtransaction-riddled games, the way EA is a current expert at.
NFS Most Wanted was even ported to the Vita back then, and it was AWESOME. This was the same, complete game (mostly) as on other platforms, although with some graphic downgrades, but stil... playing that on the go was a blast.
To see EA not capitalizing on their old successes on a platform like the Switch is a missed opportunity.
But I don't care about new EA games though. So who cares about this new NFS....
The Win2 is indeed way more expensive, I admit. But the Win1 is in the same ballpark though. I bought mine brand new for the price of a Switch (instead of buying a Switch back then). And I don't understand your comment "lack any proper games of their own".
I played hundreds of proper PC games on the thing. I played Skyrim on this before it was even out on the Switch. So games on Switch are "proper games" and the same games on PC aren't "proper games"? If you're talking about first-party games, there are none on PC because the "PC" platform isn't owned by anyone. So basically, your argument is that it's a PC.
And it was far from mediocre. I mean, I had one, I should know. I spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours playing PC games on this thing.
This device, for me, was something I did put in direct competition with the Switch, and bought over a Switch back then. And I never regretted that decision as it was a tons of fun. I kind of almost regret selling it, but oh well.
Saying this cannot be in direct competition with the Switch is being a bit intellectually dishonest, as I used it exactly in the same manner I'm using my Switch these days: mostly to play games on the go and occasionally on the big screen. Some games I play on Switch right now, I played them on this thing way before they were released on Switch.
I have a friend who still have both (GPD Win and Switch) and still much prefer playing on his GPD Win.
I smell a bit of Consoles vs. PC in your post. Personally, I play on all consoles + PC (have all of them) so I humbly consider myself a bit beyond all the fanboyism... And while nowadays I prefer my Switch and play on it all the time, I still say it's inaccurate to say nothing compares...
Unless you need something that does everything 100% the same way as the Switch, then nothing will ever compare to it... And thinking like this would also mean that no console could be compared to any other ever, as they all have something that distinguishes them from others....
Maybe for you, those devices aren't in competition. But I know many people who beg to differ. GPD devices usually sell very well and are often produced in multiple batches, and get multiple revisions. Surely, there are some people out there who think these devices are worth it for gaming... on the go or at home... like a Switch.
"There is nothing else on the market comparable to the Switch."
In the same price range, I'll agree to an extent. I purchased a GPD Win back then, which is a DS-sized gaming Windows PC (built-in controls, screen, HDMI out, etc...) that had decent enough specs to play Doom, Skyrim (before they were out on the Switch), and classic like Fallout 3, Mass Effect Trilogy, Burnout Paradise, LEGO games, Borderlands, and so many other on the go, with about the same battery life as the Switch. Given it made possible to play thousands of PC games on the go, AND with a price tag that was in the same "ballpark" as the Switch, I think this qualifies. Although I admit the "PC" nature of the thing meant that this system isn't as integrated and trouble-free as a console that "just work", but I used one for a while and still think it's a worthwhile alternative.
Now, the GPD Win 2 is out, and while it can't really compare as it is much more expensive than the Switch, it is powerful enough to run games like GTA V on the go. Of course, not as pretty as what you'd get on a PS4 or XB1, but on such a small screen (720p, like the Switch) it isn't THAT big of a deal.
Saying that no device at all can compare is not true. Both GPD Win devices can, although their PC nature doesn't make them as easy to use as a Switch. And the Win2 is much more expensive. BUT, they both allow gaming on the go, and on TV, in a "similar" fashion (no dock though, you need to hook up an HDMI cable).
BUT I still prefer my Switch these days for various reasons.
I'm just highlighting the fact that there ARE alternatives. They're just not mainstream enough to be known from most of the masses.
Don't companies like Bethesda have any intelligent people in their ranks telling them that the more hoops you make people jump through to get what they want, they less they'll want it? I mean, this is business 101.
And one of the reason why I like consoles is their "pick-up-and-play" simplicity. I play on PC too, but the PC landscape is turning into a nightmare in which every freaking company is now doing their own storefront/launcher thing and it's becoming a mess. Consoles always have been interesting for me because of their simpler attitude towards gaming.
I was away for the last week and when I learned the classic Doom games were now available on Switch, and for about $7 (CDN), I was very happy and was thinking of getting them when I'll be back. Now I read this.... and Bethesda just lost my money.
I know they said they'll be patching them up to make it optional, but if it's still popping up every time you start the game, even if you can dismiss the screen, it'll be super annoying and it will still make me not buy them.
This type of cr4p has no business at all on a console. And even less on a freaking single-player game!
@StevenG While I understand the "reselling" aspect as an argument, I don't think it should be one. Although I can get behind the ability to play the game a decade or two from now 100%, which digital distribution (on consoles at least) throws out the window.
And while some people say it is the same thing with PC, it isn't. The PC is an open system, and if I buy something that has any form of DRM on it, I can surely find a tool somewhere to make the game I paid for playable without it. And there are stores on PC that sell games without any DRM in them (GoG being one, some games on Humble Bundle are sold without DRM as well), letting YOU be the one who controls its availability (do your backups, and you're good).
Also, on PC, games have much lower price points than on consoles, and especially than on Nintendo's systems, where many multiplatform games, even when deeply discounted, are still pricier than the REGULAR price on other platforms. So really, when I buy something like the Borderlands Handsome collection for less than $10, it's not as heartbreaking if anything happens to your licence than a single title you paid $80 for.
@BitLounger A compilation of the first two games would have been something I'd buy on day one. Banana Blitz was still fun, but I found that the difficulty curve was quite unbalanced, sometimes going from a dead easy level (to me anyways) to one that's hard as nails.
I don't know if it was the same on other platforms (played it on the Vita), but like I said, I felt it was not as well balanced in terms of difficulty, than the first two ones, which featured progressively difficult levels that felt harder as you go, not just one really difficult level after a dead easy one.
@Sean161 Yeah, those were the days. These are things the younger generations will never understand. Looking at box artwork, reading the manual in anticipation of playing the game before getting home...
That's also part of the reason why I went back to vinyls too for music. Not only modern music sounds better on it (because vinyl can't stand the abuse of the audio spectrum most modern mastering jobs do - so they often need to produce a different master for vinyls), you get to gaze at awesome artwork, sleeves with lyrics printed on them and/or pictures, and in some case, cool bonus things like art books, stickers, posters, etc...
To me, digital anything simply has one thing for it: convenience. And often it's at the expense of quality (when speaking about music and movies). Right now, even services like Netflix, which probably use what is pretty efficient compression algorythms, can't come close to what you can get on a Blu-Ray or 4K disc, in terms of image quality. Colour banding, compression artifacts, and so on, are all over the place and pretty noticeable if you have a good (and large enough) TV set. And this is for non-interactive content.
Nvidia also provides solutions for real-time encoding of viodeo sources, and while it can get to a "good enough" level, it is still not comparable to playing the real thing localy.
I've never seen, so far, solutions for encoding videos in real-time and streaming it over the net that isn't affecting picture quality in some way.
I admit being curious at how Google will make this happen. Especially with the trend from ISPs everywhere to actually raise prices, throttle traffic, and cap monthly bandwidth... And add to this spotty connections, and people with families in which multiple people are downloading/streaming stuff at random times over a limited connection.
But then again, younger generations don't seem to care about these things.
I fail to understand how Nintendo can think, in 2019, that wallpapers (something that you can either get everywhere over the net for free or even make yourself), is a cool "freebie" or whatever.
I constantly gets those Nintendo surveys asking me how I like my new games and they only give silver coins in exchange for filling it, so that doesn't give me anything of actual value in return. Hey! Wallpapers. Woohoo! :/
I don't care about these surveys anymore. Waste of time. Now if they'd give me gold coins for them, even like, only 10 or so, that'd be something that would work with me.
But silver coins. Really. Talk about them being a useless "reward program".
The original Bubsy was, at the very best, spectacularly average.
The second outing was more or less more of the same.
Bubsy 3D was something I can count as one of the worst game I ever played in my entire life. And going back to pong, that's saying something.
Now, the only way I'd see this approaching the vicinity of relevancy, would be for the game to be completely self-aware and totally playing on the irony that no one actually wanted this. IF it has good gameplay, that could work. Somewhat... Maybe.
But going from that trailer, the game looks completely "meh" to me. Looks bland, derivative, and the music is just AWFUL to my ears. Music sounds like uninspired modern version of generic platforming music that was in every horrible "me-too" platformers of the early 90s... Which in a sense, might be fitting as that's what Bubsy was initially...
I think the only part of the trailer that impressed me, was seeing the old Accolade logo again. It only went downhill after that.
I'll wait and see, maybe I'll be surprised, but I'm not setting my hopes anywhere above average.
Well, everyone has a right to different opinions, of course, but personnaly, I didn't buy a Switch to play ports of cheap mobile games. My point is that there is still a lot of awesome games on the Switch (as there are on other platforms as well), but there is as much, if not more, crappy ones not really worth of our attention.
You say that "a majority" are good games. That would mean over 1,200 games. I mean, really? You know 1,200 games on there that are actually worth playing? That you'd actually pay for? You tried them?
From what I've seen, for every Zelda or Mario Kart, there are at least two or three (if not more) Bouncy Bobs. This ratio still makes for a lot of good games. But let's not pretend that the majority of these 2480 games is all good games.
These numbers are meaningless. There are enough good games on there for everyone. That's what's needed to be said. It could have 100,000 games, if it doesn't have ones I'd be ready to pay for, it doesn't mean a thing.
The problem I see with this, is that unless I'm unware Nintendo changed its policies, isn't a user not allowed to have multiple Switch systems? I mean, If I have my regular Switch for home use and buy a Switch light to carry on the go because I prefer its slightly smaller form factor, would I be able to install my e-shop games on both?
If yes, that's cool, but like I said, unless I missed something, I don't think Nintendo would allow that. They usually only allowed to have one "main" system and that's it. They only allow "transfering" to a new unit, not having games installed on both. Right?
Then the market for this would only be people new to the platform, or those wanting to change their current model for this new portable-only one.
