Looks like this game is going to be released physical for $30 (in my corner of the globe anyway). Compared to most new releases cashing in at $80, is pretty fair for a port of an old GC-era game, now in better resolution with widescreen support.
Never played the original, although I saw it on the shelves at the time and remember seeing ads in magazines for it. Never struck me as original in any way, and I think reviews at the time reflected that, like, not bad, but spectacularly average.
But I would give it a go at that price for sure. Seems that recently, I've been playing more games coming from this era, and sometimes, even average ones gives me plenty of fun for the money compared to many (overpriced) titles available on the Swtich's library. So I'll probably pick this one up later this week.
The problem I have with these ports, is that I don't think $80 (price of brand new releases in Canada), is really abusive when we're dealing with brand new games. These games require tons of work to create. That $80 support all the works that needs to be done for that game to be created. Also, when ports happens really close to the main release, I don't have a problem with that either.
Now, ports of older games, or ports happenning when original releases have dropped price since a good while already, weren't actually made from scratch. A lot of what would've been needed for the game already exists. All art assets, voice-acting, music, textures, motions data, levels and whatnot, are things that could, at best, be taken as is, or at worse, modified to fit a system's constraints. Asking the same $80 for something that didn't require as much work from as many people to create, to me, is just not right. (This is how I view things, you might disagree).
I'm not dissing on the fabulous work some of those ports required to happen (especially on the Switch). But no way porting a game that has all (or most) existing assets already done is worth the same amount of money than one created from scratch by a team of hundreds of people, if not more.
Sure, other factors need to be considered too, like for a physical release, cost of medium (and Switch carts are pricier to make than plain discs), and this means we can't always expect price to be on par with other platforms. But when you have games like Doom selling for about $20 everywhere elese, and $80 on the Switch, it's not just slightly pricier. It's like 400% the price.
Understand : It's not the price in itself. It's the fact that most multiplatform titles available on Switch give the buyer the impression that it's the worst deal ever. Sometimes even when on sale, a game is still pricier than on competing platforms. This prevents me from buying a lot of games. Not because I'm cheap (I have the money and would gladly spend it on an original game). But because I can't get around the idea that I'd get the game for a lot less somewhere else. And it makes me go "no way I'd pay $80 for a title I can get for $20 elsewhere".
I don't think people complaining about prices are cheap. Many won't see a problem paying full price for an original work like Zelda, Mario, or even a brand new multiplatform title released simultaneously everywhere. The problems often are with late ports, sometimes over 1+ year later, sold for full price without anything extra added to them.
@lilock3
"Once the re-download ability is gone, we just have to be as careful with our digital copies as we do with the physical, because neither are going to be replace free of charge should we lose them."
True. At least for games. The problem I have with this, is that (to me at least) it is much easier to accidentaly loose what you have on your media storage (SD cards or other) than with physical copies. Granted, the situations that may lead to them breaking are different, but I've seen my share of SD cards just ceasing to work, and the small size make them easily lost too.
Some would say that physical discs can be scratched until unplayable or broken in pieces, sure, but I still find this much more less likely to happen to me than an SD card just randomly ceasing to function, or an HDD failing. I've even seen an SD card (old one, granted) loosing its content when it was dropped on the floor (No idea why). I practically got almost every cartridge and disc-based system since the Atari 2600 days, and never, ever, had a problem with any disc or cartridge whatsoever. Which I can't say of SD cards or HDDs or recordable DVDs (except M-discs).
Well, the thing is that we can't assume anything about how Nintendo run things on their end. And while $100,000 may be a grain of salt in their books, if it doesn't bring over more than what it costs, it may very well get the axe.
Look, we can't always assume that all big companies are run by the most intelligent people. Or that because they're successful, what happens behind closed doors is obviously super intelligent. I'll tell you a story of a major bank making billions every year. Know someone who works there. You'd think that a bank making billions would run on super modern systems, with all kind of automated things going on... but... no. They still run on antiquated servers, using various different platforms for different services that don't talk to each other which require manual entry of data in multiple places... you know, stuff that if the average user would know about would give them serious doubt about doing business with that bank. But it's one of the biggest bank in Canada. Go figure.
The biggest telcom company in Canada is also run with the stupidity meter at 11, for knowing many people who worked there. So we should never assume that big companies always hire top talent. They often do things (that we don't always know about) that are super stupid. Like not listening to their tech guys saying an upgrade to their system wouldn't work, only to ignore that and proceed nonetheless and break theitr support system across the whole country...
Also, even if something doesn't cost a lot, most businesses out there would shut it down if it doesn't bring a value that is perceived as being more than this cost. Even if it's 0,01% of their total budget.
Maybe the way things are setup at Nintendo's end makes keeping this online more troublesome than what it's worth. Who knows? In an ideal environment, of course, what you described would probably work as a solution. But it may not be that simple for Nintendo, for whatever reason we most probably don't know. The corporate world is sometimes full of inconsistencies and stupidities. For instance, many companies would gladly spent tens of thousands on an external solution to their problem, while someone inside the company could've done the same at a much lower cost. So really, who knows why they're doing this....
