@Folkloner Ha... the GPD Win 2. If it wasn't so expensive, I would have one. I had the first one, and for what it was, it was pretty incredible. I remember people were impressed when Skyrim made its way to Switch... "Skyrim on the go!!!" while I was already playing it on the go on my GPD Win...
Thing is, the Tegra chipset in the Switch has a much more powerful GPU than the GPD Win 2, which can run the Witcher 3 (with some tweaks) at around 30fps. So, if they do a good job with the engine, I'm pretty sure they can come up with a decent port. Surely not rivaling the PS4 or XB1, but I'm pretty sure still decent enough to warrant playing.
Having seen what the GPD Win 2 can do, which, as I said, have an inferior GPU, I don't think games like these are an impossibility on the Switch.
@Vic_Atreides I haven't played it, but to me the score given doesn't seem in line with what the article was saying. By reading the article, I got the feeling the game was relatively "average", like, not very good, with some important issues, but I still felt some fun could be had with this game, depending on the price paid and if you're into this type of game.
I wouldn't have been surprised with a 6 or even a 5... but 4? To me, 4 means something that's hard to picture anyone having fun with. And the review didn't give me that impression. Maybe the review forgot to mention some aspects that makes this game worse than what they described?
Like the opposite of a review saying how stellar a game is, only to give it a 7... A feeling the score given isn't completely in line with what was mentionned by the reviewer...
But since you actually played it... how would a fan of hack and slash type action would like it? Maybe not for full price, but I'd be interested if it ever gets a decent sale.... doesn't seem THAT bad to me...
@Tendogamerxxx I think you got it wrong. I personnal prefer physical, but it's not because I want boxes or cartridges. It's because this gives me CONTROL over what I bought and own. With digital, you actually give up that control, and trust companies to honor your purchases forever, which they won't. At some point, you won't be able to re-download the games you paid for. It's ok if you buy only a few games and keep them on whatever storage the console has (and hope the HDD or SD memory doesn't fail), but with the space some games are taking nowadays, it's not uncommon to see people running out of space.
If you're the type of gamer that play a game for some time and then never replay it again, ever, then fine, digital may be ok for you, but for anyone considering that maybe they'll want to replay this game, let's say, in 10 years (hey, I still play PS1 games! And always have some old consoles around in the house) then the ONLY way to be sure they'll be able to play the game they bought is to buy it physical. If you take care of your physical games and consoles, they'll last forever. Or about.
With digital, your purchases last for as long as the platform holder decides.
To me, it's not about boxes or cartridges or discs. It's about me having control over my game library.
@Aeleron0X And that is an awesome piece of hardware. I mean, my son and daughter are both streaming from the Plex server the Shield is running, while I'm copying stuff to it over the network, while my wife watch Netflix on it at the same time, and this thing is not even slowing down a bit. Plus, games, streaming from my PC, streaming free Nvidia games, and this being an Android system, I can sideload my own apps to it if I want. This thing is probably my best tech purchase amongst anything I've bought in the last 5 years.
But in retrospect, I think the Ouya had it wrong when they tried to target the game market exclusively. It's not realistic to think of launching another closed (or semi-closed) gaming ecosystem out there without any decent incentive for people to hop on. I'm sure they could've won over a lot more people had they relase a multi-media box with a remote instead. Granted, the market for such devices wasn't as big back then as it is nowadays, but given media capabilities of gaming consoles aren't always top-notch, such a device can make a lot more sense in the minds of gamers already on another platform. Heck, I have all current consoles in the house, plus two gaming PCs, and my Nvidia Shield is still the king (by a mile) when it comes to entertainment (outside of games or disc-based media).
I get the idea behind the Ouya. But they were delusional in thinking it could rival the big boys. This was forever destined to be a niche product from the get go (although a somewhat nice niche product). And a niche product can't live on a dedicated marketplace. Not enough buyers to generate money to maintain the platform. This was going nowhere, they had unrealistic expectations for the device, which led to a bad commercial approach, which led to commercial failure.
@brandonbwii I've read the same on Kotaku. "Mario Kart Tour Is Pretty Good When It’s Not Nickel And Diming You".
According to them, there are MULTIPLE instances of freemium-type shenanigans in place to make you pay money. There's a "premium" currency used to unlock things, there's ALSO a timer-based system of hearts that, when depleted, stops you from playing until you wait a while or pay to replenish them...
According to them, the game itself isn't bad, but it seems it's trying a bit too hard to make you feel like you have to pay money... constantly...
I know, it's a "free to play" game, and they have to make money, but personnaly, a game that doesn't offer a "one-time purchase" to get the full game is a game I'll never be interested in.
Then again, I'm surely not part of the target market for this.
I had tons of fun with Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed, both on the PS Vita and on PC... Felt different because of the changing stages and the vehicle transformations... And I hoped that a sequel would continue on that trend, but when this new game was announced, I remained skeptic but decided to give them a chance... maybe it will be as good?
Well, seems it's not. Apparently, the team racing mechanic isn't as interesting as the transforming stages and vehicles... Doesn't make it a bad game, but I already have Mario Kart for that kart-racing itch... and I'm not interested in another kart racing game in which you can be the best racer on the track by a mile... and still lose... (like in Mario Kart)....
I think a port of the previous game would've been better. And I probably would've bought it day one. Now this.... maybe when it's on sale...
This is just being sloppy. I mean, I can understand the financial reason to not splurge for the bigger cart and drive costs up, but there are ways of making it work.
First on the list: streaming. Have the game stream the intro from the web when online is available, skip it when offline. This, I think most could live with.
Second: Make it available as optional (and free) DLC.
I mean, it's not like there are no solution to this. Not having the cinematic intro, even if not essential to the game, hints at Switch version being an "incomplete", cut-down port. Like an afterthought.
No big deal, pal. Many people tend to forget that NA is more than just the US. What's frustrating is that we used to be on par, more or less, in terms of game prices. But now that our money's going in the toilet, everything cost more, but we're still paid the same. Most people don't get that YES, it's about the same in absolute value if we directly compare US and CDN prices, but since no one over here got their salaries adjusted the same way, it means either we're all paid less, or everything cost more.
I wouldn't find it completely unreasonable to pay $30 like you guys. Not cheap for a remake, but more reasonable. Imagine you guys if Capcom was asking $40 US. Well, it feels like that for us.
@Bunkerneath
Yep. I'm sure I've got the stomach for it. I just don't have the wallet.
I mean, sure, I have the $40. But it's always a question of the value we get for the money, and not the simple amount in itself. I mean, a port of port of a 2002 remake, of a game a lot of people have already played to death, for $40? Please. If this was $25 I may have considered it, but not for $40. Add sales taxes up here and we're bordering $50.
Sure, it's a good game, but considering it's nature, this is simply a cash grab attempt by Capcom, looking at how people seem not to care paying more for their games on the Switch.
Oh well. Into the "when it's at least 50% off" pile it goes!
DO. WANT. This book looks AWESOME. Seriously, I think this is the thing my life lacks at the moment. lol! Another video game book to add to my growing collection.
You can get this for around $20 more or less, on every other platform. But then again, this is the Switch. And people don't seem to mind paying more on that platform, so companies like Capcom are just trying to capitalize on this... If people weren't buying $2 mobile ports for $10 on the Switch, maybe the situation would've been different. Maybe.
I still don't understand why they chose to port this instead of the Ezio collection, or even do a trilogy. I'd be a lot more forgiving if, for the money, I could get the full first 3 games in the series.
I never played AC3 (I stopped playing after II - except for Liberation that I bought on the Vita back then), so I thought I'd be using the opportunity to play it on the Switch (as I mostly game on the train ride home every day) but if it's running as bad as it is mentionned in this review, it's definitely not worth the $50 asked for it.
Will probably wait for a decent sale to pick it up.
MK as a game is quite "over the top" in many aspects, and trying to replicate this on the big screen, will just end up like a cringe festival. People can criticize the first movie all they want, but using a tone implying it's not completely taking itself seriously, is what made it work. If they try to make this in a completely serious tone (which I'm sure is what they plan on doing), it WILL end up being bad.
Sure, keep the stuff in there that makes MK what it is. But a movie is a very different medium than a game. Make it fun and entertaining. Break the 4th wall from time to time, use some humor, make all the gory finishes so over the top they become ridiculous and almost like a parody of themselves. While MK has a "story", people don't play it because of that. They play it because the game is entertaining. They have fun with friends playing it. They laugh at the over the top fatalities. I don't think anyone is finding a movie about MK's story is something they lack in their lives. No one goes "Wow, they could surely make a movie about this" when talking about MK's story.