I wish Nintendo would stop using stupid metrics in their marketing. Sure, it now has a huge amount of good games, but numbers in themselves are completely meaningless. I mean, sure, it has over 2,000 games. Steam has over 30,000. Android and iOS surely have more than 2,000. What's the point of this? This is all meaningless.
The real question here is how many games are legitimately having decent entertainment value. I know, this will vary from person to person, but we all know there's still a lot of shovelware and cheap mobile ports on the Switch. The important fact is that there is enough good games among those 2480 games for most people.
Nintendo should drop their fixation on advertising the number of games on their platform. What it really ends up highlighting is that a good chunk of those are garbage, and the fact that the e-shop is a mess and makes finding good games difficult. There are true gems in the Switch's library, both indie and AAA, but those are often lost among all the mobile-like shovelware.
If built in U.S., cost will be much higher at retail, as all the employees building these will have to be paid much, much higher than what they are paid in China. You may be saving a small dip in transport, but you'd be paying so much more in salaries....
Maybe Mexico could be an option, or Canada, but nothing could prevent Trump to impose whatever the hell he wants on any other country anyways, so nothing's a completely safe bet. Also, in those countries, skilled people to work in these manufacturing plants would still get paid much higher than in China.
Localy-produced products usually cost more because employees are paid higher here than in those other countries. And this will always be reflected on the retail price. This "America First" mentality is only going to jack prices up. No problem if you're ready to pay more, but just be aware that paying more will be the result. Not less.
I'd love to play Skyrim and Doom on Switch, but at $80 each (near $100 when you add sales taxes), there's no way it's going to happen. Even when Doom gets on sale on the Switch, it is for more than its regular price everywhere else. Get it down into the $25-$30 range and I'll be happy to pay.
Also, I bought Skyrim on PC for like $15 bucks some years ago and played it on my GPD Win. So "portable" Skyrim is nothing "special" that's worth paying extra for. No way I'm going to double-dip at freaking $80.
I don't think Walmart or Amazon are necessarily better places to shop. I know these are a threat to local economy, and I usually buy local whenever I can. Just not at Gamestop, which is probably as soulless a corporation as those anyways (just not as big).
But economy aside, Walmart clerks aren't throwing insults at me because I don't like a specific game, the games they sell as new are actually new, they actually do occasional sales on new titles and if I see a game sold for less elsewhere, they won't ask me to go to hell and will match the price. They also honor the sales and promotions advertised in their own flyers.
Which isn't the case for the 2 or 3 Gamestop (EB Games) stores in my region.
Also, Gamestop do most of its money on used games sales, which, with games sold almost at the same price as new ones, canibalize new games sales. When I buy games, I like that part of the money actually go to those who made it, not 100% in the pockets of those who just sold it to me. I love games, so I try to support the game industry that provides me with the games I love to play.
So I agree Walmart and Amazon aren't better alternatives. But I'd be willing to buy at Gamestop if I felt they really had my interest at heart, as a consumer. But they don't.
I'd much prefer buying from more "local" stores, although ones specialized in gaming are now few and far between...
@Zidentia EB Games in Canada is owned by Gamestop, and is the exact same as Gamestop in the U.S. There are also a few Gamestop stores in Canada, but they are the exact same as the EB Games ones. I assume at some point, EB games will just cease to exist and all these stores will become Gamestop.
I actually have fond memories of going into EB games many, many years ago (PS1 days), as they had good prices back then, even on their used games. It was simple, there wasn't any stupid point cards and memberships to save 10% more on used games or other crappy nonsense like that. You didn't feel like the store was ripping you off and pressuring you into stupid warranties or buying used copies instead of new ones. Back then, I felt the chain was legitimately interested into videogames, as in, not just a product to sell.
Fast-forward to these days, where I get insulted by one of their clerk for not being into Smash Bros...
Me: I'd like this game please, can I get a new copy?
GS Employee: (rumble through drawer, pick a loose game and put it in an empty case...)
Me: Sorry, but I asked for a new game...
GSE: Oh! It's brand new I assure you! We're just keeping them here in this drawer...
Me: Unsealed with the game card out of its case?
GSE: Yeah, in case we need the box for display purposes.
Me: And how can I know it's brand new?
GSE: I told you it's new.
Me: Yeah, you told me, but the cart is out of the box, I have no way to tell if you didn't bring it home last night to try the game and got it back this morning...
GSE: Oh, we're not allowed to do that.
Me: Doesn't make a difference. Your boss may not know if anyone played it. The only thing that can truly guarantee the game is new, is it being sealed up in its box. Otherwise, you can't guarantee me it is new. There would be no difference between new and used.
GSE: Would you like a used copy instead?
Me: Your "new" one may be already used for all I care. If I bring you my games in their open cases, and tell you they're all new, would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't. So I don't. Listen, I'll do a deal with you. You keep your "new" game, and I'll go shop elsewhere, ok?
Thing is, Gamestop is one of the worst place out there to buy games (and to sell them). I rarely (if ever) find good deals in their stores, stores often don't respect their own advertised promotions, and when trying to sell them games, they give you $2 for a game they're currently reselling for $45 (true personnal experience). Add to this their whole selling of openned, unsealed games as "new".
Physical copy being a Gamestop exclusive is actually a very good reason to buy this game digitally. I'm not encouraging these crooks.
@ibis_87 ... and this is why I said I feel big game developers aren't making games for me anymore. Most big games these days are generic and derivative as hell (although there are some exceptions sometimes).
Most indie games are driven by passion. These people make games as they feel it should be made, because that's how good games are made.
With most AAA productions, the prime consideration will always be a return on investment, so everything is done to maximize this, often at the expense of balanced gameplay, or immersion. The worse case is when gameplay has been artificially altered to allow the inclusion of these mechanics (timers, second monetary unit, typically in F2P games but now starting to appear in full blown $80 games).
Anyway, all of this to say I have ZERO faith in EA to actually "get it right" because that would imply getting rid of these. This would be like asking a company like Google, who lives on selling our data, to not gather our data. EA is producing the videogame equivalents of big Hollywood popcorn chompers made solely to make money at the box office by throwing tons of explosions and CG at us, in the hope we don't notice the lack of substance or the scenario fitting on two lines of text.
Like for music, books and movies, videogames have become an "industry" and to truly appreciate it at its best, you nowadays have to look for stuff off the beaten path...
AAA in gaming used to mean something at some point. But now, it rarely does anymore.
$25 is a bit much for a port of an old PS2 game. Right now, the HD trilogy is sold for $40 (regular price) on other platforms, which is a decent deal. When they'll release 2 & 3 separately again, that'll amount to $75 for the trilogy on Switch, vs $40 elsewhere.
"Here, Switch owners. Another overpriced port you'll surely buy because you always do. Thanks for the money! Capcom."
@ibis_87
We had games priced the same as you guys not so long ago, at $60. Now, they're $80. And people still buy them. Although speaking for myself, I rarely do buy them at this price now, and prefer to wait until price drops because.... holy cow... $80... for incomplete games now.... but hey... just buy the "gold" edition for like $150.... or so they say...
Games are not games anymore. They're more commercial products sold as games. Many companies now refer to a "good game" simply by looking at the "total revenue" column next to its name. The "game" aspect of the product being good or not, fun or not, is completely irrelevant. Does it make money? Yes? Then it's a good game. No? It's a bad game.
The game in itself is not important anymore. It's a product made to generate money. It could've been shoes, dishwashers, tables... it just happens the product these companies are manufacturing are games. To the shareholders, it makes no difference.
This leads me to realize than most of the big studios aren't making games for me anymore.... which may be one of the reason why spending $80+ on a game isn't a thing I usually do.
Thank god some indie developpers are still passionnate about the games they create.
@electrolite77 What I've noticed throughout console generations, is that when a clear market leader emerges, it usually comes with some arrogance about not having to do anything anymore to make money. It just pours in. This attitude is usually what leads to downhill slope. It can take some time, but when you reach the top, you can either stay there or go down, there are no other options.
Sony is indeed in their money-making phase now. I just don't know how long it will last. Maybe it'll carry over through the next generation, but at some point, it'll start fading. And either Microsoft or even Nintendo (unlikely but we never know) will grab the top market spot, and it will only begin again, and again, and again... Top dogs never stay at the top for eternity. At some point, they become complacent and competitors just seize the opportunity.
@electrolite77 You may be right about this. Although I still firmly believe that it doesn't help third-parties to artificially keep their prices high. For instance, I'd very much like to buy Doom and Skyrim on my Switch, but when I look at their price, even when on sale, I feel like I'd be getting the worst deal ever, given these are around $25-$30 elsewhere. That feeling contributes to me not buying them. It also contributes to me feeling like Bethesda is greedy (even if not true), by charging more on Switch for no reason other than being on Switch.
Nintendo being Nintendo, I know they practically never drop their prices. And they can afford it since their games are exclusive and it's not like you can find them anywhere else. But for multiplatform titles, I find it much harder to justify. The "Switch Tax" is definitely a thing, and it sometimes gives the feeling we're punished for buying our games on Switch.
You know, I wouldn't mind paying a bit more, I understand there may be costs related to carts and other things. But like, 400% the price is too much for me.
@bitleman Yes, I do know. I mentionned that earlier. I also mentionned about being relatively ok with Nintendo games practically never going down in price (although I would buy more games if they weren't $80 a piece). What I was curious about was games from third parties that go down in price on other platforms, but not on Nintendo's platform and was curious about it. Like is there a clause in Nintendo's distribution contracts (or whatever it is called) that prevents companies from dropping the regular price of their games before a specific amount of time? I'm not talking about sales. I'm talking about dropping the regular price for an older game.
I don't think I've seen that happenning on the Switch platform yet.
@westman98 I was talking about policies regarding regular prices. Obviously Nintendo allows sales. I'm talking about games dropping in prices (going from a $79.99 regular price to a new $59.99 regular price). I get that Nintendo doesn't really drop prices on their games (aside from when reissuing "Nintendo Select" games years later), but I was curious about why I haven't seen much third party drop their regular prices on the Switch. Games launch at a specific price point, they go on sale, yes, but always get back to that initial price point.
Maybe that's just me though. Anyone seen a game on the eShop marking their regular price down after a while (not a sale, but a permanent price drop)?