I'm not trying to excuse them, because I personnaly see this as an example of them being mostly incomptetent at being forward-thinkers. They must have a reason to do this, even if it may be something illogical (in our minds).
@Yorumi I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that there's a lot more to think about when you're dealing with a platform that has an online store component, and millions of users, even if only a small portion of them are still active. While many functionalities are automated, you would still need a support team to take care of this, as the platform is a completely different one.
The problem isn't happenning on Steam because Steam has always been a single platform that evolved over time. There was never a second Steam platform launched, requiring a new login and granting you with a new library, incompatible with the old one.
Nintendo is just simply not forward-thinking. They could've have everyone on the same platform since the Wii days. One account tied to you, working on all devices. Wii, Wii U, 3DS, Switch, and so on. With content bought on previous ones available on other platforms as well, if available through the system. This would've been perfect, and since the same platform would have been used for all, the old Wii store and apps would have been able to continue living inside the current store at no additionnal cost.
The thing is, right now, this sucks. And I don't think Nintendo does that out of being evil or whatnot. There's probably a monetary reason behind this all. Keep in mind, the bigger a company is, the more responsibilities people will be expecting out of you. They couldn't just "let this live" as-is without providing some sort of support. Even a small team of a couple of people required to take care of this could cost them a couple of 100,000$ per year, which may not be worth it anymore because so few people are buying games there anymore.
I don't think Nintendo is evil (even from a commercial point of view). But dumb and not forward-thinking? Hell yeah.
@Yorumi
** sorry for the wall of text. I was inspired when I wrote it. lol! **
Keeping stuff available online has costs. And for a big company, it's more than just server space. You'll still have to provide customer support, especially if your company is known for simple products aimed at the whole family. You can't just make them available and let people sort it out if they're experiencing problems. And even if you can piggyback the server maintenance to existing teams, it still would add some costs.
So basically, that means paying for an infrastructure that you don't get any profit from anymore. While this may be a small amount in the grand scheme of things, you can't, from a business point of view, support all your previous platforms forever and ever and adding their small costs on top of each other all the time. At one point, those small amounts required to support each platform will add up to a bigger chunk of money.
This could've been avoided if companies like Nintendo were ACTUALLY forward-thinking, keeping the same infrastructure and basic network functions for each new generation. Maybe upgrade it over time. That's the way most big software/hardware companies work nowadays, except maybe, some from the videogame world. In most platforms out there, your account and downloads are following you from device to device without much problems. But that's because companies stick with their platforms, and it was tought this way from the start.
Nintendo has always been late when it comes to managing console connectivity. In a way, they are now roughly where Microsoft and Sony were when the 360 and PS3 launched. And even worse, Nintendo seems to make closed ecosystems for each of their consoles. They manage users Nintendo IDs, that most users have to link to each different ecosystem on different consoles. Nintendo seems to have taken a slightly more modern approach with the Switch, but until they release a new console, there's still no way to tell 100%.
It's easy to think, from a consumer perspective, that keeping a whole system of online store downloads online has almost no costs. But if anyone actually worked for a company with any form of big, national network infrastructures, you know that nothing "just works" without any costs. Stuff break. Stuff goes down. You need to provide support. You need a help desk for every service you provide, and so on...
If a company's smart, they won't scatter their services on different servers across multiple different platforms, different logins, etc... If you keep all your stuff on a single platform, not only it simplify things from a support point of view, it also offers a lot more future-proofing.
This happens mostly because Nintendo wasn't smart on that aspect.
@Razieluigi The problem is that for those who care about what some people call "art" (movies, music, books, videogames), digital distribution is mostly hell.
A movie, music, book or game, is something that should be enojoyed by anyone, independent of how long it has been out. A good movie doesn't become bad as it ages (well, some do, but some don't - and it's all relative to an individual's tastes). Same for music, or books.
Saying that "... anybody who missed their chance (whether by choice or circumstance) deserves to go without it." makes it look like you consider games as simple products that you consume, and not much else.
That might be fine with you if you only play games while they're "current" or "popular", but a lot of people like to play older games as well, and find "disturbing" the idea of buying a game at full price, knowing that you may end up not being able to play it anymore in the future, with that not being up for you to decide.
I understand the business logics behind all of this. I do. It would be ridiculous to keep up an infrastructure very few people still use. But then again, that means most digital-only titles that were available on the platform are not available anymore. Legally, anyways.
This would be like Disney removing all Star Wars or Marvel movies from EVERYWHERE, including their own platforms. Sure, some will share them illegally on the web, but what would you say to anyone wanting to watch these movies and not having access to someone having them physically (improbable but still) ? You deserve to go without it?
Everytime a platform like this closes down, I kind of see it as a reminder that if you want to keep anything, buy it physical (if available - of course). As long as you take care of your stuff, you'll always be able to get back to it. Which isn't true of digital distribution. Well, not always.