Stories in fighting games are always super ridiculous at trying to give excuses for all charcters to be in the fight. So if we're going down this way, let the movie be "aware" of its own shortcomings. It'll make for a much better, and enjoyable experience (and more fun).
The only way I can see a mobile game as "exciting" is if it's available as a one-time purchase for the complete game, without any purchasable in-game currency that is constantly required to get any meaningfull progress, or any gameplay-limiting shenanigans of the sort.
It could be an awesome game. But if it is using a freemium or "pay to win" model, my excitement quickly gets to about zero. And it's not that I don't want to pay. I paid for some mobile games I love. Some, like the mobile port of XCOM, I paid twice for (once for iOS, once for Android).
Just sell me a product. Not a "service" I feel like I have to constantly pay to play. It's all I ask. Otherwise, no, it's not going to be "exciting" for me.
@Doktor-Mandrake I'm in the same boat here. Anyway, there is so much stuff I still haven't played in my life, that my backlog would probably last me years and years and years of playing non-stop 24/7.
So I say, sure, get that cloud gaming on. I just won't buy into it. I'll track down copies of older games I haven't played instead and keep playing actual games. I'll be the one deciding what I can play., and I won't have my online behavior in games tracked to build a psychological profile aimed at better understanding my consumer nature to better sell me stuff.
Cloud gaming is not for me. And this is where I become an old fart yelling at clouds.
I find it ironic that "quality" mode isn't reflecting the idea we have of quality, and "performance" mode isn't reflecting our idea of what performance should be either.
I don't think it's because the developpers are lazy, but more like inexperienced. Maybe it's because they simply picked the wrong engine to build their game on. And now, there's not much they can do about it. If that's the case, I wonder when exactly in the development process it became evident it would turn into such a low-grade product.
@Wawawaaaario It's a sad world we live in when beautiful, more artsy games are not made anymore because they're "too risky".
To me, this would be like movies not being made anymore unless they're produced by Michael Bay, or similar in tone. (Which is almost true if you look at what's hitting the cineplexes, mostly).
I'm really thankful that there are some people out there still doing movies, music and games by passion. It's just that we need to get our heads out of the more commercial channels to get them.
I guess that's what we get now that games have become mainstream enough to become "products". I kind of miss the old days when a game being creative, weird and different was actually a selling point.
@Fake-E-Lee
This being on the Switch, rest assured it won't be priced the same as on Steam (or anywhere else). It'll be pricier. Maybe double the price or even more. People don't mind paying more on Switch, apparently, and developpers/publishers know this and obviously take advantage of this.
But as long as it's around $20-ish something, I'd say it's fair. Asking more for this would instantly move the game into my pile of "nope". Or at best in the "wait for a decent sale" pile.
Like others are mentionning, I usually welcome competition when it actually brings over something good (improvements) for the customers, and allow them to pick what they prefer. For instance, I have no issue with the likes of GOG, or even to a certain extent, Uplay (aside from it being bad as a stand-alone software) as it's relative non-intrusive and play nice with other platforms.
But this isn't such a case. It's actually a new platform that (currently) is inferior in every way, asking customers to jump through yet another set of hoops on top of the ones they already have to deal with, using EPIC's money to buy exclusives and studios to incite people to come to their platform. It's not proposing a better alternative to lure in players (which would be good), Epic is instead paying to "force" people into their system if they want to play the content.
I anticipate the Steam version to not receive support anymore eventually, and I'm pretty sure any new title from Psyonix will be an Epic Store exclusive too. This is NOT "only positive" answers. In fact, it's simple marketing drivel written to try to hide the fact that the "only positive" thing about it is for EPIC, and NOT for the players or the community.
EPIC is not trying to launch a competing store or platform like the GOG and Uplay of this world. EPIC is doing an EA. There's nothing about it "for the players". The only people having anything to gain from this are EPIC's shareholders.
Sonic is going to go on that list for sure... there are so many things just plain wrong with the trailer, even having a good script (it won't) can't save this. I mean, both my eyes and my ears would still be bleeding from their respectible a-hole if they had one, after seeing this trainwreck of a movie trailer.
That being said, I agree with others about the first Mortal Kombat movie. The tone of the movie was just right for what it was trying to be, and it ended up being fun. Not a stellar movie by any means, but at least an enjoyable one that had some cool moments in it. The worst usually happens when movies like these take themselves much too seriously, which wasn't the case here.
@redd214 If only it was $30... around here, with the sales tax, it comes at around $43... YES 43 BUCKS.
Meanwhile, you can get the same on Steam with all DLC for $16. Or you can get the Android version for less than $5 (with additionnal DLC).
I admit I'm often pissed about the "Switch Tax", but this is one of the worst example of it I've seen so far. Like, less than $20 everywhere else, but around $40 on the Switch...
SEGA has been doing a very bad job at managing their whole IP. Not just Sonic. I mean, it seems that anybody willing to pay for a SEGA licence gets it, even if the planned product the licence was acquired for ends up to be total crap.
In one corner, you see Nintendo showing a decent amount of respect for their legacy (NES & SNES minis, Pokémon movie that actually look ok, etc...) and on the opposing corner, you have SEGA, licencing its name and image to cheap retro console makers who miss the mark far too often, and allowing a movie studio to turn Sonic into a cinematic turd that need to be killed with fire, etc....
Looks like SEGA just doesn't care about their brand and image, and just accept whoever's willing to put out money to buy rights to whatever they have without any right over the resulting product. There are clearly some people at SEGA that needs to be fired. No self-respecting company would tolerate such disrespect for their brand and image.
This article made me think... Isn't that soooooo SEGA? I mean look at how different Nintendo and SEGA treat their respective franchises and products. Nintendo gets us the NES and SNES mini, clearly made by people who CARED. SEGA licenced its stuff to the horrible @ games company who repeatedly made cheap and bad products that never worked as well as they should've.
Now Nintendo, again, treats its franchise "Pokémon" with a minimum of care, and SEGA accept to licence the Sonic character to a movie studio who's turning it into a cinematic turd and don't have a freaking clue about the actual franchise.
SEGA just doesn't seem to care about their image that much, really.
If I'd be responsible for the IP licencing at SEGA right now, I'd be on the phone with my contacts at Paramount asking WTF is that trainwreck? Sh!t, I would've been involved with how they were treating the IP from the very start. And no way something this sh!tty would've seen the light of day.
@turntSNACO Well, one of the thing I see which is still frustrating these days, is that even if the content sold as DLC is entirely optional, most of that optional stuff, in the past, was available in games simply through unlocking. Which, in a sense, make the current devs and/or publisher look bad by repurposing stuff that traditionnaly was provided as freebies, into paid add-ons.
Now, that being said, I can understand things are complicated when ports and localizations of previously released games are concerned. Most of the additionnal content could've very well been made after the initial release, and this raises the question of what do you do as a company with all of that DLC in light of a re-release in another territory... Personnaly, I'm more enclined to say a company should wait a bit, even if the content is already done, because like I mentionned previoulsy, this gives a bad IMPRESSION having all of this available on day 1.
It is not as much "guilt by association" than exposure to the fact that if this stuff is "optional or inconsequential" to the main game, selling it for a price says it has value, which kinds of contradict (slightly) the idea. And having so much of it available on Day 1, even if we know the reason why, is still contributing to the idea that there are elements of the game you feel you'll be missing out on.
It's mostly, to me, a question of timing. As with anything, the first impression you give is often the most important. I remember many games with horrible cover art that were very good (if sometimes not stellar) and ended up not selling well. Anything that contributes to giving a bad first impression should be avoided, IMO.
@JaxonH Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Borderlands is a franchise owned and published by 2K Games. So in a sense if 2K games haven't asked Gearbox to do a version for Switch, then they can't really do it. What good would it be to spend resources working on a game the publisher/owner of the franchise don't have the intent to publish?
As far as I know, 2K games' presence on Switch is mostly full-price sports games riddled with micro-transactions, and I don't think they showed any interest whatsoever in bringing anything else they own (BioShock, Borderlands, to name two) to the platform.
But then again, given the current trends, they would probably re-release the handsome collection on the Switch and try to sell it for an appalling $80 full price... Which even for me, being a fan of the series (enough to have my Marcus Munitions official shirt), would be way too pricey for an age-old port (that I've already played).
@turntSNACO
Woah, woah, woah.... calm down. Have some dip.