@bitleman It doesn't work necessarily like this. Once game sales are enough to cover the development cost, eveything sold is done at full profit and should not have any impact whatsoever on working conditions of anyone. If it does, then the consumer has nothing to do with it. Sure, you could even add to this some planned profit the company is banking on, but when you're past this, it is again full profits.
Truth is, once you get past the initial launch sales window, price will often be in direct relation with how many copies you end up selling. If you keep it high, people who might not have been interested in the past probably won't change their mind and you rely solely on new people buying into your platform to drive those full price sales.
The reason some platforms do better sales, is probably because it makes older titles more profitable? If a game regularly priced at $50 sells 50,000 copies at $30 during a sale, but sell 200,000 at $10, it's then more profitable to sell it at $10. Also, doing a regular price drop (going from $79.99 to $59.99) boosts sales as well for a moment.
I also believe, from seeing how prices are set on the eShop, that Nintendo forbids third-parties from dropping their "regular" price outside of special sales. At least, for some time. Which might explain why age-old games like Skyrim and Doom are still $80 a piece, which makes absolutely no commercial sense at all, given these games are like $25 everywhere else.
Thing is, games are fighting against relevancy. Games like Mario Kart and Zelda have something for them : they're exclusives, and their popularity isn't going down. Keeping their price high makes slighlty more sense for those. But games like Skyrim and Doom are way past their prime and companies usually make their prices reflect this. Except on Switch, where their price is kept high. Which makes me think Nintendo may impose some conditions on third parties regarding pricing on the e-Shop.
The current Shield TV model, even if years old, is still the most powerful TV box on the market right now, aside from building yourself a media PC.
I own one, and run myself a Plex server on it. And it is not uncommon to have both my kids streaming from the server at the same time, while my wife uses it to watch Netflix. Sometimes I can even add myself to this, remotely copying stuff to an external HDD hooked up to it. And all this without the unit breaking a sweat. It is quite a powerhouse for such a small device.
Now if Nvidia releases an upgraded model, I would surely be interested in it.
But to link this into a new Switch model is.... like others are saying... a rumor based itself on a rumor... I mean, serioulsy guys? I think it is fairly safe, of course, to assume that Nintendo will release a new model of Switch eventually... maybe sooner than later who knows... but how this article tried to keep it linked to Nintendo felt forced. Sure, you can report on it, but you could simply leave speculations out of it and it'll be a lot better. Stop suggesting completely speculative links and ask questions instead. Your articles will end up much better.
I think that a lot of people miss the point. The Witcher 3 port on the Switch is impressive because we're talking about a $300 "portable" machine. When people are saying that it runs better on a $3000 PC, it's not impressive. It's expected.
Even on PS4 or XB1, we're talking here about consoles who consume a lot more wattage, that are by their definition more powerful than anything "portable". So again, better performance doesn't surprise me. It's expected again.
The Switch running it this well (apparently), is impressive because even with the graphical downgrade, it is still an achievement to have it running like this on what is essentially a low-power mobile system.
@EvilRegal I have myself some sort of a legendary backlog accross many platforms. Mostly on PC (like near 700 games on Steam, accumulated over quite some time...). I was also an avid old games and consoles collector, although I sold most of what I had some time ago, I could see myself getting into it again in the future and rebuying stuff...
I'm pretty sure an all-streaming future would kind of create a huge market demand for retro systems. Companies making "compatible" retro consoles like Retron would benefit greatly, I think, although indirectly, from an all-streaming future, as many people will want to get back to old school systems and play those games, especially if they were around back in those days, so they'd want to play the games they missed.
In fact, let these streaming alternatives arrive. I already have the feeling that many games made today aren't made for me anymore so really, it would only push me quicker towards the inevitable return to retro gaming.
@Mycroft I think the same. People don't get it. Look, I had for some time a GPD Win, which is a DS-shaped tiny Windows PC with game controls tacked on. Specs are laughable if you compare to anything else out there. BUT, this thing allowed me to play TONS of older titles like Borderlands, Mass Effect, LEGO games, Skyrim, and many more. Sure, resolution was mostly set to 540p or 720p and details were minimuim to low, but on a 5 to 6" screen, it doesn't really make a difference. AND playing full-blown PC games on the go on a tiny handheld is IMPRESSIVE.
Sure, I find those PC games beautiful when ran at max details on a gaming laptop or desktop, but given the power consumption and cost of the device, I EXPECT THEM TO BE. So on that aspect, it doesn't impresses me that much. I mean, people are really comparing a $2000 PC experience to a $300 console? And hold them to the same standard? Truth is, I prefer turning things around and see the return on investment being exponentially diminished the more you pay.
For games like these to run on battery-powered devices for a couple of hours is no small feat. Sure, if you see the Switch as a "home console", it seem underpowered to you, but seen as a portable system, it's the most powerful portable system that ever was. That impresses me.
Like, all those things people do with Raspberry Pi boards out there. This is impressive.
Doing nice 3D graphics on a GFX card costing $600 alone (or more) isn't impressive. It's expected.
@jly1987 Framerate appreciation is relative. For a racing game, it needs to be super stable and smooth. Same for fighting games and most shooters as well (online and off). For a game like the Witcher? Fine if it is, doesn't mind if it dips slightly from time to time. In this case, it IS sugar coating. As long as it runs well enough to be perfectly playable. Do I want higher FPS? Sure. Do I need it? For that game, no.
It's all relative. Even resolution. I mean, sure, you'll see it in 720p on the big TV, but on the portable screen, 540p is fine (which was the same resolution as the PS Vita). Even on a TV, depending on size, and at what distance you sit from it, it may not be that big of a deal. It's all relative.
What I care about above anything else : Is the game fun?
@Anti-Guy
I own a gaming PC, and all other consoles. Will still buy it on Switch. To me, the Switch is considered a portable system with a dock and TV out. Most of my playtime is on the go, so it's not really in competition, at least not directly, with the others, even if featuring the same games, like in this case.
Sure, it's going to look nicer on other platforms, especially on PC when maxed out, but it'll only be rougher around the graphical edges on the Switch. At its core, it's the exact same game. All those nice graphics on PC and other formats are very nice, of course, but they're like the icing on the cake. I'm buying this for the cake part. Icing is nice, but not required.
A game is about content and how it plays. Graphical effects, resolution, HD textures, these are all packaging. They're all the sugar coating on top.
Those games were released before the Switch port, sure. But they're the same games. The games on those other systems aren't "older games". They're the same game. Just released before. If I'd be buying Doom on PC, I'd be playing the same game as if I'd buy it on the Switch. I would just pay much, much, much more money for it. Which makes me feel like buying this, even on sale, is the worst deal ever.
The original Doom, Doom II or Doom 3, are "older games". This is the same game as other versions. It's not a Deluxe version, not a collector's edition with some bundled extras or DLC... it's the same thing.
Also, a port usually cost only a fraction of what the original relase cost, as all the assets were already made, and some code usually carry over as well (not all, of course).
I can understand to some point the justification for a higher price, (it is new on that platform, after all) but not something of this magnitude. We're talking here about near 400%. And "just" 200% the price when "on sale".
For exclusive games, I can't really argue. For instance, Nintendo is Nintendo, and their games are only available on their platform. Fine, I can live with that. But any game available elsewhere should take that into account. Not saying to match price, but at least not overcharge a stupid amount of extra money for no reason other than it being on Switch. That "it's new on Switch" mentality doesn't make sense to justify a doubled or even quadrupled the price.
If people are fine with paying this extra money, fine. It's their thing. But it also contributes to the idea that Switch customers don't mind paying more, and some companies know this too well and will continue to capitalize on it.
Really cool that Canadian prices are now shown here. I appreciate that A LOT.
Now that being said, I've been waiting some time for a sale on DOOM to bring it in line with the REGULAR PRICE paid everywhere else, but even with a %50 sale on Switch, it is still almost double the price I'd be paying if buying elsewhere at REGULAR price.
Now, I can get that it can be more expensive on Switch, for some reasons. But when regular price is almost 400% the price found on other platforms, and even sale price near 200%, the idea of buying the game only provides me with images of myself throwing money out the window. I have a hard time justifying paying a game 200% more when ON SALE!!!
Same with Skyrim. Or Wolfenstein.
Sometimes, the Nintendo Switch Tax isn't that heavy, and still "acceptable", but there are cases (like these) where it's just completely insane.
@Jokerwolf The problem with this is that all companies have their own storefront and profits heavily from it. Sony wouldn't want anyone playing a game on PS4 that they didn't get a dime from because it was bought on an XB1. The other way around is also true. Add Nintendo to the mix as well. And most other PC storefronts too (the gazillion of them with more everyday it seems).
This doesn't mean I wish things were different. But the reality is that this will never happen in the foreseeable future. The reason the PS4 and XB1 pack so much tech in them at this pricepoint is that Sony and Microsoft sell the hardware without making much profit, but rely on software purchases and subscriptions to make money. For a model like the one you propose to work would need the big console juggernauts to not depend so much on the licensing cut they take on every game sold on their platform, which is an impossibility right now because their whole business model depends on it.
BUT, such a thing would have a better chance at succeeding if we talk about retro gaming. Have people legally buy ROMS of popular games, and, like MP3 files, be able to use them in whatever software or device they want. I'm sure some companies like Nintendo wouldn't go along with such a crazy idea, but maybe some other companies would. Still not realistic to expect right now, but still better chances of this happenning in the retro arena than in the full blown console circle...
@Jokerwolf
Right now, digital distribution isn't really pro-consumer. The MAIN problem with it is that the consumer is giving complete control over its library to a third party who can simply flick a switch and deny access to purchased content. Sure, in some cases, like on the Switch, one can download the purchases and keep it on SD cards, but as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), there is no easy way for someone to back up their purchases and manage them by themselves (backing them to let's say, an external HDD and restoring the games you want to your console).
For example, most of my music, I ripped myself from CDs and vinyls and cmopressed them into FLAC or MP3 files. I keep multiple backups, plus the original media. I'll never be denied access by anyone to what I legitimately purchased.
I started doing the same with my movie collection (I have boxes and boxes of DVDs and Blu-Ray discs). I have a server at home for the resulting files, and I can ALWAYS go back to the physical copy if I need it.