I thought that a sequel to Transformed would have kept the same formula (more or less), as it was something that made the game pretty unique and fun. From what I've seen (and heard) so far, this new game feels a bit uninspiring, and somewhat back to a more "standard" kart racing game. Bummer.
@Dayton311 I was about to say the same thing. I had one of these back in the days, and what I remember the most from it was how it ran through batteries at an insane rate. I loved it, loved the idea behind it, but having to change batteries every two hours, throw them away if not rechargeable or have six batteries put in the charger when most chargers were only accomodating 4 at the time, was too expensive and/or too cumbersome, especially for the college student I was back then.
Although, this aspect aside, the concept behind it was way before its time. If you stop to think about it, Nintendo didn't really invent anything with the Switch. It's just a better (much better) executed version of the same idea.
For those saying they don't understand Nintendo, I don't know why you feel this way. This is very, typical Nintendo. This is Nintendo doing what they often do best : not making any sense from a commercial standpoint. And sticking to it.
Sometime it can be for the best (don't try to imitate what others are doing - cater to a different crowd, etc...), but this is not one of those times. This is one of those time where we all gather around the big N and laugh at it collectively, with some people in the crowd waving huge boards with "WTF" written in big bold letters. Some even share memories of the Virtual Boy. Ah! Fun times. Everyone laugh. And everyone agrees that the Nintendo online services, even at this low price, is FAIL material. We all laugh again. This is one of those times.
@Retr0gamedad ... as countless others that are released on Switch as well...
I find that a bit tiresome, to be honest, as while playing games with proper physical controls is infinitely better, I'm usually not very fond of paying $20 or more for a port of a $1.99 mobile game. Even worse if it still has microtransactions up the wazoo.
Kind of also tired of that graphic style that looks too much like it was made to work on the lowest spec mobile phone from the last 5 years or so.
Although... I'm dying for a new SSX game and this game may fit the bill. Maybe when it'll be on sale eventually, as it is the only way to pay "non-inflated" prices (read: normal) for ports on the Switch.
@SwitchForce
I don't consider this grabbing for straws as both are stores you buy from to play the game on the same PC platform. Granted, PC is different than consoles because you have multiple stores to buy your games from, but ultimately both Steam and GOG (and even Windows Store, Green Man Gaming, EA Origin and so on...) are part of the same PC platform.
You could have separate numbers for GOG and Steam for analysis purpose, but ultimately, these should've been categorized as the "PC" platform.
I'm just curious about the rationale behind separating sales from different vendors despite the game being for the same platform (PC). Unless the idea was to compare digital stores between themselves (which seems to be the case), and not necessarily the platforms. Although I find that not as relevant as a breakdown by platform.
Well, the platform that leads sales isn't the Switch but the PC. Steam and GOG are both stores on which you buy the PC version of the game. PC counts for 36,5%.
Also, is the game available on the Microsoft PC store as well? And are both Xbox One and PC sales on the Microsoft stores calculated under "Microsoft"? It would make sense, as it's a bit strange that the Xbox One market, which is similar to the PS4 market in some way, is about 3 times bigger. Not impossible though. I don't even know if it's available on the Windows store, so what do I know?
The thing we know though, is that sales on Switch are much bigger than the other two consoles of this generation combined. Although, they are still smaller that PC sales (Steam + GOG).
"The Switch isn’t lacking when it comes to racing games..."
Maybe it isn't, but it is seriously lacking in good ones... I mean, aside from Mario Kart, which is kind of a category of its own (fun kart racers with powerups), is there anything on the Switch in the racing category that is actually great? Not just ok, or good, but really great? Without being a kart racer? (nothing against these, but racing is more than just this).
I've been playing Forza Horizon 4 on the Xbox One recently and THAT's a stellar racing game (although more on the arcade side of things with its physics). How about some open-world racer like this on the Switch? I mean, even the Burnout Paradise remaster that got out on XB1 and PS4 would surely work on the Switch... I would certainly buy that.
Because right now, I'm trying to think of a great racing game on the Switch that isn't a kart racer, and my mind is more on the blank side of things.
So when I read "The Switch isn't lacking in racing games"... I'm slightly puzzled. Like when Nintendo said the Switch have over 1000 games or something like that. That's not important. What's important is how many of these are actually worth playing to you? Maybe it isn't lacking in racing games, but it is surely lacking in great ones I'd be interested in buying...
@Kiyata I guess sometimes people may preorder because of stupid incentives some publishers do to build up a maximum of sales. Like including an "exclusive" DLC or something. Or doing a special sale for those who preorder who'll get the game for $5 less or something.
The problem is that a lot of actors in the industry are actually using pre-order sales numbers to validate or estimate interest in a given game and act accordingly. Like, using preorder sales to estimate how many overall sales a title will generate. This is part of the problem, as it encourage them to find various strategies to pre-sell as many copies they can. That includes all those stupid collectors editions shipped with $5 worth of extra goodies for $50 extra.