The problem I have with this is one of perception. ANY game coming out with a sh!t-ton on DLC on day one LOOKS like a developper trying to cash in on their fans. And even if that's not the case, it still kind of gives the impression that you're paying great money for a game that is sold to you as incomplete, again, even if that's not the case.
Many games nowadays ship in at least two editions. A regular one, priced like the full games we're used to, and a "deluxe" type edition with some bonus DLC, sold for much more (often near or over $100 over here in Canada). Granted, said DLC is often accessory to the main game and completely optional, but what used to be unlocakble in the main game is now paid DLC. Let's not fool ourselves and pretend otherwise. Videgames is big business now, and businesses usually seize any opportunity they can to make more money. This is such an opportunity.
AGAIN, I'm not saying this game fall into the same category. Just that with current trends in gaming, this may look to many as just another example. Even if it's not, this being the norm with so many other publishers now, it'll always strike me (and many others I'm sure) as suspect when it happens with ANY game released.
Looking at the list of DLC, you'd be thinking that this is a "freemium" game, giving you the basics for free and asking you to pay for add-ons... but nope. This is a full-blown, full price title...
In a sense, if people are so dumb to pay full price for the game and pay for day-one DLC, then I guess a company would be dumb to not take advantage of that, no? It's almost like "free money". The day people STOP buying this crap is the day developpers will stop acting like this. If developpers are doing it, it's because there are TONS of people forking out precious cash for this.
I'm not really angry towards developpers doing this (ok, maybe a little). My anger is more directed towards all the people who buy into this, which is the sole reason so many developpers resort to these scummy tactics nowadays.
I have a strange feeling that this will be much pricier than if I was to buy it on my Android tablet (currently at about $15,99 USD). Like, around $40 or something. If that's the case (I'm sure I can bet on this), I'll pass.
I get it that it's nice to have a collection about the eariler games in the series, this being an anniversary collection, it makes sense to go where the series actually started. And there are some nice games in there.
But really, no SOTN? No GBA/DS games?
I was hoping more for a "here are the best games the franchise offered" instead of "here are the first games from the franchise". I think they shoul've labelled it the "Castlevania Origins Collection". It would've been a more accurate name for this compilation.
But let's just say I'm kind of disapointed. I was really thinking I'd be able to play SOTN on the go (like I did on PSP some time ago through the Dracula X chronicles), along with some GBA ones I missed (only played Cicrle of the Moon back in the days). Bummer.
@Heavyarms55 In general, these devices are called rom dumpers, as they... dump the read-only memory (rom) of carts into binary files. Some are more sophisticated than others (and generally pricier), but there are various models with various levels of functionality/complexity out there. Note that you may have to read some tutorials on how to do this depending on the model.
I'm not going to post links here or name specific devices for obvious reasons, but google is your friend here, my friend. If your country allows its people to create backup copies of the software they own (verify this first), then nothing's preventing you from buying equipment for this purpose. As long as you keep the resulting files to yourself only and never share them (that is illegal wherever you are on the globe, unless you have the licence to do so - and you don't - ).
@Heavyarms55, For NES games, there are solutions out there for as little as $20 that work ok, although it's not a one-click affair. Process may be tedious, but varies depending on the solution you get. It may become annoying (and expensive) to get rom dumpers for every console you have. And some consoles may not have a dumper easily available.
BUT, when it works, it's part of the idea that you'll learn a thing or two while working on these projects.
Of course, for disc-based consoles, it's relatively easy (not always though) with standard PC disc-drives and some software. Also, some consoles only need a cable hooked to your PC. But in most cases, it's never as simple as it should be, so be prepared to read a lot and take some time to experiment with software and hardware.
Regarding online downloads....
Depending on the country you live in, downloading copies of games you already OWN for personnal use MAY be legal. Everyone need to be aware of the regulations in their own countries regarding private copying and personnal use of copyrighted materials. Some countries allow it for content you already own. But most don't.
The safest route is always to dump your games yourself, even if that implies some special hardware. Also note that some countries have laws against tampering with software security and anti-piracy measures, so again, getting the information prior to doing this might be wise.
Personnaly, I'm a big fan of the earlier LEGO games, particularly LEGO SW complete saga. These games had focus, were tons of fun, and you were never lost anywhere trying to think about what you should do next. I think LEGO games are at their best when you don't need to explore too much, with moderately sized levels.
Although I admit I had a lot of fun with LEGO Marvel super heroes (the first one). After that, I think the formula was kept mostly unchanged (more or less) and the games kind of became boring a lot quicker.
Their recent outtings felt somewhat flat to me. Not bad, but not awesome. Just.... ok.
If they can make a new one similar in tone to the complete saga (no open-world exploration crap), but with the last trilogy episodes added in, that would be pretty cool.
@DragonbornRito I agree with you too, and with @Heavyarms55. For people owning large collections of retro games, emulation is sometime a nice way to play the games you OWN on the go, or a (sometimes) easier way to get them running on an HD tv set, sometimes even with nice (or awful) upscaling effects.
I find very attractive the concept of all-in-one solutions to house all of your games (the ones you own). Sure, playing them on original hardware is always the preferred option, but assembling your own solution and setting it up yourself, sometimes with custom art for menus and sidebars, is an awesome project and a lot of fun (and you'll learn a thing or two as you go along).
I think there's a recent trend highlighted in some stats, showing that piracy, after going down since many years, is actually starting to ramp up again. And most analysts are saying that what's pirated the most is movies and TV shows. Many are saying that the current state of the entertainment industry, with everyone and their dog starting their own exclusive streaming service, is making things much more complex, annoying and expensive than it should be, which is driving more people towards piracy...
Personnaly, having cut the cable cord about 2 months ago, the only services I'm subscribed to are Netflix and Tou.tv (a more local, french, service - which is my native language), and I'm not planning on subscribing to another one. The reason most people are cutting the cord is mostly a matter of costs vs. benefits not being worth it. People aren't going to simply replace their huge monthly bill with another one just as huge but comprised of many subscriptions... This makes it even MORE cumbersome than a simple cable subscription!!!
I'm just going to get a nice Antenna on the roof, get all the regular channels for free, will use my Nvidia Shield and its Plex server as program guide + PVR, and just access everything with it.
The industry doesn't seem to understand that making people subscribing to tons of different various services to watch all they want to watch is actually pretty stupid. Because even if you have the things I want to watch, I'm NOT going to sh!t money out of my wazoo to get yet another freaking monthly subscription. There is a limit to my entertainment budget, that I also share with games, photography, books, music, and so on...
@SwitchForce "More idiotic replies from TROLLs...and what the Troll forgets is you can't just grab you Coffee Table consoles and go."
People have all the rights to complain. Maybe you can't grab your coffee table console and go, but you can do this on PC if you buy a pocketable one. Old games like these run very well on such devices (I had one), so you just grab the PC game on whatever store has it, and play it either at home on your TV on on the go whenever and wherever you want. Switch-style.
Games sold for a console that can provide this functionality has no reason to be priced higher than anywhere else, unless they require a significant amount of coding to adapt to the nature of the platform. The portability of the Switch is a characteristic provided by the console I bought, not by the game. I already paid for this when I bought the console, heck, that's the MAIN reason why I bought the console.
What I buy is the content. The device that plays this content, and the functionalities the DEVICE provides shouldn't influence the price of said content. So on this, I'm on the side of those who complains about the "Switch Tax", where most games on the platform are often priced higher than their counterparts on other platforms for no valid reason other than being on the Switch.
Defending this is like saying people having offroad-capable cars should pay their gas more because their vehicle can drive them to more places than other cars.
So let people speak about how frustrated they are about this. The argument about "you can't turn your other consoles into a portable" is not a justification for stupidly high prices.
If you don't share these feelings with others, fine. If you feel like you get your money's worth, fine! It's not because you feel like this that everyone else is stupid for feeling different.
As long as they don't realease this for freakin' $80, I'll be interested in buying it. The lack of affordable FPS on the Switch is something that needs to be fixed (still $80 for Doom or Wolfenstein, come on...). Immortal Redneck is good, but this could be an interesting addition to my library.
@MeloMan Imagine paying $25 for it!!!! Because that's what it'll cost me if I buy it on the eshop right now. Which is insane.
It always amazes me to see how little effort Square Enix put into these ports (on all platforms), how much they charge for them, and how many people still buy them. If these games would have re-rendered backgrounds, updated 3d models and textures. true widescreen support, I guess that would justify the price. But a bare-bone, no frills, port with bugs that weren't even present in the original game more than 20 years ago? How can they charge this much for this and get away with it? That baffles me.