Also, regarding music and books and movies (and even some games on PC), there are alternatives out there without DRM. You purchase it, you keep the files, and you use them with whatever device can play or view them. Do your backups, and don't depend on a third party for access.
Now, I still have a netflix sub and other services as well, but I view these as rentals, and price is in line with this. But anything online that has strict DRM and doesn't allow me to manage myself, it needs to be priced accordingly to me. So I usually buy most digital stuff when on sale (by a good %, I might add).
More reasons to see digital distribution as glorified rentals.
The reason I still mostly like physical versions of games, movies and music, is mainly one of CONTROL. My collections are under MY control, not under management by a third party that can decide for me what I can or can't play, listen, watch or read.
Now, that being said, I think digital distribution has a place, provided it is priced accordingly. And by "priced accordingly" I mean taking into consideration the fact that the product you buy has more in common with an "indefinite" rental than the "purchase" of a product. Sure, digital comes with convenience, but it also comes with an arbitrary and unknown expiration date you agree to when you actually buy it. Physical products might not be as convenient, but at least they're not going to vanish in thin air as long as you take proper care of your collection.
And for those replying about "torrents" and emulation, I get your point, but it still doesn't negate the fact that a digital product you paid for is rendered unavailable if you ever need to access it again, not mentionning the fact that torrenting games like this, even when not distributed anymore, is still considered illegal.
If digital is to be seen as a viable option, a company shouldn't remove the ability for people to download a product they PAID FOR. Prevent people from buying it by removing it from a store if you like, but those who bought it should always be able to download it.
Right now, digital is the future only if you don't have a problem paying full price for glorified indefinite rentals. Fine if that's ok with you, but as a person that often go back to play older games, I'm not really 100% fine with it.
@roadrunner343 It's crazy right? It's the same thing with many PC gamers as well. A game might be perfectly playable at over 60+ fps, and yet, if there's a graphic card or other piece of hardware that can add 4-5 fps more to that out there, it seems they now "have" to buy that. A lot of people seems to have a fear of not having the absolute latest thing out there for.... some weird reasons. Same reason, probably, than those people always needing to have the latest phone as soon as it comes out. There must be something I don't get...
I mean, if a new Switch has features that makes it an awesome improvement for you for some reasons (and not just a few minor plus), I can somewhat understand. But what are really the chances of that happenning? I don't think a new model would change/improve it that much. Sure, the Switch as it is now is still far from perfect, but aside from a proper d-pad and maybe a bigger running time on batteries (which are both, IMO, minor things), the changes that would make the experience better are mostly software-related.
The lack of true analog sticks on this would be a deal breaker for me, even with a proper d-pad. The idea of magnetic connection is neat, especially to attach extended battery packs. For someone who plays mostly on the go, it would be a nice feature.
Although, again, horrible analog sticks, so for all the good features this would have, all interest is killed for me because of that.
But otherwise, nice renders. And it shows that some people have (IMO) a better understanding of what people want (aside from those horrible analog nubs), and what makes a nice package, than Nintendo themselves (and a lot of console manufacturers, to be honest).
Personnaly, if they can simply announce when Animal Crossing will be coming to Switch, it'll make me happy.
That, and maybe a revamping of the eshop because it has become incredibly difficult to navigate and find games in there. An ability for buyers to rank games to separate the actual good games from the tons of crap in the store would be a godsend.
The problem is not that it's Android. Android has some nice games playable on a gamepad, it's just that the ratio of good vs. shovelware is even more abysmal than it is on the Switch. Anyone thinking the Switch get 1 good game for every 5 or 10 bad ones, multiply this by 10, or even 50 for andoird... BUT I had (still have) a GPD XD and there are many games I played on it. Ridge Racer (android version), many LEGO games (which were the same versions published on the Vita), Final fantasy games, Oddworld's Stranger's Wrath, Grand Theft Auto series (Vice City, San Andreas, etc...), Star Wars KOTOR, Shadowgun, Brothers Tale of two sons, Oceanhorn, and many more...
The problem I see with this device... is that it's FUGLY... huge and bulky. Xiaomi usually builds stuff of pretty good quality (they are often called the Chinese answer to Apple), and having an Android TV Mi Box at home, I can attest this is far from "cheap chinese crap". To me, this isn't a good gaming phone. How am I going to fit that into my pocket? I don't want to bring the controller as separate pieces. If it can't fit in my pocket with its' controllers, it's not good. Simple. Also, stupid "gamers' aesthetic"... yuck.
Now if GPD would make an Android phone with a slide-out gamepad or something that would make it compact, I'd buy it. They know how to make it work with most games, and they had a built-in mapper in the GPD XD that was decent.
But I'm not interested in a gaming phone with a detachable gamepad. Make the gamepad part of the unit in some way, then we'll talk. Even a clamshell design like the DS would work, provided you put a screen on the outside for when closed, and one on the inside for when you open it up to game. Pricier, that will be for sure, but a lot more interesting to me.
@Hikingguy I havent' played the new game yet, but from what I've read (and saw in vids) it seems to me like a step backwards from Transformed. I had a blast with the previous entry, especially because of the transforming stages and vehicles. The character roster was also very cool, and this allowed for themed stages tied to varied SEGA franchises, which was very cool as well.
Now, everything seems to have been dialed back into a "standard" kart racer, although now with the team gimmick, which quite frankly, doesn't really interests me. It's like they replaced (almost) everything that made the previous game cool with something that doesn't have as much impact on the game itself, and adds this element of randomness to a race that I usually don't like (like rubberband AI), which can lead to you being the best in a race by a mile, and still lose.
Not that it seems like a bad game, but while I consider the previous entry "great", this one seems (to me) like something between "above-average" and "great". Probably still worth it, but I may wait for a sale to buy it.
Comments 466
Re: Football Manager 2020 Confirmed For Switch, But It'll Be "Fastest" On Google Stadia
@JayJ
I also think a "Netflix-like" service for games, priced fairly, could be something interesting if there's a varied enough offer of games available for that price.
But then again, a passive service like Netflix can use buffering to compensate for the ton of things that can affect your immediate bandwidth. You can't do that with games as they need to be instantly reactive to your commands. Hence why game streaming will always require a really, really good ISP with a rock-solid connection, and your home fitted with a high-performing network as well. And pray the lord your network can handle multiple devices and users doing various things all at once, especially if you have a connected family.
I don't think we're at a point where most people out there have access to that kind of high-performing connections, and at an affordable price.
Streaming works well for me from inside my network (Plex server, Steam in-home streaming) but anything coming from outside that requires interaction (games) is horrible. My previouos ISP gave me 300mbsp and GeForce game streaming was suffering fdrom hiccups all the time, and image compression was bad. Now I backtracked to 25-50mbps (can't keep up constantly with price increases), so yeah, fine for unidirectional services like Netflix, but forget it for services like Stadia.
Besides, most of my gaming happens on the go on my Switch. I'm not going to pay a ridiculously high fortune for mobile data to play games on Stadia on the go....
Re: Video: Google Play Pulls Out All The Stops For Its Manic Mario Kart Tour Trailer
@Audiogore0733
And that's why I rarely play any of them.
The problem with financing a game through microtransaction is that you need to build the game around the concept. You have to shoehorn in artificial barriers in the game to hamper player progress unless they pay real money. Barriers that would make absolutely no sense at all in a normal game. You never see something like this in a regular game. You don't see your character saying that he did all he could for today (your day) and is exhausted so just stop playing and come back tomorrow.
To me, I see most of these games as riddled with game-altering, game-breaking features. I completely understand the need to make money, but doing it this way kind of ruins what I like about games. I play them to escape the mundane world, not to be constantly reminded that I need to pay for whatever premium currency with my real world money. This turns me off.
It's fine if people don't mind this. I do. I much more prefer paying a bigger one-time fee and be done with this gaming nonsense and not have to think about it anymore, than being constantly asked for money.
Re: Football Manager 2020 Confirmed For Switch, But It'll Be "Fastest" On Google Stadia
Who cares about Stadia, really? I mean, there are so many things going against it that I hardly see anyone out there being legitimately interested in it.
First, there are too many issues related to connectivity. ISPs, especially in the US, are moving towards imposing more bandwidth caps, not less. Add to that whatever equipment and software in-between the user and the ISP (routers, VPNs, etc...), the rising prices in many places (we just downgraded our connection ourselve because it's becoming ridiculous), AND, the fact that you're rarely alone in your house doing stuff on the net if you have a family. What if I'm on Stadia, my wife is trying to watch Netflix on her tablet, my son's downloading something on Steam.... on a variable 25-50mbps connection shared among us all.... Yeah, right.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that even if you "buy" your games on Stadia, there is NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that you'll be able to play it in, let's say, 5 years. There's no physical cart, you can't keep your downloads on an SD card, there's nothing you can do about it if Google retires a game from its service because the game publisher lost the right to its freaking soundtrack. Even if you paid full price for it.
And Google also has a proven track record regarding killing off apps and stuff that fails to meet expectations. So... yeah.... interested?
Re: As You Probably Guessed, Need For Speed Heat Isn’t Coming To Switch
While I'd be interested in compilation of older games from EA coming to the Switch (Mass Effect Trilogy, Burnout 3 and/or Paradise, NFS Most Wanted, Mirror's Edge, etc...) I have zero interest in microtransaction-riddled games, the way EA is a current expert at.
NFS Most Wanted was even ported to the Vita back then, and it was AWESOME. This was the same, complete game (mostly) as on other platforms, although with some graphic downgrades, but stil... playing that on the go was a blast.
To see EA not capitalizing on their old successes on a platform like the Switch is a missed opportunity.
But I don't care about new EA games though. So who cares about this new NFS....
Re: Video: The "Impossible" Ports That Shouldn't Exist On Nintendo Switch
@Heavyarms55
The Win2 is indeed way more expensive, I admit. But the Win1 is in the same ballpark though. I bought mine brand new for the price of a Switch (instead of buying a Switch back then). And I don't understand your comment "lack any proper games of their own".
I played hundreds of proper PC games on the thing. I played Skyrim on this before it was even out on the Switch. So games on Switch are "proper games" and the same games on PC aren't "proper games"? If you're talking about first-party games, there are none on PC because the "PC" platform isn't owned by anyone. So basically, your argument is that it's a PC.