I completely agree with you. In fact, I like to play with VR once in a while, especially at fairs and some tech expos and the like. I think, like you said, that it is a niche product. My point was merely aimed at those VR fanboys (we all know one or two) who'll argue to no end about VR being what everyone is actually dreaming of. I was even told once that every "true" gamer out there now has already embarked on a VR platform (implying that anyone not into VR right now is not a true gamer). I mean... I haven't seen this level of irrational fanboyism since childish console wars of old...
Maybe "ill-fated" was a poor choice of words in the article. But I'm just surprised that it hasn't created some form of angry VR fanboy mob lashing at it on this page, given how vocal they can be.
"...Meanwhile, VR had a small, yet also ill-fated, comeback 20 years later."
I'm surprised, given how rabid VR fanboys can get, that they haven't got into some sort of apesh!t rage over that comment yet... publishing tons and tons of links "proving" somehow that VR is taking the world by storm and everyone saying the contrary is completely delusionnal...
I think the rankings of consoles is still perfectly debatable in a civilised way, as most posts here are showing. But just start dissing VR... and you're litterally, usually, asking for trouble...
To each their opinion, of course, but I haven't met a game that I could'nt get the "feel" of by watching videos either on YouTube or Twitch or elsewhere. There are so many resources available out there to get an educated opinion on a specific game that there is no need to actually buy (or pirate) a game to know if you'll like it or not.
Sure, there are factors that might have been overlooked sometimes, like replayability, or a game that starts real good and then gets boring fast, but these things are also often mentionned in good reviews.
I don't think there is anyone but ourselves to blame when a game we buy isn't living up to our expectations. It's not like we're still in the NES and SNES days when we had to rely on paid magazine subscriptions to read reviews and rely on back of box pics and descriptions to "guess" how good a game potentially could be.
I don't remember having been truly let down by a game I paid for since at least the PS2 era. But then again, I never preorder, and I read a lot before buying anything.
Reviews. Gameplay videos. I think it's pretty simple nowadays. I mean, I buy lots of games and I don't even remember when was the last time I bought a game that I didn't like, because I actually research my purchases before buying.
If people preorder or buy stuff without knowing anything (or very little) about a game, or just don't read reviews or watch gameplay video before, I fail to see who's at fault here beside their own selves.
I personnaly NEVER buy a game without waiting for reviews. And if I'm still unsure, some gameplay videos are often making a good job at showing what's the game like. Sure, that implies waiting for the game to actually get released (I don't really trust pre-release stuff coming from the developpers), but then again, this means no impulse buy, and practically no let down. Ever.
Now, that doesn't excuse Nintendo from not giving any refunds whatsoever on digital purchases. Many countries have laws that require companies to offer refunds given various situations.
Most of my purchased digital comics are through Comixology. Some others I bought DRM-less from Humble Bundle.
I'm not to subscribe to a service to read comics on my TV, or on a small screen 720p device. If there's one thing I like ultra high-res screens for, it's for reading comics. I only read them in page view (so it still feels like a proper printed page). And in that format, 720p just doesn't work. And the Switch screen is too small for that too.
So, living in Canada, that would mean about $20-$22 or so... + sales taxes... which would bring the price close to or over $25...
And given what others have been saying about the game being about 3 hours long with no replay value.... Not sure I'd say it is worth $25... Even as gorgeous as it is.
Will definitely put in my wishlist though. But I'll wait for a review, and probably a sale.
While part of me would really like to buy Doom on the Switch and encourage these guys (as they're doing a wonderful job with all these ports and support of their games), I can't justify paying $80 for a game I can get for less than $25 on PC (and elsewhere). Even when on sale at 50% off, it is still priced much higher than the regular price we would pay elsewhere.
And that's the problem I have with many titles on the Switch. Most indies and ports are getting released on the platform at an inflated price that make them look like the worst deal ever.
I just hope Doom (and Skyrim, and Wolfenstein, and countless others) will eventually come down in price so they don't feel like bad deals, even when on sale.
It is sad in a sense to see that most of the titles that are multiplatform are still available for less (much less) on other platforms out there, even when on sale. I mean, I can get Doom for $18 right now instead of $40. And before someone says "yes but the added value of playing it on the go".... At $18, on PC, I can play it on the go on a portable console (GPD Win), or on the big screen TV too. So that's not an argument.
The reality is the Switch, even if I love mine, is the console on which it is the priciest to game on. It's like that brand that you pay extra solely for the "privilege" of owning that brand.
I'd love to play Doom, Wolfenstein or Skyrim on my Switch, but wake me up when the price for those are getting in the "normal" zone, compared to the competing platforms.
To all those comments about these games being only an excuse to objectify women, well, I won't say you're wrong. And I agree that you don't see men portrayed the same in games or other media, but there is a very logical reason for that : most women don't fantasize about men the same way men do about women.