A more powerful Switch, maybe featuring docked-performance when in portable mode, would be cool. But then again, I think this would only makes sense if it's only marginally more expensive than the original, or if the original gets a price cut and the new one occupies the original's price bracket.
I guess a pro model wouldn't be targeted at the general masses but mainly at more hardcore players, but still, the original still sells for $400 in Canada, an updated model costing $500 would be commercially DOA, especially considering its lesser power when compared to the competition. The Switch over here is the priciest of the "base" systems. Doesn't prevent it from selling relatively well, but I still hear (and read) a lot of people saying they would buy one if the price would come down to something more in line with other (PS4, XB1 - $250-$300). So getting out a more expensive model priced higher would not help, even if in line with PS4 Pro and XB1X prices...
I mean, production price for the Switch has surely fell down a bit since its release, I'm pretty sure an updated model could replace the original in its original price bracket, and keep the console slightly more future proof in the process.
Part of me think these FF rereleases on Switch are cool, but the other part of me wished for something better than bare-bone ports. You know, added widescreen support, re-rendered background graphics (instead of simply blurry upscaled ones), slightly improved models and textures.... especially given the asking price ($22) for an old game I've played many times on both PS1 and PC... I would've paid the $22 if this version was actually featuring these improvements... but otherwise... hmmm... no.
Will go into my wishlist, but will wait for an eventual sale.
I purchase online comics from time to time, but I like to read them page by page. I like looking at the full page while I read, and the low resolution 720p screen of the Switch makes this an impossibility. Sure, you can hook to a TV for 1080p, but just the thought of reading comics on my TV turn me off. lol!
Great for those wanting to read by looking at it panel by panel, but to me that's an unappealing way to read comics.
I recently went from a 300mbps connection to a 50mbps one (which is often more around 25mbps, more or less) because my previous ISP kept raising the prices to ridiculous levels. This (50mbps) is enough for my current needs right now, it only takes more time when we download stuff, but I can still stream Netflix in 1080p, while the kids are watching stuff on YouTube. So that's still fair.
The current trend right now is making people either voluntarily or involuntarily cut their internet packages. Either they're becoming too expensive, or they have to deal with datacaps and/or speed throttling. Game streaming, contrary to movies and music, are a two-way communication thing. What is streamed to you depends on what input you send, so there can't be any "buffering" to mitigate the crap connection you may have. I've been with many ISPs over time, and while some are speedier than others, all are usually unpredictable and as unstable as it can be in their performance. You can easily go from 25mbps to 50, then back 25 and then 15, and up tho 35 and down again, all in less than 30 seconds. And that is without anyone else on the connection doing anything. Now imagine living with a family with kids on YouTube, and the wife streaming something on Netflix at the same time...
We're litterally going from "put the disc in and play" or "start the downloaded app and play", to ... "ensure that no one is doing anything else in the house and pray the lord there's no connection issues and MAYBE play".
Wow. Some improvements. Hail the "future of gaming".
Ha! lol!
Forget about all the tech specs and all the fancy little features and all that. If history showed us one thing, it's that it's not technological innovation that sells, it's convenience. People don't care about getting "the best". They care about getting what works for them.
So there are equally good reasons why this could take off, than there are about it bombing hard.
When it'll work, it may work well. So for all those people with lotsa money to pay for hyper super fast and reliable internet (something Google weirdly think the masses have access to at reasonable prices), it may work very well. For those with less reliable connections, if this only affect image quality, most people won't care. Streaming services like Netflix and the likes all have lower quality than physical medias and that hasn't prevented them from taking over.
But... that being said...
It isn't all about speed. The problem with this is that even if you have a super fast gigabit internet connection, if you have crap pings, you're going to get some insane input lag. And what about unreliable connection speed? Many people say their speed is often inconsistent at various times during the day. Add to that those living in houses where multiple people use the internet at the same time... like in most families... This is going to plainly provide the most inconsistent gaming experience you've ever played.
Now, I haven't tried Stadia. But other services like the one from Nvidia, I tried. And this led me to the same conclusion. Inconsistent experience. I had a 300mbps connection at the time, and even with that, the graphics quality shifted a lot, and compression artifacts reduced the sharpness of the image enough to be noticeable and bug me. Sometimes, input lag was almost non-existent, and then, out of the blue, unplayable for no reason. THIS my friends, is the world Google is trying to sell us on.
Also... I'm pretty sure Google will gather all sort of additionnal stats on every one of us. I mean, COME ON. It's Google. Now they'll track everything we do in our daily lives, and every action we do in games as well and add that to those packages of data they sell to third parties. Wow. Sign me up.
With the current state of the internet, and the trend coming from ISPs to throttle connections, add paywalls, limit bandwidth when they see fit, and raise prices on top of that, I don't think we're ready to jump onto the cloud gaming bandwagon anytime soon. Well, maybe a select few will be ok with this...
But I'm curious about the requirements for this. I just downagraded my connection from 300mbps to 50mbps (because with everything costing more and more nowadays, and the fact that I have a family to support and I don't have money up the wazoo, I didn't have a choice to cut back on this).
The problem is while technology always advance and allow for awesome things, the current trend shows people actually cutting back on these things because they don't have the means to always buy into what's current.
And what happens when you game over a connection used by the whole family? Can my son and I game at the same time on different devices, while my daughter is watching something on Netflix and my wife is receiving a call over our IP phone line? All this going through the same pipe?
Not gonna happen. At least not in my house. Maybe in a decade or so. And when that happens, I'll revert to retro gaming and actually owning my games instead of paying for glorified indefinite rentals over streaming.
Comments 466
Re: Rumour: Multiple Witcher 3 Listings For Nintendo Switch Appear Online
@Folkloner
Ha... the GPD Win 2. If it wasn't so expensive, I would have one. I had the first one, and for what it was, it was pretty incredible. I remember people were impressed when Skyrim made its way to Switch... "Skyrim on the go!!!" while I was already playing it on the go on my GPD Win...
Thing is, the Tegra chipset in the Switch has a much more powerful GPU than the GPD Win 2, which can run the Witcher 3 (with some tweaks) at around 30fps. So, if they do a good job with the engine, I'm pretty sure they can come up with a decent port. Surely not rivaling the PS4 or XB1, but I'm pretty sure still decent enough to warrant playing.
Having seen what the GPD Win 2 can do, which, as I said, have an inferior GPU, I don't think games like these are an impossibility on the Switch.
Re: Review: Blades Of Time - A Wonky Action Title That Belongs In The Past
@Vic_Atreides
I haven't played it, but to me the score given doesn't seem in line with what the article was saying. By reading the article, I got the feeling the game was relatively "average", like, not very good, with some important issues, but I still felt some fun could be had with this game, depending on the price paid and if you're into this type of game.
I wouldn't have been surprised with a 6 or even a 5... but 4? To me, 4 means something that's hard to picture anyone having fun with. And the review didn't give me that impression. Maybe the review forgot to mention some aspects that makes this game worse than what they described?
Like the opposite of a review saying how stellar a game is, only to give it a 7... A feeling the score given isn't completely in line with what was mentionned by the reviewer...
But since you actually played it... how would a fan of hack and slash type action would like it? Maybe not for full price, but I'd be interested if it ever gets a decent sale.... doesn't seem THAT bad to me...
Re: Team Sonic Racing Drops Opening Cutscene On Switch Due To "Cartridge Size Restrictions"
@Antraxx777
I was talking about LEGAL ways of playing the games you bought.
Re: Team Sonic Racing Drops Opening Cutscene On Switch Due To "Cartridge Size Restrictions"
@Tendogamerxxx
I think you got it wrong. I personnal prefer physical, but it's not because I want boxes or cartridges. It's because this gives me CONTROL over what I bought and own. With digital, you actually give up that control, and trust companies to honor your purchases forever, which they won't. At some point, you won't be able to re-download the games you paid for. It's ok if you buy only a few games and keep them on whatever storage the console has (and hope the HDD or SD memory doesn't fail), but with the space some games are taking nowadays, it's not uncommon to see people running out of space.
If you're the type of gamer that play a game for some time and then never replay it again, ever, then fine, digital may be ok for you, but for anyone considering that maybe they'll want to replay this game, let's say, in 10 years (hey, I still play PS1 games! And always have some old consoles around in the house) then the ONLY way to be sure they'll be able to play the game they bought is to buy it physical. If you take care of your physical games and consoles, they'll last forever. Or about.