And it was far from mediocre. I mean, I had one, I should know. I spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours playing PC games on this thing.
This device, for me, was something I did put in direct competition with the Switch, and bought over a Switch back then. And I never regretted that decision as it was a tons of fun. I kind of almost regret selling it, but oh well.
Saying this cannot be in direct competition with the Switch is being a bit intellectually dishonest, as I used it exactly in the same manner I'm using my Switch these days: mostly to play games on the go and occasionally on the big screen. Some games I play on Switch right now, I played them on this thing way before they were released on Switch.
I have a friend who still have both (GPD Win and Switch) and still much prefer playing on his GPD Win.
I smell a bit of Consoles vs. PC in your post. Personally, I play on all consoles + PC (have all of them) so I humbly consider myself a bit beyond all the fanboyism... And while nowadays I prefer my Switch and play on it all the time, I still say it's inaccurate to say nothing compares...
Unless you need something that does everything 100% the same way as the Switch, then nothing will ever compare to it... And thinking like this would also mean that no console could be compared to any other ever, as they all have something that distinguishes them from others....
Maybe for you, those devices aren't in competition. But I know many people who beg to differ. GPD devices usually sell very well and are often produced in multiple batches, and get multiple revisions. Surely, there are some people out there who think these devices are worth it for gaming... on the go or at home... like a Switch.
Re: Video: Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD Gets Its First Gameplay Trailer
@Doktor-Mandrake
I wouldn't be surprised if Sega drops the intro cinematics from the Switch version to cheap out on game cart costs. LOL!
Re: Video: The "Impossible" Ports That Shouldn't Exist On Nintendo Switch
@Heavyarms55
"There is nothing else on the market comparable to the Switch."
In the same price range, I'll agree to an extent. I purchased a GPD Win back then, which is a DS-sized gaming Windows PC (built-in controls, screen, HDMI out, etc...) that had decent enough specs to play Doom, Skyrim (before they were out on the Switch), and classic like Fallout 3, Mass Effect Trilogy, Burnout Paradise, LEGO games, Borderlands, and so many other on the go, with about the same battery life as the Switch. Given it made possible to play thousands of PC games on the go, AND with a price tag that was in the same "ballpark" as the Switch, I think this qualifies. Although I admit the "PC" nature of the thing meant that this system isn't as integrated and trouble-free as a console that "just work", but I used one for a while and still think it's a worthwhile alternative.
Now, the GPD Win 2 is out, and while it can't really compare as it is much more expensive than the Switch, it is powerful enough to run games like GTA V on the go. Of course, not as pretty as what you'd get on a PS4 or XB1, but on such a small screen (720p, like the Switch) it isn't THAT big of a deal.
Saying that no device at all can compare is not true. Both GPD Win devices can, although their PC nature doesn't make them as easy to use as a Switch. And the Win2 is much more expensive. BUT, they both allow gaming on the go, and on TV, in a "similar" fashion (no dock though, you need to hook up an HDMI cable).
BUT I still prefer my Switch these days for various reasons.
I'm just highlighting the fact that there ARE alternatives. They're just not mainstream enough to be known from most of the masses.
Re: You'll Need A Bethesda Account To Play DOOM And DOOM II On Switch
Don't companies like Bethesda have any intelligent people in their ranks telling them that the more hoops you make people jump through to get what they want, they less they'll want it? I mean, this is business 101.
And one of the reason why I like consoles is their "pick-up-and-play" simplicity. I play on PC too, but the PC landscape is turning into a nightmare in which every freaking company is now doing their own storefront/launcher thing and it's becoming a mess. Consoles always have been interesting for me because of their simpler attitude towards gaming.
I was away for the last week and when I learned the classic Doom games were now available on Switch, and for about $7 (CDN), I was very happy and was thinking of getting them when I'll be back. Now I read this.... and Bethesda just lost my money.
I know they said they'll be patching them up to make it optional, but if it's still popping up every time you start the game, even if you can dismiss the screen, it'll be super annoying and it will still make me not buy them.
This type of cr4p has no business at all on a console. And even less on a freaking single-player game!
Re: Wolfenstein Youngblood File Size Revealed, Trial Edition Listed On Switch eShop
@StevenG
While I understand the "reselling" aspect as an argument, I don't think it should be one. Although I can get behind the ability to play the game a decade or two from now 100%, which digital distribution (on consoles at least) throws out the window.
And while some people say it is the same thing with PC, it isn't. The PC is an open system, and if I buy something that has any form of DRM on it, I can surely find a tool somewhere to make the game I paid for playable without it. And there are stores on PC that sell games without any DRM in them (GoG being one, some games on Humble Bundle are sold without DRM as well), letting YOU be the one who controls its availability (do your backups, and you're good).
Also, on PC, games have much lower price points than on consoles, and especially than on Nintendo's systems, where many multiplatform games, even when deeply discounted, are still pricier than the REGULAR price on other platforms. So really, when I buy something like the Borderlands Handsome collection for less than $10, it's not as heartbreaking if anything happens to your licence than a single title you paid $80 for.
Re: Sega Reveals Development Of Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD Is 70% Complete
@Orpheus79V
Oh thanks for the info... somehow, I never noticed this....
Silly me.
Must be that "getting old" thing people are talking about....
Re: Sega Reveals Development Of Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz HD Is 70% Complete
@BitLounger
A compilation of the first two games would have been something I'd buy on day one. Banana Blitz was still fun, but I found that the difficulty curve was quite unbalanced, sometimes going from a dead easy level (to me anyways) to one that's hard as nails.
I don't know if it was the same on other platforms (played it on the Vita), but like I said, I felt it was not as well balanced in terms of difficulty, than the first two ones, which featured progressively difficult levels that felt harder as you go, not just one really difficult level after a dead easy one.
Re: Doug Bowser Says Nintendo Is "Closely Watching" Streaming Technologies
@AtlanteanMan
I could have written your post myself, right down to the "since the Atari 2600". (it makes me feel old now. lol!)
Thing is, there will always be retro gaming, with its TON of games I still haven't played yet.
I'm not going to jump into that "gaming's future" if it means I can't control what I have access to, and when I can play it.
Cheers.
Re: Doug Bowser Says Nintendo Is "Closely Watching" Streaming Technologies
@Sean161
Yeah, those were the days. These are things the younger generations will never understand. Looking at box artwork, reading the manual in anticipation of playing the game before getting home...
That's also part of the reason why I went back to vinyls too for music. Not only modern music sounds better on it (because vinyl can't stand the abuse of the audio spectrum most modern mastering jobs do - so they often need to produce a different master for vinyls), you get to gaze at awesome artwork, sleeves with lyrics printed on them and/or pictures, and in some case, cool bonus things like art books, stickers, posters, etc...
To me, digital anything simply has one thing for it: convenience. And often it's at the expense of quality (when speaking about music and movies). Right now, even services like Netflix, which probably use what is pretty efficient compression algorythms, can't come close to what you can get on a Blu-Ray or 4K disc, in terms of image quality. Colour banding, compression artifacts, and so on, are all over the place and pretty noticeable if you have a good (and large enough) TV set. And this is for non-interactive content.
Nvidia also provides solutions for real-time encoding of viodeo sources, and while it can get to a "good enough" level, it is still not comparable to playing the real thing localy.
I've never seen, so far, solutions for encoding videos in real-time and streaming it over the net that isn't affecting picture quality in some way.
I admit being curious at how Google will make this happen. Especially with the trend from ISPs everywhere to actually raise prices, throttle traffic, and cap monthly bandwidth... And add to this spotty connections, and people with families in which multiple people are downloading/streaming stuff at random times over a limited connection.
But then again, younger generations don't seem to care about these things.
Re: My Nintendo Adds Dr. Mario World Wallpapers For PC And Smartphone (North America)
I fail to understand how Nintendo can think, in 2019, that wallpapers (something that you can either get everywhere over the net for free or even make yourself), is a cool "freebie" or whatever.
I constantly gets those Nintendo surveys asking me how I like my new games and they only give silver coins in exchange for filling it, so that doesn't give me anything of actual value in return. Hey! Wallpapers. Woohoo! :/
I don't care about these surveys anymore. Waste of time. Now if they'd give me gold coins for them, even like, only 10 or so, that'd be something that would work with me.
But silver coins. Really. Talk about them being a useless "reward program".
Re: Take A Look At The Bubsy: Paws On Fire! Launch Trailer For Nintendo Switch
The original Bubsy was, at the very best, spectacularly average.
The second outing was more or less more of the same.
Bubsy 3D was something I can count as one of the worst game I ever played in my entire life. And going back to pong, that's saying something.
Now, the only way I'd see this approaching the vicinity of relevancy, would be for the game to be completely self-aware and totally playing on the irony that no one actually wanted this. IF it has good gameplay, that could work. Somewhat... Maybe.
But going from that trailer, the game looks completely "meh" to me. Looks bland, derivative, and the music is just AWFUL to my ears. Music sounds like uninspired modern version of generic platforming music that was in every horrible "me-too" platformers of the early 90s... Which in a sense, might be fitting as that's what Bubsy was initially...
I think the only part of the trailer that impressed me, was seeing the old Accolade logo again. It only went downhill after that.
I'll wait and see, maybe I'll be surprised, but I'm not setting my hopes anywhere above average.
Re: Video: Nintendo Highlights "Games For Every Gamer" With Existing And Upcoming Releases
@Dirty0814
Well, everyone has a right to different opinions, of course, but personnaly, I didn't buy a Switch to play ports of cheap mobile games. My point is that there is still a lot of awesome games on the Switch (as there are on other platforms as well), but there is as much, if not more, crappy ones not really worth of our attention.
You say that "a majority" are good games. That would mean over 1,200 games. I mean, really? You know 1,200 games on there that are actually worth playing? That you'd actually pay for? You tried them?
From what I've seen, for every Zelda or Mario Kart, there are at least two or three (if not more) Bouncy Bobs. This ratio still makes for a lot of good games. But let's not pretend that the majority of these 2480 games is all good games.
These numbers are meaningless. There are enough good games on there for everyone. That's what's needed to be said. It could have 100,000 games, if it doesn't have ones I'd be ready to pay for, it doesn't mean a thing.