Yes, these games aren't portraying women in a realistic way. No women are and act like this in real life. And yes, this may have a negative impact on the way some men think about women the same way cheap romance novels, shows and movies may affect how some women think about men, as they too, mostly aren't portraying men in a realistic way. In both cases, women and men are portrayed in ways that aren't reflective of real life. It's just that women are objectified in a more sexual manner, but it the end, both men and women end up being presented wrong and false images that affect how they should perceive the opposite sex.
No women are like this. And no men are like what's described in romance novels made for women.
Not saying either is right, or that one is worse or better than the other. Is sexually objectifying women is worse than objectifying men in a non-sexual way? In both cases, it's showing a false image of reality that can influence one's perception. In both cases, it is fantasy (although a different one) that is sold to a specific gender.
I enjoyed the AC games I played, and would gladly pay some money (not $60 though) for a collection on Switch, provided that no internet connection is required, of course.
I mean, to me, that's completely stupid to make such a game (a single player one) require an internet connection, on a platform where about 50% of people play in portable mode (thus, not always having internet access).
The problem with Sony is that while they seem to know their customers in the home console market, they still haven't figured the handheld market, even after having created two handheld consoles.
Despite what some are saying, yes, the mobile gaming market changed something. I firmly believe that a pure handheld console with no additionnal functionalities, if released today, would fail to catch on with the general public. Why? Because these consoles ask people to bring ANOTHER device with them to play games, despite having one already able to do so with them at all times (their mobile phone). Maybe (definitely) not the same type of games, but for many people (most), it's good enough for them.
The Switch got popular because it merged two fields into one. It brought mobility to the home console market. It provided something that was uncommon (to the masses anyways): the ability to bring your home console with you and continue playing the same games wherever you are. THIS generated interest. A lot of people who ceased playing home console games for a lack of dedicated time started playing again.
The reason Sony failed with the Vita was mainly because they build it like we were still in 2001. An era in which the sole way to play videogames on the go was to get a dedicated portable console. All other aspects of the Vita besides games was an aftertought. It didn't bring anything new to the table, and every functionality besides games were badly implemented and were laughable, mediocre at best.
I still believe there would be a place for another handheld. BUT, it would need to go where people are right now, not where people were 15 years ago. A new handheld would need a PURPOSE. The Switch succeeded because it has a purpose.
How about a real mobile phone with a slide-out gamepad, based on an OS like Android, with, like for Amazon devices, a dedicated marketplace? Make games dependant on specific hardware to be playable (to avoid people playing them on other Android devices). Let people bring all their digital life with them on that single device (because it's Android, most apps people already use would work out of the box), so THIS would bring the fusion of portable gaming and mobile communications into one. ONE device to bring with me, instead of two (phone and portable). I know Sony tried that with the Xperia Play, but that was a bad phone that was outdated even before being launched. And it was badly supported.
Anyway... I'd be surprised if Sony would release another handheld. They tried it two times, and given how Sony is quick to abandon their products as soon as it doesn't sell as planned, I think having made a second handheld was already a miracle.
I think a lot of people (developpers included) are misinterpreting or mixing up technology and style.
While I agree that (IMO), the fun factor is what matters in the end, the way a game looks is often the first contact anyone has with any title (through images or videos), and so anything that fails to projects a specific "soul" or "personality" is bound to fail. And this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a game is a 2D or a 3D one. There are magnificient 2D games out there, and there are very bad ones too. Same for 3D games.
This kind of goes along with what I've been saying in previous comments about other news. It's not about the tech, it's more about the art direction. You can have games that get it right, and you can have games that look like someone failed their graphic design course, or look like a lazy pre-made resource collection.
You can have a minimalist style, a cartoon style, a hyper-realistic style, as long as that style grants the game a personality of its own, it's good.
I care DEEPLY about graphics and visual presentation. And I'm pretty sure most Switch owners do, contrary to what the title of this article says (which isn't really what Crashland's dev was saying). Article's title sound like most Switch owners don't care if a game looks like sh!t. That's not true. They probably don't care about a game being 2D or 3D though. But I assure you that "good looking" is important. Which relates to both 2D and 3D games.
@Rohanrocks88 "when it inevitably drops under $20"...
This is the Nintendo Switch. A platform where a game with even a 50% discount is pricier than its regular price elsewhere. A platform where games launched on release day are still sold $80. Where most re-releases of old games are repackaged and sold at brand new prices. The Switch is the platform where cost of gaming is the most expensive of all the consoles of the current generation.
I mean, I love my Switch, but I also know that this game will undoubtedly be released at a price point much higher than what it should be, and will not be significantly discounted, ever, unless in some special sale down the line about a year after its release, for like, maybe, 25%, or even %50, which will price it at best on par, or at worse still pricier, than on all other platforms out there.
I'd have bought a lot more Switch games if I didn't have the feeling I'm getting the worst deal out there, even when on "sale".
Thanks for the comments guys. BTW, one thing I failed (IMO) to describe properly, is about the importance of every element you use in minimalist design. I mentionned the importance of style, but that's not exactly that. It's more like the less elements you have, the more important every aspect of those elements need to be thought about. Position. Size. Colour. Everything. These all contributes to visual balance, and so, the less elements you have, the less "tools" you have at your disposal to attain balance. So it becomes harder. Not easier.