With digital, your purchases last for as long as the platform holder decides.
To me, it's not about boxes or cartridges or discs. It's about me having control over my game library.
Re: So Long Ouya, We Hardly Knew Ye
@Aeleron0X
And that is an awesome piece of hardware. I mean, my son and daughter are both streaming from the Plex server the Shield is running, while I'm copying stuff to it over the network, while my wife watch Netflix on it at the same time, and this thing is not even slowing down a bit. Plus, games, streaming from my PC, streaming free Nvidia games, and this being an Android system, I can sideload my own apps to it if I want. This thing is probably my best tech purchase amongst anything I've bought in the last 5 years.
But in retrospect, I think the Ouya had it wrong when they tried to target the game market exclusively. It's not realistic to think of launching another closed (or semi-closed) gaming ecosystem out there without any decent incentive for people to hop on. I'm sure they could've won over a lot more people had they relase a multi-media box with a remote instead. Granted, the market for such devices wasn't as big back then as it is nowadays, but given media capabilities of gaming consoles aren't always top-notch, such a device can make a lot more sense in the minds of gamers already on another platform. Heck, I have all current consoles in the house, plus two gaming PCs, and my Nvidia Shield is still the king (by a mile) when it comes to entertainment (outside of games or disc-based media).
I get the idea behind the Ouya. But they were delusional in thinking it could rival the big boys. This was forever destined to be a niche product from the get go (although a somewhat nice niche product). And a niche product can't live on a dedicated marketplace. Not enough buyers to generate money to maintain the platform. This was going nowhere, they had unrealistic expectations for the device, which led to a bad commercial approach, which led to commercial failure.
Re: Mario Kart Tour Beta Test Details And Images Are Already Leaking Online
@brandonbwii
I've read the same on Kotaku. "Mario Kart Tour Is Pretty Good When It’s Not Nickel And Diming You".
According to them, there are MULTIPLE instances of freemium-type shenanigans in place to make you pay money. There's a "premium" currency used to unlock things, there's ALSO a timer-based system of hearts that, when depleted, stops you from playing until you wait a while or pay to replenish them...
According to them, the game itself isn't bad, but it seems it's trying a bit too hard to make you feel like you have to pay money... constantly...
I know, it's a "free to play" game, and they have to make money, but personnaly, a game that doesn't offer a "one-time purchase" to get the full game is a game I'll never be interested in.
Then again, I'm surely not part of the target market for this.
Re: Review: Team Sonic Racing - A Safe Effort Which Lags Well Behind Mario Kart 8
I had tons of fun with Sonic All Stars Racing Transformed, both on the PS Vita and on PC... Felt different because of the changing stages and the vehicle transformations... And I hoped that a sequel would continue on that trend, but when this new game was announced, I remained skeptic but decided to give them a chance... maybe it will be as good?
Well, seems it's not. Apparently, the team racing mechanic isn't as interesting as the transforming stages and vehicles... Doesn't make it a bad game, but I already have Mario Kart for that kart-racing itch... and I'm not interested in another kart racing game in which you can be the best racer on the track by a mile... and still lose... (like in Mario Kart)....
I think a port of the previous game would've been better. And I probably would've bought it day one. Now this.... maybe when it's on sale...
Re: Hang On, Why Is Team Sonic Racing's Opening Movie Missing On Switch?
This is just being sloppy. I mean, I can understand the financial reason to not splurge for the bigger cart and drive costs up, but there are ways of making it work.
First on the list: streaming. Have the game stream the intro from the web when online is available, skip it when offline. This, I think most could live with.
Second: Make it available as optional (and free) DLC.
I mean, it's not like there are no solution to this. Not having the cinematic intro, even if not essential to the game, hints at Switch version being an "incomplete", cut-down port. Like an afterthought.
Re: Review: Resident Evil - A Great Version Of A Classic Which Stubbornly Refuses To Get With The Times
@BacklogBlues
No big deal, pal. Many people tend to forget that NA is more than just the US. What's frustrating is that we used to be on par, more or less, in terms of game prices. But now that our money's going in the toilet, everything cost more, but we're still paid the same. Most people don't get that YES, it's about the same in absolute value if we directly compare US and CDN prices, but since no one over here got their salaries adjusted the same way, it means either we're all paid less, or everything cost more.
I wouldn't find it completely unreasonable to pay $30 like you guys. Not cheap for a remake, but more reasonable. Imagine you guys if Capcom was asking $40 US. Well, it feels like that for us.
Re: Review: Resident Evil - A Great Version Of A Classic Which Stubbornly Refuses To Get With The Times
@BacklogBlues
In Canada, it's $39.99. Which is insane for what it is.
Re: Review: Resident Evil - A Great Version Of A Classic Which Stubbornly Refuses To Get With The Times
@Bunkerneath
Yep. I'm sure I've got the stomach for it. I just don't have the wallet.
I mean, sure, I have the $40. But it's always a question of the value we get for the money, and not the simple amount in itself. I mean, a port of port of a 2002 remake, of a game a lot of people have already played to death, for $40? Please. If this was $25 I may have considered it, but not for $40. Add sales taxes up here and we're bordering $50.
Sure, it's a good game, but considering it's nature, this is simply a cash grab attempt by Capcom, looking at how people seem not to care paying more for their games on the Switch.
Oh well. Into the "when it's at least 50% off" pile it goes!
Re: Book Review: NES Encyclopedia: Everything You Wanted To Know About The NES, But Were Afraid To Ask
DO. WANT.
This book looks AWESOME. Seriously, I think this is the thing my life lacks at the moment. lol! Another video game book to add to my growing collection.
Re: Review: Resident Evil 4 - An Ageing Masterpiece Which Deserves More Care And Attention
$40. Yup, $40. Did I say $40?
This is ridiculous.
You can get this for around $20 more or less, on every other platform. But then again, this is the Switch. And people don't seem to mind paying more on that platform, so companies like Capcom are just trying to capitalize on this... If people weren't buying $2 mobile ports for $10 on the Switch, maybe the situation would've been different. Maybe.
Re: Review: Assassin's Creed III Remastered - The Franchise Runt Gets A Clunky Switch Port
I still don't understand why they chose to port this instead of the Ezio collection, or even do a trilogy. I'd be a lot more forgiving if, for the money, I could get the full first 3 games in the series.
I never played AC3 (I stopped playing after II - except for Liberation that I bought on the Vita back then), so I thought I'd be using the opportunity to play it on the Switch (as I mostly game on the train ride home every day) but if it's running as bad as it is mentionned in this review, it's definitely not worth the $50 asked for it.
Will probably wait for a decent sale to pick it up.
Re: The Mortal Kombat Movie Reboot Has Been Given The Greenlight
MK as a game is quite "over the top" in many aspects, and trying to replicate this on the big screen, will just end up like a cringe festival. People can criticize the first movie all they want, but using a tone implying it's not completely taking itself seriously, is what made it work. If they try to make this in a completely serious tone (which I'm sure is what they plan on doing), it WILL end up being bad.
Sure, keep the stuff in there that makes MK what it is. But a movie is a very different medium than a game. Make it fun and entertaining. Break the 4th wall from time to time, use some humor, make all the gory finishes so over the top they become ridiculous and almost like a parody of themselves. While MK has a "story", people don't play it because of that. They play it because the game is entertaining. They have fun with friends playing it. They laugh at the over the top fatalities. I don't think anyone is finding a movie about MK's story is something they lack in their lives. No one goes "Wow, they could surely make a movie about this" when talking about MK's story.
Stories in fighting games are always super ridiculous at trying to give excuses for all charcters to be in the fight. So if we're going down this way, let the movie be "aware" of its own shortcomings. It'll make for a much better, and enjoyable experience (and more fun).
Re: You'll Be Able To Customise Your Ride In Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled
"...collecting in-game Wumpa coins in regular races and then spending them at the store."
Let me guess.... these items will require a huge number of those coins, but don't fear, you'll be able to buy coin packs from the game store!!!!
Coming from Activision, this wouldn't surprise me.
Re: The Pokémon Company Will Launch A "New And Exciting" Mobile Game By March 2020
The only way I can see a mobile game as "exciting" is if it's available as a one-time purchase for the complete game, without any purchasable in-game currency that is constantly required to get any meaningfull progress, or any gameplay-limiting shenanigans of the sort.
It could be an awesome game. But if it is using a freemium or "pay to win" model, my excitement quickly gets to about zero. And it's not that I don't want to pay. I paid for some mobile games I love. Some, like the mobile port of XCOM, I paid twice for (once for iOS, once for Android).