Re: Nintendo Switch Lite Officially Revealed, Launches This September
The problem I see with this, is that unless I'm unware Nintendo changed its policies, isn't a user not allowed to have multiple Switch systems? I mean, If I have my regular Switch for home use and buy a Switch light to carry on the go because I prefer its slightly smaller form factor, would I be able to install my e-shop games on both?
If yes, that's cool, but like I said, unless I missed something, I don't think Nintendo would allow that. They usually only allowed to have one "main" system and that's it. They only allow "transfering" to a new unit, not having games installed on both. Right?
Then the market for this would only be people new to the platform, or those wanting to change their current model for this new portable-only one.
Re: Video: Nintendo Highlights "Games For Every Gamer" With Existing And Upcoming Releases
I wish Nintendo would stop using stupid metrics in their marketing. Sure, it now has a huge amount of good games, but numbers in themselves are completely meaningless. I mean, sure, it has over 2,000 games. Steam has over 30,000. Android and iOS surely have more than 2,000. What's the point of this? This is all meaningless.
The real question here is how many games are legitimately having decent entertainment value. I know, this will vary from person to person, but we all know there's still a lot of shovelware and cheap mobile ports on the Switch. The important fact is that there is enough good games among those 2480 games for most people.
Nintendo should drop their fixation on advertising the number of games on their platform. What it really ends up highlighting is that a good chunk of those are garbage, and the fact that the e-shop is a mess and makes finding good games difficult. There are true gems in the Switch's library, both indie and AAA, but those are often lost among all the mobile-like shovelware.
Re: Nintendo Reportedly Exploring Production Alternatives Outside China
@KnightWolf
If built in U.S., cost will be much higher at retail, as all the employees building these will have to be paid much, much higher than what they are paid in China. You may be saving a small dip in transport, but you'd be paying so much more in salaries....
Maybe Mexico could be an option, or Canada, but nothing could prevent Trump to impose whatever the hell he wants on any other country anyways, so nothing's a completely safe bet. Also, in those countries, skilled people to work in these manufacturing plants would still get paid much higher than in China.
Localy-produced products usually cost more because employees are paid higher here than in those other countries. And this will always be reflected on the retail price. This "America First" mentality is only going to jack prices up. No problem if you're ready to pay more, but just be aware that paying more will be the result. Not less.
Re: Bethesda's Pete Hines Says "It's Clear" The Studio Is Bringing New Players To Switch
I'd love to play Skyrim and Doom on Switch, but at $80 each (near $100 when you add sales taxes), there's no way it's going to happen. Even when Doom gets on sale on the Switch, it is for more than its regular price everywhere else. Get it down into the $25-$30 range and I'll be happy to pay.
Also, I bought Skyrim on PC for like $15 bucks some years ago and played it on my GPD Win. So "portable" Skyrim is nothing "special" that's worth paying extra for. No way I'm going to double-dip at freaking $80.
Re: Ghostbusters: The Video Game Remastered Will Be A GameStop Exclusive In The United States
@JasmineDragon
I don't think Walmart or Amazon are necessarily better places to shop. I know these are a threat to local economy, and I usually buy local whenever I can. Just not at Gamestop, which is probably as soulless a corporation as those anyways (just not as big).
But economy aside, Walmart clerks aren't throwing insults at me because I don't like a specific game, the games they sell as new are actually new, they actually do occasional sales on new titles and if I see a game sold for less elsewhere, they won't ask me to go to hell and will match the price. They also honor the sales and promotions advertised in their own flyers.
Which isn't the case for the 2 or 3 Gamestop (EB Games) stores in my region.
Also, Gamestop do most of its money on used games sales, which, with games sold almost at the same price as new ones, canibalize new games sales. When I buy games, I like that part of the money actually go to those who made it, not 100% in the pockets of those who just sold it to me. I love games, so I try to support the game industry that provides me with the games I love to play.
So I agree Walmart and Amazon aren't better alternatives. But I'd be willing to buy at Gamestop if I felt they really had my interest at heart, as a consumer. But they don't.
I'd much prefer buying from more "local" stores, although ones specialized in gaming are now few and far between...
Re: Ghostbusters: The Video Game Remastered Will Be A GameStop Exclusive In The United States
@Zidentia
EB Games in Canada is owned by Gamestop, and is the exact same as Gamestop in the U.S. There are also a few Gamestop stores in Canada, but they are the exact same as the EB Games ones. I assume at some point, EB games will just cease to exist and all these stores will become Gamestop.
I actually have fond memories of going into EB games many, many years ago (PS1 days), as they had good prices back then, even on their used games. It was simple, there wasn't any stupid point cards and memberships to save 10% more on used games or other crappy nonsense like that. You didn't feel like the store was ripping you off and pressuring you into stupid warranties or buying used copies instead of new ones. Back then, I felt the chain was legitimately interested into videogames, as in, not just a product to sell.
Fast-forward to these days, where I get insulted by one of their clerk for not being into Smash Bros...
Times have changed.
Re: Ghostbusters: The Video Game Remastered Will Be A GameStop Exclusive In The United States
Me: I'd like this game please, can I get a new copy?
GS Employee: (rumble through drawer, pick a loose game and put it in an empty case...)
Me: Sorry, but I asked for a new game...
GSE: Oh! It's brand new I assure you! We're just keeping them here in this drawer...
Me: Unsealed with the game card out of its case?
GSE: Yeah, in case we need the box for display purposes.
Me: And how can I know it's brand new?
GSE: I told you it's new.
Me: Yeah, you told me, but the cart is out of the box, I have no way to tell if you didn't bring it home last night to try the game and got it back this morning...
GSE: Oh, we're not allowed to do that.
Me: Doesn't make a difference. Your boss may not know if anyone played it. The only thing that can truly guarantee the game is new, is it being sealed up in its box. Otherwise, you can't guarantee me it is new. There would be no difference between new and used.
GSE: Would you like a used copy instead?
Me: Your "new" one may be already used for all I care. If I bring you my games in their open cases, and tell you they're all new, would you believe me? Of course you wouldn't. So I don't. Listen, I'll do a deal with you. You keep your "new" game, and I'll go shop elsewhere, ok?
Thing is, Gamestop is one of the worst place out there to buy games (and to sell them). I rarely (if ever) find good deals in their stores, stores often don't respect their own advertised promotions, and when trying to sell them games, they give you $2 for a game they're currently reselling for $45 (true personnal experience). Add to this their whole selling of openned, unsealed games as "new".
Physical copy being a Gamestop exclusive is actually a very good reason to buy this game digitally. I'm not encouraging these crooks.
Re: EA CEO Defends Microtransactions, Says It’s "Actually Possible" To Do It Right
@ibis_87
... and this is why I said I feel big game developers aren't making games for me anymore. Most big games these days are generic and derivative as hell (although there are some exceptions sometimes).
Most indie games are driven by passion. These people make games as they feel it should be made, because that's how good games are made.
With most AAA productions, the prime consideration will always be a return on investment, so everything is done to maximize this, often at the expense of balanced gameplay, or immersion. The worse case is when gameplay has been artificially altered to allow the inclusion of these mechanics (timers, second monetary unit, typically in F2P games but now starting to appear in full blown $80 games).
Anyway, all of this to say I have ZERO faith in EA to actually "get it right" because that would imply getting rid of these. This would be like asking a company like Google, who lives on selling our data, to not gather our data. EA is producing the videogame equivalents of big Hollywood popcorn chompers made solely to make money at the box office by throwing tons of explosions and CG at us, in the hope we don't notice the lack of substance or the scenario fitting on two lines of text.
Like for music, books and movies, videogames have become an "industry" and to truly appreciate it at its best, you nowadays have to look for stuff off the beaten path...
AAA in gaming used to mean something at some point. But now, it rarely does anymore.
Re: Review: Devil May Cry - A Stone-Cold Classic That's Trapped In Time
$25 is a bit much for a port of an old PS2 game. Right now, the HD trilogy is sold for $40 (regular price) on other platforms, which is a decent deal. When they'll release 2 & 3 separately again, that'll amount to $75 for the trilogy on Switch, vs $40 elsewhere.
"Here, Switch owners. Another overpriced port you'll surely buy because you always do. Thanks for the money! Capcom."
I'm just sick of this trend.
Re: EA CEO Defends Microtransactions, Says It’s "Actually Possible" To Do It Right
@ibis_87
We had games priced the same as you guys not so long ago, at $60. Now, they're $80. And people still buy them. Although speaking for myself, I rarely do buy them at this price now, and prefer to wait until price drops because.... holy cow... $80... for incomplete games now.... but hey... just buy the "gold" edition for like $150.... or so they say...
Games are not games anymore. They're more commercial products sold as games. Many companies now refer to a "good game" simply by looking at the "total revenue" column next to its name. The "game" aspect of the product being good or not, fun or not, is completely irrelevant. Does it make money? Yes? Then it's a good game. No? It's a bad game.
The game in itself is not important anymore. It's a product made to generate money. It could've been shoes, dishwashers, tables... it just happens the product these companies are manufacturing are games. To the shareholders, it makes no difference.
This leads me to realize than most of the big studios aren't making games for me anymore.... which may be one of the reason why spending $80+ on a game isn't a thing I usually do.
Thank god some indie developpers are still passionnate about the games they create.
Re: UK Charts: Sony's Days Of Play Sale Wipes Nintendo Out Of The Top Ten
@electrolite77
What I've noticed throughout console generations, is that when a clear market leader emerges, it usually comes with some arrogance about not having to do anything anymore to make money. It just pours in. This attitude is usually what leads to downhill slope. It can take some time, but when you reach the top, you can either stay there or go down, there are no other options.
Sony is indeed in their money-making phase now. I just don't know how long it will last. Maybe it'll carry over through the next generation, but at some point, it'll start fading. And either Microsoft or even Nintendo (unlikely but we never know) will grab the top market spot, and it will only begin again, and again, and again... Top dogs never stay at the top for eternity. At some point, they become complacent and competitors just seize the opportunity.
Anyway, let's see what the future holds!