It's like trying to create a personnality for a character in a story. With fewer and fewer character traits at your disposal, it becomes more and more difficult to create an interesting character. But when you succeed, it works, and everyone understands it. It's kind of like that.
Minimalist artwork is truly a thing of beauty when done right. And not just in gaming. In everything. Less is more.
Like B&W photography. Colour is like crutches. Colour distracts the eye from the core of the photo. A nice B&W shot can be a lot more emotional than a colour one. B&W forces us to focus on details we otherwise don't pay attention to. It forces us to see differently. Hence, you need, IMO, more talent to create truly great B&W shots because you don't have colour to rely on to create a wow effect (less tools at your disposal). You want to know if your photography skills has legs? Get rid of the crutches.
@Gen0neD
I agree. I mean, I love minimalists approaches, but as a graphic designer myself, the less elements you have in your visuals, the harder it gets to get it right. People think that going minimalist is easy. On the contrary. The time you're not spending in creating visual assets, you NEED to spend it in finetuning your designs until they're perfect. Style is becoming more important the less elements you have. You can't just throw assets in there.
This game, to me, isn't approaching the level of "perfection", from a visual standpoint, I'd expect from a minimalist approach. The first N+ game got it right. I haven't played the second, but to me, screenshots looked liked it's visually worse. Doesn't affect how fun it could be though.
But as always, fun factor is king, so if this game gets rave reviews, I might have to check it out.
Fun game. Glad to see this coming to the Switch. And I was interested in buying it until I saw the price. I mean, this will more than likely end up being $20 in Canada, which is way too much for such a re-release of an older game. Especially considering you can get it on mobile for less than $5, and on Steam for $11.
So yet another re-release on Switch with a jacked-up price higher than anywhere else that game is sold.
Not surprised. This has become somewhat of the way we should expect things on this platform. Waiting for a huge sale so I get to pay the REGULAR price it is sold for everywhere else. **sigh**
I don't think this is going to make the charts here in NA. I mean, most stores that sell DS games have about less than 10 of them stored on the lowest shelf of their Nintendo section, already filled with Switch titles.
The problem is that while there are some great games, most games available on the platform are games that :
A. Are available everywhere else, often for much less. B. Are cheap ports of $0,99 mobile games sold for $11.99 C. Are mobile-like endless runners, hidden objects and the likes... D. Are often simple affairs without much depth to them E. Are ports of much older games now resold at inflated price
I'm not hating indie games. Some of them are true gems. But for each one that shines, there are about 10 that are cheap, uninspired and simply not needed.
When people say that the Switch has no games, I don't think they mean it litterally has no games. It more than probably means not enough major AAA big releases with significant depth to them. And on that front, I'd have to agree. The vast majority of those "over 1,000" games are small indie titles. Nothing wrong with that, but for many, me included, you can't live on these alone. You also need "meatier" titles to sink your teeth into. And these are few and far between on the Switch. There are some, of course. The usual Nintendo suspects (Zelda, Mario, etc...) being among them, as well as a couple from third parties as well, but these are few, if we compare to competing platforms.
I know it's all relative to everyone's tastes and opinions, but "over 1,000 games" means nothing. To be reflective of what everyone's truly want to know, you'd have to talk about the number of "meaningful" games. As no, that cheap game nobody heard about that goes on sale for $0,19 on a regular basis is not a "meaningful" game.
@masterLEON It maxes out? This means I'll eventually have to delete some from my wishlist if I want to add new ones? That's very dumb.
I mean, most games I want on Switch are overpriced (as in, available elsewhere for much less, or I already have but want to play them on the go on my Switch) so I'm waiting for some decent sales (which are rare for the games I'm interested in).
I don't have much games, but my wishlist must be over 100 games now.
While I'm all for companies protecting their IPs, this highlights an ever-growing problem in this day and age: no easy access to old products in a legal manner.
And I'm not speaking about videogames only. Nor I'm saying I'm for piracy. What I'm saying is that most companies out there are usually failing pretty bad at offering their old catalogue of products to consumers. I saw this happenning in schools recently, where a movie (from the 90s) used in some work sessions isn't available on DVD and teachers have to rely on an old VHS tape because there is no legal way to buy a DVD copy anymore.
I'm very glad to see Nintendo and Sega and Sony and SNK and Atar doing retro micro-consoles with a bunch of games on them, but these aren't encompassing all that was available back then.
I saw a recent study that showed that movie and TV piracy was on the rise, after many years of slowing down. One theory is that the streaming market is now segmenting itself across various services, each with a subscription fee, which means anyone wanting a diversified offer now needs to pay a lot more money to watch what they want. Every company and network now wants their own streaming service with their own exclusives. All the people who became cable-cutters because they didn't want to pay cable companies a ton of money are now asked to pay a ton of money to watch what they want. That doesn't excuse piracy. But it's easy to believe that there's a connection.