Just sell me a product. Not a "service" I feel like I have to constantly pay to play. It's all I ask. Otherwise, no, it's not going to be "exciting" for me.
Re: Nintendo 'Must Keep Up' With Cloud Tech, But Sees Further Potential In Dedicated Hardware
@Doktor-Mandrake
I'm in the same boat here. Anyway, there is so much stuff I still haven't played in my life, that my backlog would probably last me years and years and years of playing non-stop 24/7.
So I say, sure, get that cloud gaming on. I just won't buy into it. I'll track down copies of older games I haven't played instead and keep playing actual games. I'll be the one deciding what I can play., and I won't have my online behavior in games tracked to build a psychological profile aimed at better understanding my consumer nature to better sell me stuff.
Cloud gaming is not for me. And this is where I become an old fart yelling at clouds.
Re: Xenon Racer Returns For Another Lap With Version 1.04 Now Available
I find it ironic that "quality" mode isn't reflecting the idea we have of quality, and "performance" mode isn't reflecting our idea of what performance should be either.
I don't think it's because the developpers are lazy, but more like inexperienced. Maybe it's because they simply picked the wrong engine to build their game on. And now, there's not much they can do about it. If that's the case, I wonder when exactly in the development process it became evident it would turn into such a low-grade product.
Re: Looks Like Ubisoft's Child Of Light Isn't Getting A Sequel After All
@Wawawaaaario
It's a sad world we live in when beautiful, more artsy games are not made anymore because they're "too risky".
To me, this would be like movies not being made anymore unless they're produced by Michael Bay, or similar in tone. (Which is almost true if you look at what's hitting the cineplexes, mostly).
I'm really thankful that there are some people out there still doing movies, music and games by passion. It's just that we need to get our heads out of the more commercial channels to get them.
I guess that's what we get now that games have become mainstream enough to become "products". I kind of miss the old days when a game being creative, weird and different was actually a selling point.
Re: Bethesda Really Wants You To Join Its Reward Program, Lots Of Cool Stuff Up For Grabs
Cool, a company giving out freebies to members... Make me want to support them...
**** looks at Doom, Wolfenstein and Skyrim on Switch - still $80 ****
Hahahah.... nope.
Re: Hack And Slash Title Blades Of Time Is Getting A Switch Remaster With Revamped Multiplayer
@Fake-E-Lee
This being on the Switch, rest assured it won't be priced the same as on Steam (or anywhere else). It'll be pricier. Maybe double the price or even more. People don't mind paying more on Switch, apparently, and developpers/publishers know this and obviously take advantage of this.
But as long as it's around $20-ish something, I'd say it's fair. Asking more for this would instantly move the game into my pile of "nope". Or at best in the "wait for a decent sale" pile.
Re: Epic Games Acquires Rocket League Developer Psyonix
Like others are mentionning, I usually welcome competition when it actually brings over something good (improvements) for the customers, and allow them to pick what they prefer. For instance, I have no issue with the likes of GOG, or even to a certain extent, Uplay (aside from it being bad as a stand-alone software) as it's relative non-intrusive and play nice with other platforms.
But this isn't such a case. It's actually a new platform that (currently) is inferior in every way, asking customers to jump through yet another set of hoops on top of the ones they already have to deal with, using EPIC's money to buy exclusives and studios to incite people to come to their platform. It's not proposing a better alternative to lure in players (which would be good), Epic is instead paying to "force" people into their system if they want to play the content.
I anticipate the Steam version to not receive support anymore eventually, and I'm pretty sure any new title from Psyonix will be an Epic Store exclusive too. This is NOT "only positive" answers. In fact, it's simple marketing drivel written to try to hide the fact that the "only positive" thing about it is for EPIC, and NOT for the players or the community.
EPIC is not trying to launch a competing store or platform like the GOG and Uplay of this world. EPIC is doing an EA. There's nothing about it "for the players". The only people having anything to gain from this are EPIC's shareholders.
Re: Feature: Forget Sonic, These Are the 10 Worst Video Game Movies Ever
Sonic is going to go on that list for sure... there are so many things just plain wrong with the trailer, even having a good script (it won't) can't save this. I mean, both my eyes and my ears would still be bleeding from their respectible a-hole if they had one, after seeing this trainwreck of a movie trailer.
That being said, I agree with others about the first Mortal Kombat movie. The tone of the movie was just right for what it was trying to be, and it ended up being fun. Not a stellar movie by any means, but at least an enjoyable one that had some cool moments in it. The worst usually happens when movies like these take themselves much too seriously, which wasn't the case here.
Re: Review: Table Top Racing: World Tour - Nitro Edition - A Likeable Racer, But Beware The Switch Tax
@redd214
If only it was $30... around here, with the sales tax, it comes at around $43... YES 43 BUCKS.
Meanwhile, you can get the same on Steam with all DLC for $16. Or you can get the Android version for less than $5 (with additionnal DLC).
I admit I'm often pissed about the "Switch Tax", but this is one of the worst example of it I've seen so far. Like, less than $20 everywhere else, but around $40 on the Switch...
Re: Random: Phew, The Internet Is Fixing That Terrible Sonic Movie Trailer
@dkxcalibur
SEGA has been doing a very bad job at managing their whole IP. Not just Sonic. I mean, it seems that anybody willing to pay for a SEGA licence gets it, even if the planned product the licence was acquired for ends up to be total crap.
In one corner, you see Nintendo showing a decent amount of respect for their legacy (NES & SNES minis, Pokémon movie that actually look ok, etc...) and on the opposing corner, you have SEGA, licencing its name and image to cheap retro console makers who miss the mark far too often, and allowing a movie studio to turn Sonic into a cinematic turd that need to be killed with fire, etc....
Looks like SEGA just doesn't care about their brand and image, and just accept whoever's willing to put out money to buy rights to whatever they have without any right over the resulting product. There are clearly some people at SEGA that needs to be fired. No self-respecting company would tolerate such disrespect for their brand and image.
Re: Talking Point: Not Appealing To Gamers First Is A Dangerous Strategy For The Sonic Movie
This article made me think... Isn't that soooooo SEGA? I mean look at how different Nintendo and SEGA treat their respective franchises and products. Nintendo gets us the NES and SNES mini, clearly made by people who CARED. SEGA licenced its stuff to the horrible @ games company who repeatedly made cheap and bad products that never worked as well as they should've.
Now Nintendo, again, treats its franchise "Pokémon" with a minimum of care, and SEGA accept to licence the Sonic character to a movie studio who's turning it into a cinematic turd and don't have a freaking clue about the actual franchise.
SEGA just doesn't seem to care about their image that much, really.
If I'd be responsible for the IP licencing at SEGA right now, I'd be on the phone with my contacts at Paramount asking WTF is that trainwreck? Sh!t, I would've been involved with how they were treating the IP from the very start. And no way something this sh!tty would've seen the light of day.
Re: Persona Q2: New Cinema Labyrinth Will Have A Whopping 27 Pieces Of DLC At Launch
@turntSNACO
Well, one of the thing I see which is still frustrating these days, is that even if the content sold as DLC is entirely optional, most of that optional stuff, in the past, was available in games simply through unlocking. Which, in a sense, make the current devs and/or publisher look bad by repurposing stuff that traditionnaly was provided as freebies, into paid add-ons.
Now, that being said, I can understand things are complicated when ports and localizations of previously released games are concerned. Most of the additionnal content could've very well been made after the initial release, and this raises the question of what do you do as a company with all of that DLC in light of a re-release in another territory... Personnaly, I'm more enclined to say a company should wait a bit, even if the content is already done, because like I mentionned previoulsy, this gives a bad IMPRESSION having all of this available on day 1.
It is not as much "guilt by association" than exposure to the fact that if this stuff is "optional or inconsequential" to the main game, selling it for a price says it has value, which kinds of contradict (slightly) the idea. And having so much of it available on Day 1, even if we know the reason why, is still contributing to the idea that there are elements of the game you feel you'll be missing out on.
It's mostly, to me, a question of timing. As with anything, the first impression you give is often the most important. I remember many games with horrible cover art that were very good (if sometimes not stellar) and ended up not selling well. Anything that contributes to giving a bad first impression should be avoided, IMO.
Re: Gearbox's Randy Pitchford Would "Love" To See Borderlands On Switch
@JaxonH
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Borderlands is a franchise owned and published by 2K Games. So in a sense if 2K games haven't asked Gearbox to do a version for Switch, then they can't really do it. What good would it be to spend resources working on a game the publisher/owner of the franchise don't have the intent to publish?