Re: UK Charts: Sony's Days Of Play Sale Wipes Nintendo Out Of The Top Ten
@electrolite77
You may be right about this. Although I still firmly believe that it doesn't help third-parties to artificially keep their prices high. For instance, I'd very much like to buy Doom and Skyrim on my Switch, but when I look at their price, even when on sale, I feel like I'd be getting the worst deal ever, given these are around $25-$30 elsewhere. That feeling contributes to me not buying them. It also contributes to me feeling like Bethesda is greedy (even if not true), by charging more on Switch for no reason other than being on Switch.
Nintendo being Nintendo, I know they practically never drop their prices. And they can afford it since their games are exclusive and it's not like you can find them anywhere else. But for multiplatform titles, I find it much harder to justify. The "Switch Tax" is definitely a thing, and it sometimes gives the feeling we're punished for buying our games on Switch.
You know, I wouldn't mind paying a bit more, I understand there may be costs related to carts and other things. But like, 400% the price is too much for me.
Re: UK Charts: Sony's Days Of Play Sale Wipes Nintendo Out Of The Top Ten
@bitleman
Yes, I do know. I mentionned that earlier. I also mentionned about being relatively ok with Nintendo games practically never going down in price (although I would buy more games if they weren't $80 a piece). What I was curious about was games from third parties that go down in price on other platforms, but not on Nintendo's platform and was curious about it. Like is there a clause in Nintendo's distribution contracts (or whatever it is called) that prevents companies from dropping the regular price of their games before a specific amount of time? I'm not talking about sales. I'm talking about dropping the regular price for an older game.
I don't think I've seen that happenning on the Switch platform yet.
Re: UK Charts: Sony's Days Of Play Sale Wipes Nintendo Out Of The Top Ten
@westman98
I was talking about policies regarding regular prices. Obviously Nintendo allows sales. I'm talking about games dropping in prices (going from a $79.99 regular price to a new $59.99 regular price). I get that Nintendo doesn't really drop prices on their games (aside from when reissuing "Nintendo Select" games years later), but I was curious about why I haven't seen much third party drop their regular prices on the Switch. Games launch at a specific price point, they go on sale, yes, but always get back to that initial price point.
Maybe that's just me though. Anyone seen a game on the eShop marking their regular price down after a while (not a sale, but a permanent price drop)?
Re: UK Charts: Sony's Days Of Play Sale Wipes Nintendo Out Of The Top Ten
@bitleman
It doesn't work necessarily like this. Once game sales are enough to cover the development cost, eveything sold is done at full profit and should not have any impact whatsoever on working conditions of anyone. If it does, then the consumer has nothing to do with it. Sure, you could even add to this some planned profit the company is banking on, but when you're past this, it is again full profits.
Truth is, once you get past the initial launch sales window, price will often be in direct relation with how many copies you end up selling. If you keep it high, people who might not have been interested in the past probably won't change their mind and you rely solely on new people buying into your platform to drive those full price sales.
The reason some platforms do better sales, is probably because it makes older titles more profitable? If a game regularly priced at $50 sells 50,000 copies at $30 during a sale, but sell 200,000 at $10, it's then more profitable to sell it at $10. Also, doing a regular price drop (going from $79.99 to $59.99) boosts sales as well for a moment.
I also believe, from seeing how prices are set on the eShop, that Nintendo forbids third-parties from dropping their "regular" price outside of special sales. At least, for some time. Which might explain why age-old games like Skyrim and Doom are still $80 a piece, which makes absolutely no commercial sense at all, given these games are like $25 everywhere else.
Thing is, games are fighting against relevancy. Games like Mario Kart and Zelda have something for them : they're exclusives, and their popularity isn't going down. Keeping their price high makes slighlty more sense for those. But games like Skyrim and Doom are way past their prime and companies usually make their prices reflect this. Except on Switch, where their price is kept high. Which makes me think Nintendo may impose some conditions on third parties regarding pricing on the e-Shop.
Re: Rumour: New Nvidia Shield TV Could Share The Same Chipset As The Upgraded Switch
The current Shield TV model, even if years old, is still the most powerful TV box on the market right now, aside from building yourself a media PC.
I own one, and run myself a Plex server on it. And it is not uncommon to have both my kids streaming from the server at the same time, while my wife uses it to watch Netflix. Sometimes I can even add myself to this, remotely copying stuff to an external HDD hooked up to it. And all this without the unit breaking a sweat. It is quite a powerhouse for such a small device.
Now if Nvidia releases an upgraded model, I would surely be interested in it.
But to link this into a new Switch model is.... like others are saying... a rumor based itself on a rumor... I mean, serioulsy guys? I think it is fairly safe, of course, to assume that Nintendo will release a new model of Switch eventually... maybe sooner than later who knows... but how this article tried to keep it linked to Nintendo felt forced. Sure, you can report on it, but you could simply leave speculations out of it and it'll be a lot better. Stop suggesting completely speculative links and ask questions instead. Your articles will end up much better.
Re: Bethesda Might Have More Surprises For Nintendo Switch Owners In The Future
I'd actually buy their games if they'd price them at a level that's not a complete joke.
Regular price everywhere else : ~$25.
Regular price on Switch : $80.
Price on Switch when on sale : $40.
No thanks. I mean, come on.
Re: Video: Here's How The Witcher 3 On Switch Compares To The PS4 Version
@sanderev
I think that a lot of people miss the point. The Witcher 3 port on the Switch is impressive because we're talking about a $300 "portable" machine. When people are saying that it runs better on a $3000 PC, it's not impressive. It's expected.
Even on PS4 or XB1, we're talking here about consoles who consume a lot more wattage, that are by their definition more powerful than anything "portable". So again, better performance doesn't surprise me. It's expected again.
The Switch running it this well (apparently), is impressive because even with the graphical downgrade, it is still an achievement to have it running like this on what is essentially a low-power mobile system.
Re: Square Enix Also Exploring The Idea Of Its Own Subscription Or Streaming Service
@EvilRegal
I have myself some sort of a legendary backlog accross many platforms. Mostly on PC (like near 700 games on Steam, accumulated over quite some time...). I was also an avid old games and consoles collector, although I sold most of what I had some time ago, I could see myself getting into it again in the future and rebuying stuff...
I'm pretty sure an all-streaming future would kind of create a huge market demand for retro systems. Companies making "compatible" retro consoles like Retron would benefit greatly, I think, although indirectly, from an all-streaming future, as many people will want to get back to old school systems and play those games, especially if they were around back in those days, so they'd want to play the games they missed.
In fact, let these streaming alternatives arrive. I already have the feeling that many games made today aren't made for me anymore so really, it would only push me quicker towards the inevitable return to retro gaming.
Re: Square Enix Also Exploring The Idea Of Its Own Subscription Or Streaming Service
@EvilRegal
If the future is all about streaming, I'm tuning out.
Anyway, I guess I have a big enough backlog to take care of my game playing needs for quite some time....
Re: The Entirety Of Witcher III Will Be Squeezed Onto A Single Switch Cartridge
@Mycroft
I think the same. People don't get it. Look, I had for some time a GPD Win, which is a DS-shaped tiny Windows PC with game controls tacked on. Specs are laughable if you compare to anything else out there. BUT, this thing allowed me to play TONS of older titles like Borderlands, Mass Effect, LEGO games, Skyrim, and many more. Sure, resolution was mostly set to 540p or 720p and details were minimuim to low, but on a 5 to 6" screen, it doesn't really make a difference. AND playing full-blown PC games on the go on a tiny handheld is IMPRESSIVE.
Sure, I find those PC games beautiful when ran at max details on a gaming laptop or desktop, but given the power consumption and cost of the device, I EXPECT THEM TO BE. So on that aspect, it doesn't impresses me that much. I mean, people are really comparing a $2000 PC experience to a $300 console? And hold them to the same standard? Truth is, I prefer turning things around and see the return on investment being exponentially diminished the more you pay.
For games like these to run on battery-powered devices for a couple of hours is no small feat. Sure, if you see the Switch as a "home console", it seem underpowered to you, but seen as a portable system, it's the most powerful portable system that ever was. That impresses me.
Like, all those things people do with Raspberry Pi boards out there. This is impressive.
Doing nice 3D graphics on a GFX card costing $600 alone (or more) isn't impressive. It's expected.
Re: The Entirety Of Witcher III Will Be Squeezed Onto A Single Switch Cartridge
@jly1987
Framerate appreciation is relative. For a racing game, it needs to be super stable and smooth. Same for fighting games and most shooters as well (online and off). For a game like the Witcher? Fine if it is, doesn't mind if it dips slightly from time to time. In this case, it IS sugar coating. As long as it runs well enough to be perfectly playable. Do I want higher FPS? Sure. Do I need it? For that game, no.
It's all relative. Even resolution. I mean, sure, you'll see it in 720p on the big TV, but on the portable screen, 540p is fine (which was the same resolution as the PS Vita). Even on a TV, depending on size, and at what distance you sit from it, it may not be that big of a deal. It's all relative.
What I care about above anything else : Is the game fun?
Re: The Entirety Of Witcher III Will Be Squeezed Onto A Single Switch Cartridge
@Anti-Guy
I own a gaming PC, and all other consoles. Will still buy it on Switch. To me, the Switch is considered a portable system with a dock and TV out. Most of my playtime is on the go, so it's not really in competition, at least not directly, with the others, even if featuring the same games, like in this case.
Sure, it's going to look nicer on other platforms, especially on PC when maxed out, but it'll only be rougher around the graphical edges on the Switch. At its core, it's the exact same game. All those nice graphics on PC and other formats are very nice, of course, but they're like the icing on the cake. I'm buying this for the cake part. Icing is nice, but not required.
A game is about content and how it plays. Graphical effects, resolution, HD textures, these are all packaging. They're all the sugar coating on top.
Re: Save Up To 50% On Switch Games During Nintendo's E3 Sale (North America)
@sebmeisnerwl
Mario Rabbids has been way cheaper than this. I bought my copy (Physical Gold edition (ALL DLC) + Rabbid Statue) at Walmart for like $29 (CDN).
Still a good deal compared to full price though.
That game is awesome.