What this highlights, is that companies need to think about offering an easy, affordable access to their back catalogue, if they want to reduce piracy. If they put too many hurdles (of logistic or financial nature), then this actually pushes some people towards piracy. Not saying that this is right. Or moral. Or legal. Just an acknowledgement that this happens with some people.
I would be all for Nintendo creating some sort of "Netflix for older games". They kind of got the right idea with their online subscription service, although their execution of the concept leave a lot to be desired, IMO. Do that with most NES games, SNES games, and even other platforms (like the old VC had), and you'll see a lot less interest in piracy out there.
I personnaly bought a Switch mainly because it allows me to play "console" games on the go. Having to take the train to and back from work everyday (45-60 min ride) this was the main factor that drove me to the console. Of course, Zelda and Mario Kart played a part in my buying decision, but I would say it's more of a combination of all of these things that made the package attractive.
Would a system like the Switch still sell if it didn't have "exclusives"? Probably, because of it's hybrid nature, but a "regular" console wouldn't.
And besides, all systems have "exclusives". It's why Sony and Microsoft are buying so many studios to develop 1st-party content. You don't see Sony or Microsoft porting their games to other platforms (unless PC, which sometimes can get some ports from both sides - More from MS than Sony, though).
@Krull That's what I want to understand as well. Does Nintendo have explicit control over all third party apps? Does all third party apps on the Wii depends on Nintendo support for basic functionalities?
Even if I can understand, I'm still not at ease with the idea of taking things that are perfectly functional and then forcing ways to make them non-functional anymore, usually to force people to upgrade and buy new stuff. I mean, if there's a real reason associated with performance (or lack of), then, ok. But this feel like forcing people to move on, even if that's 0,05% of current users.
I'm usually someone who always try to repurpose old gear for something else. An old PC? Could convert that into a file server, a SONOS server, Plex server, or whatnot. It is still usefull. The same way an old Wii could be repurposed to grant an old TV set in the house some basic Netflix capabilities. YEAH, I know a Chromecast is $40, but why should I buy something and spend money when I already have something with all the hardware capable of doing it?
I think that, more than ever, people need to self-educate themselves and be more and more able to turn their old electronics (including consoles) into multipurpose devices to extend their useful lives. Because a lot of business decisions nowadays are turning perfectly fine electronics into doorstops.
And this, indirectly, gives more and more munitions to those who "jailbreak" or hack their consoles to give them an extended life and keep them being useful.
And let's not forget the tendency they generally have in making customers buy the same games over and over again on any new platform they release. I think they were planning on a VC for the Switch and making people buy their games all over again if they wanted to play them on that new platform, but decided against that and took a different approach.
While the Switch is a nice console (I love mine, really), it's also the console that requires the most investment in money from a gamer to play on. In terms of value for your money, all other consoles out there are beating it, hands down.
But then, the Switch is both a portable and home-console, which others can't offer.
I think it depends on who's you're asking the question to. I've been lucky to live my teen and early adult years when arcades were still pretty much a thing, and despite the advent of consoles that were able to reproduce these games more faithfully, going to the arcades was still a thing for me and my friends. Playing the same games at home was cool and interesting, but it lacked the atmosphere of the arcade, which, I guess, was part of the experience. Maybe it's something the younger generations of today wouldn't really understand. I don't know.
We really started to see a decline in popularity by the time the PS1 era came in full force though. But people were still going. Many machines still had big screens, and sometimes cool multiplayer setups, especially for racing games. I remember one huge tank game from Namco (I think), that had a 3 or 4 player setup in the arcade I usually went to. It was a blast. Also, motocycle games where you had to mount a bike to play... Some arcades still exist in the likes of amusement parks, although nowadays, they mostly focus on experiences that go beyond the simple joystick. Think DDR type dance games, gun games, sit-down racing cabinets and things like that. Classic stand-up arcade games are practically gone nowadays. At least in NA.
Netflix please. With the ability to download content, like on phones and tablets, for offline viewing.
You want more people buying Switches and Switch content? Then don't make people choose between their tablet or their Switch. Just make the Switch the only device people feel they can bring with them. Right now, I'm bringing two devices with me at all times (3 if you count my phone), and I'd be more than happy to leave my tablet at home if I could use the Switch to watch Netflix on the train ride everyday.
The only way I'd ever use YouTube on the Switch is for looking at hints for when I'm stuck in some games, and this, provided YouTube doesn't require my game to be closed to work (YT would be worthless to me if I can't keep my game running while using it).
But Netflix, now that makes a valuable addition, and would make me use my Switch a lot more.
The problem here is that gaming has become a huge cash cow for big companies like EA, who actually develop more "products" than "games" nowadays, in which return on investment and profitability and in-game transactions are much more important than crafting a memorable gaming experience.
Disney will always go towards big companies that can potentially turn their licences into lots of profits. Games made under a licence don't need to be good (they just need to not be abysmally bad). But one thing they want is a game that'll turn in lots of profits, be popular and ends up keeping the franchise name in the spotlight.