As far as I know, 2K games' presence on Switch is mostly full-price sports games riddled with micro-transactions, and I don't think they showed any interest whatsoever in bringing anything else they own (BioShock, Borderlands, to name two) to the platform.
But then again, given the current trends, they would probably re-release the handsome collection on the Switch and try to sell it for an appalling $80 full price... Which even for me, being a fan of the series (enough to have my Marcus Munitions official shirt), would be way too pricey for an age-old port (that I've already played).
Re: Persona Q2: New Cinema Labyrinth Will Have A Whopping 27 Pieces Of DLC At Launch
@turntSNACO
Woah, woah, woah.... calm down. Have some dip.
The problem I have with this is one of perception. ANY game coming out with a sh!t-ton on DLC on day one LOOKS like a developper trying to cash in on their fans. And even if that's not the case, it still kind of gives the impression that you're paying great money for a game that is sold to you as incomplete, again, even if that's not the case.
Many games nowadays ship in at least two editions. A regular one, priced like the full games we're used to, and a "deluxe" type edition with some bonus DLC, sold for much more (often near or over $100 over here in Canada). Granted, said DLC is often accessory to the main game and completely optional, but what used to be unlocakble in the main game is now paid DLC. Let's not fool ourselves and pretend otherwise. Videgames is big business now, and businesses usually seize any opportunity they can to make more money. This is such an opportunity.
AGAIN, I'm not saying this game fall into the same category. Just that with current trends in gaming, this may look to many as just another example. Even if it's not, this being the norm with so many other publishers now, it'll always strike me (and many others I'm sure) as suspect when it happens with ANY game released.
Re: Persona Q2: New Cinema Labyrinth Will Have A Whopping 27 Pieces Of DLC At Launch
Looking at the list of DLC, you'd be thinking that this is a "freemium" game, giving you the basics for free and asking you to pay for add-ons... but nope. This is a full-blown, full price title...
In a sense, if people are so dumb to pay full price for the game and pay for day-one DLC, then I guess a company would be dumb to not take advantage of that, no? It's almost like "free money". The day people STOP buying this crap is the day developpers will stop acting like this. If developpers are doing it, it's because there are TONS of people forking out precious cash for this.
I'm not really angry towards developpers doing this (ok, maybe a little). My anger is more directed towards all the people who buy into this, which is the sole reason so many developpers resort to these scummy tactics nowadays.
Re: Layton’s Mystery Journey For Nintendo Switch Rated By The ESRB
I have a strange feeling that this will be much pricier than if I was to buy it on my Android tablet (currently at about $15,99 USD). Like, around $40 or something. If that's the case (I'm sure I can bet on this), I'll pass.
Re: Humble Store Expands Digital Switch Selection With More Third-Party Offerings
You should mention that it isn't available in "North America". It's US only. Why is it that so many people forget that Canada actually exists???
Re: EA Has No Plans To Release Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order On The Switch
So... EA doesn't want to support the Switch in any meaningful way...
In other news... Water is wet.
Re: Here's The Full Lineup For Castlevania Anniversary Collection On Switch
I get it that it's nice to have a collection about the eariler games in the series, this being an anniversary collection, it makes sense to go where the series actually started. And there are some nice games in there.
But really, no SOTN? No GBA/DS games?
I was hoping more for a "here are the best games the franchise offered" instead of "here are the first games from the franchise". I think they shoul've labelled it the "Castlevania Origins Collection". It would've been a more accurate name for this compilation.
But let's just say I'm kind of disapointed. I was really thinking I'd be able to play SOTN on the go (like I did on PSP some time ago through the Dracula X chronicles), along with some GBA ones I missed (only played Cicrle of the Moon back in the days). Bummer.
Re: Celebrate The Game Boy's 30th By Putting Your Raspberry Pi Inside This Awesome Case
@Heavyarms55
In general, these devices are called rom dumpers, as they... dump the read-only memory (rom) of carts into binary files. Some are more sophisticated than others (and generally pricier), but there are various models with various levels of functionality/complexity out there. Note that you may have to read some tutorials on how to do this depending on the model.
I'm not going to post links here or name specific devices for obvious reasons, but google is your friend here, my friend. If your country allows its people to create backup copies of the software they own (verify this first), then nothing's preventing you from buying equipment for this purpose. As long as you keep the resulting files to yourself only and never share them (that is illegal wherever you are on the globe, unless you have the licence to do so - and you don't - ).
Re: Celebrate The Game Boy's 30th By Putting Your Raspberry Pi Inside This Awesome Case
@Heavyarms55,
For NES games, there are solutions out there for as little as $20 that work ok, although it's not a one-click affair. Process may be tedious, but varies depending on the solution you get. It may become annoying (and expensive) to get rom dumpers for every console you have. And some consoles may not have a dumper easily available.
BUT, when it works, it's part of the idea that you'll learn a thing or two while working on these projects.
Of course, for disc-based consoles, it's relatively easy (not always though) with standard PC disc-drives and some software. Also, some consoles only need a cable hooked to your PC. But in most cases, it's never as simple as it should be, so be prepared to read a lot and take some time to experiment with software and hardware.
Regarding online downloads....
Depending on the country you live in, downloading copies of games you already OWN for personnal use MAY be legal. Everyone need to be aware of the regulations in their own countries regarding private copying and personnal use of copyrighted materials. Some countries allow it for content you already own. But most don't.
The safest route is always to dump your games yourself, even if that implies some special hardware. Also note that some countries have laws against tampering with software security and anti-piracy measures, so again, getting the information prior to doing this might be wise.
Re: Looks Like There's A New LEGO Star Wars Game On The Way
Personnaly, I'm a big fan of the earlier LEGO games, particularly LEGO SW complete saga. These games had focus, were tons of fun, and you were never lost anywhere trying to think about what you should do next. I think LEGO games are at their best when you don't need to explore too much, with moderately sized levels.
Although I admit I had a lot of fun with LEGO Marvel super heroes (the first one). After that, I think the formula was kept mostly unchanged (more or less) and the games kind of became boring a lot quicker.
Their recent outtings felt somewhat flat to me. Not bad, but not awesome. Just.... ok.
If they can make a new one similar in tone to the complete saga (no open-world exploration crap), but with the last trilogy episodes added in, that would be pretty cool.
Re: Celebrate The Game Boy's 30th By Putting Your Raspberry Pi Inside This Awesome Case
@DragonbornRito
I agree with you too, and with @Heavyarms55.
For people owning large collections of retro games, emulation is sometime a nice way to play the games you OWN on the go, or a (sometimes) easier way to get them running on an HD tv set, sometimes even with nice (or awful) upscaling effects.
I find very attractive the concept of all-in-one solutions to house all of your games (the ones you own). Sure, playing them on original hardware is always the preferred option, but assembling your own solution and setting it up yourself, sometimes with custom art for menus and sidebars, is an awesome project and a lot of fun (and you'll learn a thing or two as you go along).
Re: Move Aside Netflix, Disney Wants To Bring Its Own Streaming Service To The Switch
I think there's a recent trend highlighted in some stats, showing that piracy, after going down since many years, is actually starting to ramp up again. And most analysts are saying that what's pirated the most is movies and TV shows. Many are saying that the current state of the entertainment industry, with everyone and their dog starting their own exclusive streaming service, is making things much more complex, annoying and expensive than it should be, which is driving more people towards piracy...
Personnaly, having cut the cable cord about 2 months ago, the only services I'm subscribed to are Netflix and Tou.tv (a more local, french, service - which is my native language), and I'm not planning on subscribing to another one. The reason most people are cutting the cord is mostly a matter of costs vs. benefits not being worth it. People aren't going to simply replace their huge monthly bill with another one just as huge but comprised of many subscriptions... This makes it even MORE cumbersome than a simple cable subscription!!!
I'm just going to get a nice Antenna on the roof, get all the regular channels for free, will use my Nvidia Shield and its Plex server as program guide + PVR, and just access everything with it.
The industry doesn't seem to understand that making people subscribing to tons of different various services to watch all they want to watch is actually pretty stupid. Because even if you have the things I want to watch, I'm NOT going to sh!t money out of my wazoo to get yet another freaking monthly subscription. There is a limit to my entertainment budget, that I also share with games, photography, books, music, and so on...
Re: The Upcoming Sonic Movie Sounds Utterly Crazy, According To Early Viewings
Are we sure Uwe Boll wasn't involved in this movie?