Re: Save Up To 50% On Switch Games During Nintendo's E3 Sale (North America)
@whanvee
Those games were released before the Switch port, sure. But they're the same games. The games on those other systems aren't "older games". They're the same game. Just released before. If I'd be buying Doom on PC, I'd be playing the same game as if I'd buy it on the Switch. I would just pay much, much, much more money for it. Which makes me feel like buying this, even on sale, is the worst deal ever.
The original Doom, Doom II or Doom 3, are "older games". This is the same game as other versions. It's not a Deluxe version, not a collector's edition with some bundled extras or DLC... it's the same thing.
Also, a port usually cost only a fraction of what the original relase cost, as all the assets were already made, and some code usually carry over as well (not all, of course).
I can understand to some point the justification for a higher price, (it is new on that platform, after all) but not something of this magnitude. We're talking here about near 400%. And "just" 200% the price when "on sale".
For exclusive games, I can't really argue. For instance, Nintendo is Nintendo, and their games are only available on their platform. Fine, I can live with that. But any game available elsewhere should take that into account. Not saying to match price, but at least not overcharge a stupid amount of extra money for no reason other than it being on Switch. That "it's new on Switch" mentality doesn't make sense to justify a doubled or even quadrupled the price.
If people are fine with paying this extra money, fine. It's their thing. But it also contributes to the idea that Switch customers don't mind paying more, and some companies know this too well and will continue to capitalize on it.
Re: The Nintendo E3 2019 Switch eShop Sale Is Now On (North America)
Really cool that Canadian prices are now shown here. I appreciate that A LOT.
Now that being said, I've been waiting some time for a sale on DOOM to bring it in line with the REGULAR PRICE paid everywhere else, but even with a %50 sale on Switch, it is still almost double the price I'd be paying if buying elsewhere at REGULAR price.
Now, I can get that it can be more expensive on Switch, for some reasons. But when regular price is almost 400% the price found on other platforms, and even sale price near 200%, the idea of buying the game only provides me with images of myself throwing money out the window. I have a hard time justifying paying a game 200% more when ON SALE!!!
Same with Skyrim. Or Wolfenstein.
Sometimes, the Nintendo Switch Tax isn't that heavy, and still "acceptable", but there are cases (like these) where it's just completely insane.
Re: Support For Minecraft: Story Mode Ends On 25th June
@Jokerwolf
The problem with this is that all companies have their own storefront and profits heavily from it. Sony wouldn't want anyone playing a game on PS4 that they didn't get a dime from because it was bought on an XB1. The other way around is also true. Add Nintendo to the mix as well. And most other PC storefronts too (the gazillion of them with more everyday it seems).
This doesn't mean I wish things were different. But the reality is that this will never happen in the foreseeable future. The reason the PS4 and XB1 pack so much tech in them at this pricepoint is that Sony and Microsoft sell the hardware without making much profit, but rely on software purchases and subscriptions to make money. For a model like the one you propose to work would need the big console juggernauts to not depend so much on the licensing cut they take on every game sold on their platform, which is an impossibility right now because their whole business model depends on it.
BUT, such a thing would have a better chance at succeeding if we talk about retro gaming. Have people legally buy ROMS of popular games, and, like MP3 files, be able to use them in whatever software or device they want. I'm sure some companies like Nintendo wouldn't go along with such a crazy idea, but maybe some other companies would. Still not realistic to expect right now, but still better chances of this happenning in the retro arena than in the full blown console circle...
Re: Support For Minecraft: Story Mode Ends On 25th June
@Jokerwolf
Right now, digital distribution isn't really pro-consumer. The MAIN problem with it is that the consumer is giving complete control over its library to a third party who can simply flick a switch and deny access to purchased content. Sure, in some cases, like on the Switch, one can download the purchases and keep it on SD cards, but as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), there is no easy way for someone to back up their purchases and manage them by themselves (backing them to let's say, an external HDD and restoring the games you want to your console).
For example, most of my music, I ripped myself from CDs and vinyls and cmopressed them into FLAC or MP3 files. I keep multiple backups, plus the original media. I'll never be denied access by anyone to what I legitimately purchased.
I started doing the same with my movie collection (I have boxes and boxes of DVDs and Blu-Ray discs). I have a server at home for the resulting files, and I can ALWAYS go back to the physical copy if I need it.
Also, regarding music and books and movies (and even some games on PC), there are alternatives out there without DRM. You purchase it, you keep the files, and you use them with whatever device can play or view them. Do your backups, and don't depend on a third party for access.
Now, I still have a netflix sub and other services as well, but I view these as rentals, and price is in line with this. But anything online that has strict DRM and doesn't allow me to manage myself, it needs to be priced accordingly to me. So I usually buy most digital stuff when on sale (by a good %, I might add).
Re: Support For Minecraft: Story Mode Ends On 25th June
More reasons to see digital distribution as glorified rentals.
The reason I still mostly like physical versions of games, movies and music, is mainly one of CONTROL. My collections are under MY control, not under management by a third party that can decide for me what I can or can't play, listen, watch or read.
Now, that being said, I think digital distribution has a place, provided it is priced accordingly. And by "priced accordingly" I mean taking into consideration the fact that the product you buy has more in common with an "indefinite" rental than the "purchase" of a product. Sure, digital comes with convenience, but it also comes with an arbitrary and unknown expiration date you agree to when you actually buy it. Physical products might not be as convenient, but at least they're not going to vanish in thin air as long as you take proper care of your collection.
And for those replying about "torrents" and emulation, I get your point, but it still doesn't negate the fact that a digital product you paid for is rendered unavailable if you ever need to access it again, not mentionning the fact that torrenting games like this, even when not distributed anymore, is still considered illegal.
If digital is to be seen as a viable option, a company shouldn't remove the ability for people to download a product they PAID FOR. Prevent people from buying it by removing it from a store if you like, but those who bought it should always be able to download it.
Right now, digital is the future only if you don't have a problem paying full price for glorified indefinite rentals. Fine if that's ok with you, but as a person that often go back to play older games, I'm not really 100% fine with it.
Re: Random: We Really Hope The New Nintendo Switch Looks Like This
@roadrunner343
It's crazy right? It's the same thing with many PC gamers as well. A game might be perfectly playable at over 60+ fps, and yet, if there's a graphic card or other piece of hardware that can add 4-5 fps more to that out there, it seems they now "have" to buy that. A lot of people seems to have a fear of not having the absolute latest thing out there for.... some weird reasons. Same reason, probably, than those people always needing to have the latest phone as soon as it comes out. There must be something I don't get...
I mean, if a new Switch has features that makes it an awesome improvement for you for some reasons (and not just a few minor plus), I can somewhat understand. But what are really the chances of that happenning? I don't think a new model would change/improve it that much. Sure, the Switch as it is now is still far from perfect, but aside from a proper d-pad and maybe a bigger running time on batteries (which are both, IMO, minor things), the changes that would make the experience better are mostly software-related.
Re: Random: We Really Hope The New Nintendo Switch Looks Like This
The lack of true analog sticks on this would be a deal breaker for me, even with a proper d-pad. The idea of magnetic connection is neat, especially to attach extended battery packs. For someone who plays mostly on the go, it would be a nice feature.
Although, again, horrible analog sticks, so for all the good features this would have, all interest is killed for me because of that.
But otherwise, nice renders. And it shows that some people have (IMO) a better understanding of what people want (aside from those horrible analog nubs), and what makes a nice package, than Nintendo themselves (and a lot of console manufacturers, to be honest).
Re: Video: What We Expect To See From Nintendo At E3 2019
Personnaly, if they can simply announce when Animal Crossing will be coming to Switch, it'll make me happy.
That, and maybe a revamping of the eshop because it has become incredibly difficult to navigate and find games in there. An ability for buyers to rank games to separate the actual good games from the tons of crap in the store would be a godsend.
Re: Feature: The Black Shark 2 Is A Phone That Thinks It's A Nintendo Switch
The problem is not that it's Android. Android has some nice games playable on a gamepad, it's just that the ratio of good vs. shovelware is even more abysmal than it is on the Switch. Anyone thinking the Switch get 1 good game for every 5 or 10 bad ones, multiply this by 10, or even 50 for andoird... BUT I had (still have) a GPD XD and there are many games I played on it. Ridge Racer (android version), many LEGO games (which were the same versions published on the Vita), Final fantasy games, Oddworld's Stranger's Wrath, Grand Theft Auto series (Vice City, San Andreas, etc...), Star Wars KOTOR, Shadowgun, Brothers Tale of two sons, Oceanhorn, and many more...
The problem I see with this device... is that it's FUGLY... huge and bulky. Xiaomi usually builds stuff of pretty good quality (they are often called the Chinese answer to Apple), and having an Android TV Mi Box at home, I can attest this is far from "cheap chinese crap". To me, this isn't a good gaming phone. How am I going to fit that into my pocket? I don't want to bring the controller as separate pieces. If it can't fit in my pocket with its' controllers, it's not good. Simple. Also, stupid "gamers' aesthetic"... yuck.
Now if GPD would make an Android phone with a slide-out gamepad or something that would make it compact, I'd buy it. They know how to make it work with most games, and they had a built-in mapper in the GPD XD that was decent.
But I'm not interested in a gaming phone with a detachable gamepad. Make the gamepad part of the unit in some way, then we'll talk. Even a clamshell design like the DS would work, provided you put a screen on the outside for when closed, and one on the inside for when you open it up to game. Pricier, that will be for sure, but a lot more interesting to me.
Re: Sumo Digital Explains Why Team Sonic Racing Doesn't Include Other Sega Characters
@Hikingguy
I havent' played the new game yet, but from what I've read (and saw in vids) it seems to me like a step backwards from Transformed. I had a blast with the previous entry, especially because of the transforming stages and vehicles. The character roster was also very cool, and this allowed for themed stages tied to varied SEGA franchises, which was very cool as well.
Now, everything seems to have been dialed back into a "standard" kart racer, although now with the team gimmick, which quite frankly, doesn't really interests me. It's like they replaced (almost) everything that made the previous game cool with something that doesn't have as much impact on the game itself, and adds this element of randomness to a race that I usually don't like (like rubberband AI), which can lead to you being the best in a race by a mile, and still lose.
Not that it seems like a bad game, but while I consider the previous entry "great", this one seems (to me) like something between "above-average" and "great". Probably still worth it, but I may wait for a sale to buy it.