Re: Bulletstorm: Duke of Switch Edition Set To Storm Switch This Summer
@SwitchForce
"More idiotic replies from TROLLs...and what the Troll forgets is you can't just grab you Coffee Table consoles and go."
People have all the rights to complain. Maybe you can't grab your coffee table console and go, but you can do this on PC if you buy a pocketable one. Old games like these run very well on such devices (I had one), so you just grab the PC game on whatever store has it, and play it either at home on your TV on on the go whenever and wherever you want. Switch-style.
Games sold for a console that can provide this functionality has no reason to be priced higher than anywhere else, unless they require a significant amount of coding to adapt to the nature of the platform. The portability of the Switch is a characteristic provided by the console I bought, not by the game. I already paid for this when I bought the console, heck, that's the MAIN reason why I bought the console.
What I buy is the content. The device that plays this content, and the functionalities the DEVICE provides shouldn't influence the price of said content. So on this, I'm on the side of those who complains about the "Switch Tax", where most games on the platform are often priced higher than their counterparts on other platforms for no valid reason other than being on the Switch.
Defending this is like saying people having offroad-capable cars should pay their gas more because their vehicle can drive them to more places than other cars.
So let people speak about how frustrated they are about this. The argument about "you can't turn your other consoles into a portable" is not a justification for stupidly high prices.
If you don't share these feelings with others, fine. If you feel like you get your money's worth, fine! It's not because you feel like this that everyone else is stupid for feeling different.
Re: Bulletstorm: Duke of Switch Edition Set To Storm Switch This Summer
As long as they don't realease this for freakin' $80, I'll be interested in buying it. The lack of affordable FPS on the Switch is something that needs to be fixed (still $80 for Doom or Wolfenstein, come on...). Immortal Redneck is good, but this could be an interesting addition to my library.
We also need Serious Sam on the Switch.
Re: Looks Like Final Fantasy VII On Switch Has Reintroduced A Bug That Was Patched Out Years Ago
@MeloMan
Imagine paying $25 for it!!!! Because that's what it'll cost me if I buy it on the eshop right now. Which is insane.
It always amazes me to see how little effort Square Enix put into these ports (on all platforms), how much they charge for them, and how many people still buy them. If these games would have re-rendered backgrounds, updated 3d models and textures. true widescreen support, I guess that would justify the price. But a bare-bone, no frills, port with bugs that weren't even present in the original game more than 20 years ago? How can they charge this much for this and get away with it? That baffles me.
Re: Talking Point: There's Room For A Switch 'Family' If Nintendo Nails The Messaging
A more powerful Switch, maybe featuring docked-performance when in portable mode, would be cool. But then again, I think this would only makes sense if it's only marginally more expensive than the original, or if the original gets a price cut and the new one occupies the original's price bracket.
I guess a pro model wouldn't be targeted at the general masses but mainly at more hardcore players, but still, the original still sells for $400 in Canada, an updated model costing $500 would be commercially DOA, especially considering its lesser power when compared to the competition. The Switch over here is the priciest of the "base" systems. Doesn't prevent it from selling relatively well, but I still hear (and read) a lot of people saying they would buy one if the price would come down to something more in line with other (PS4, XB1 - $250-$300). So getting out a more expensive model priced higher would not help, even if in line with PS4 Pro and XB1X prices...
I mean, production price for the Switch has surely fell down a bit since its release, I'm pretty sure an updated model could replace the original in its original price bracket, and keep the console slightly more future proof in the process.
Re: Reminder: Final Fantasy VII Finally Launches On A Nintendo System Today
Part of me think these FF rereleases on Switch are cool, but the other part of me wished for something better than bare-bone ports. You know, added widescreen support, re-rendered background graphics (instead of simply blurry upscaled ones), slightly improved models and textures.... especially given the asking price ($22) for an old game I've played many times on both PS1 and PC... I would've paid the $22 if this version was actually featuring these improvements... but otherwise... hmmm... no.
Will go into my wishlist, but will wait for an eventual sale.
Re: InkyPen Is Now Offering Free-To-Read Comics On Nintendo Switch
I purchase online comics from time to time, but I like to read them page by page. I like looking at the full page while I read, and the low resolution 720p screen of the Switch makes this an impossibility. Sure, you can hook to a TV for 1080p, but just the thought of reading comics on my TV turn me off. lol!
Great for those wanting to read by looking at it panel by panel, but to me that's an unappealing way to read comics.
But hey, free stuff is always cool.
Re: Nintendo And Sony Shares Drop Following Google's Stadia Reveal
I recently went from a 300mbps connection to a 50mbps one (which is often more around 25mbps, more or less) because my previous ISP kept raising the prices to ridiculous levels. This (50mbps) is enough for my current needs right now, it only takes more time when we download stuff, but I can still stream Netflix in 1080p, while the kids are watching stuff on YouTube. So that's still fair.
The current trend right now is making people either voluntarily or involuntarily cut their internet packages. Either they're becoming too expensive, or they have to deal with datacaps and/or speed throttling. Game streaming, contrary to movies and music, are a two-way communication thing. What is streamed to you depends on what input you send, so there can't be any "buffering" to mitigate the crap connection you may have. I've been with many ISPs over time, and while some are speedier than others, all are usually unpredictable and as unstable as it can be in their performance. You can easily go from 25mbps to 50, then back 25 and then 15, and up tho 35 and down again, all in less than 30 seconds. And that is without anyone else on the connection doing anything. Now imagine living with a family with kids on YouTube, and the wife streaming something on Netflix at the same time...
We're litterally going from "put the disc in and play" or "start the downloaded app and play", to ... "ensure that no one is doing anything else in the house and pray the lord there's no connection issues and MAYBE play".
Wow. Some improvements. Hail the "future of gaming".
Ha! lol!
Re: Talking Point: What Does Google's Stadia Mean For Nintendo And The Future Of Gaming?
Forget about all the tech specs and all the fancy little features and all that. If history showed us one thing, it's that it's not technological innovation that sells, it's convenience. People don't care about getting "the best". They care about getting what works for them.
So there are equally good reasons why this could take off, than there are about it bombing hard.
When it'll work, it may work well. So for all those people with lotsa money to pay for hyper super fast and reliable internet (something Google weirdly think the masses have access to at reasonable prices), it may work very well. For those with less reliable connections, if this only affect image quality, most people won't care. Streaming services like Netflix and the likes all have lower quality than physical medias and that hasn't prevented them from taking over.
But... that being said...
It isn't all about speed. The problem with this is that even if you have a super fast gigabit internet connection, if you have crap pings, you're going to get some insane input lag. And what about unreliable connection speed? Many people say their speed is often inconsistent at various times during the day. Add to that those living in houses where multiple people use the internet at the same time... like in most families... This is going to plainly provide the most inconsistent gaming experience you've ever played.
Now, I haven't tried Stadia. But other services like the one from Nvidia, I tried. And this led me to the same conclusion. Inconsistent experience. I had a 300mbps connection at the time, and even with that, the graphics quality shifted a lot, and compression artifacts reduced the sharpness of the image enough to be noticeable and bug me. Sometimes, input lag was almost non-existent, and then, out of the blue, unplayable for no reason. THIS my friends, is the world Google is trying to sell us on.
Also... I'm pretty sure Google will gather all sort of additionnal stats on every one of us. I mean, COME ON. It's Google. Now they'll track everything we do in our daily lives, and every action we do in games as well and add that to those packages of data they sell to third parties. Wow. Sign me up.
Re: Google Reveals Stadia, Its Vision Of A Cloud Gaming Future
With the current state of the internet, and the trend coming from ISPs to throttle connections, add paywalls, limit bandwidth when they see fit, and raise prices on top of that, I don't think we're ready to jump onto the cloud gaming bandwagon anytime soon. Well, maybe a select few will be ok with this...
But I'm curious about the requirements for this. I just downagraded my connection from 300mbps to 50mbps (because with everything costing more and more nowadays, and the fact that I have a family to support and I don't have money up the wazoo, I didn't have a choice to cut back on this).
The problem is while technology always advance and allow for awesome things, the current trend shows people actually cutting back on these things because they don't have the means to always buy into what's current.
And what happens when you game over a connection used by the whole family? Can my son and I game at the same time on different devices, while my daughter is watching something on Netflix and my wife is receiving a call over our IP phone line? All this going through the same pipe?
Not gonna happen. At least not in my house. Maybe in a decade or so. And when that happens, I'll revert to retro gaming and actually owning my games instead of paying for glorified indefinite rentals over streaming.