Disney may have been critical of the EA fiasco with the Star Wars licence, but I don't see them ending this relationship YET. And if I'm not mistaken, EA has some sort of exclusivity on SW games, no? I'm pretty sure EA paid Disney big money for that, and if Disney would allow another developper ort publisher to put out a SW game (even an old one), I'm sure they'll be in-line with a bunch of lawyers ready to shut that down.
I may be wrong though. I hope I am, in a sense.
Because to me, EA kind of left my gaming radar since some time already. Mostly because I'm more interested in actual games, than in monetization platforms disguised as games.
I agree that "perceived value" is, in a sense, all there is to it, but it is this way simply because people are accepting this.
I see this the same way as a store who would sell the same item in a "for men" and a "for women" package, despite being the same thing, for 5$ each. And then, at some point, selling again the exact same thing, just in a new package, labelled "NEW MODEL for both men & women" and then ask 10$ for it.
The sole reason business strategies like these are working, is that people are buying that $10 version.
And my personnal problem, is that all I see is still the same $5 item, now sold for $10 with a new label slapped on it. "Perceived value" for me, is exactly what makes me NOT BUY many games on the Switch, because I always get the impression that doing so ends up being the worst deal out there. I'd like to play Doom on my Switch. But it is still $80. I can get it for less than $15 on Steam and still play it on a portable. The Harry Potter Lego collection on Switch should be no more than $30. Not $60. I paid both games $5 each on Steam.
I will agree that the Switch is much better hardware (build-quality wise) than the GPD Win, and that's the reason why I have a Switch. But it is false to say the Switch is the only console providing this type of experience. It is not. It is, however, the only one made by a well-known and reputable brand name and electronics/videogames manufacturer. And the only one that has some sort of "mainstream" traction.
The "Nintendo tax" that so many people mention, is exactly that. The fact that, under the guise of "perceived value" companies selling games on the Switch can charge a lot more, for what is, in essence, the exact same product, more or less, that is being sold elsewhere.
It's the same thing as that "new model now for both men and women" sold for $10 while the same model was previously sold for $5.
But people buy it, so that's why you see companies doing it.
"The Switch has a unique trait that make many of those so-called "old games" available in a totally new and different way: The handheld mode."
Well, that depends on your point of view. I've been able to play Skyrim on a handheld (GPD Win) before it was out on the Switch. I've been able to play the Mass Effect trilogy, Borderlands, Burnout Paradise, and countless of other games, including some that were re-released on the Switch (at an inflated price), that I bought for almost nothing, and yes, all played in handlheld mode. I played the Lego Harry Potter games in handheld mode, bought for about $5 each. And then I see those re-release on Switch for $60. Really???
What you're talking about is only "perceived" value. You don't get both a home-console and a portable version. Your console (that you already bought and paid for) is doing all the job of providing all its games this way. The developpers and publishers aren't the ones providing you with this new way to play. Nintendo is. And you already paid Nintendo for this.
I bought my Switch because it can play games in both docked and handheld modes. This is a hardware feature. Sure, devs need to take some things into consideration, and I don't have a problem with games being priced slightly higher, but not like 2x the price or more. There are games out there I can get right now between $5 - $10 on PC and they are like $60 on Switch....
This is typical marketing spin we see all the time from any company out there, that is strictly based on putting out big numbers to somehow "wow" the crowd or change a perception.
Problem is, numbers usually don't mean much without context.
How many of those games are simple ports of mobile ones available for cheaper (or even free)? How many of those games are also ports of small indie games, also available everywhere else, almost always for less? How many of those games are ports of older games, repackaged and resold at a greatly inflated price?
How many of those games are more than a simple, quirky mobile-type experience? Do we really need another "hidden object" game, or match-3 type puzzle, or endless runners?
I agree, some of these indie games (a small %) are truly great. But the problem (another one) is that they're lost among all the crap, without any decent way for you to find them.
So yeah. How many of those 1300 games (that you know about) are games you'd actually want to buy and play? 100, maybe? In my case, it's probably less than that. Especially since I'm counting out all the games on Switch I can get elsewhere for a lot less... that I'm not going to buy on Switch (duh!).
Anyone knows if this collection contains box art and instruction booklets for games? Any specific extras?
I remember the Sega Genesis collection on the PSP some time ago, which had box art, along with facts and information about each game, plus sometimes even video interviews with the team members involved in a game's creation. I thought this made the collection particularly relevant, from a historical point of view. Having access to all these things made me better appreciate each game in the package.
Would be nice to have similar features here.
But even without, that is a day-1 buy for me. Still undecided though if I should get it physical or download.
I paid the $25 for it. I only very occasionnaly play online (rarely), but cloud saves and NES games (although selection is quite sub-par so far) seemed a relatively good deal to me.
Can Nintendo do better? Of course it can. And I hope it will. But while I would never had subscribed for a price in line with what others are charging ($70), $25 is "fair" for a year. The price paid reflects, in a sense, the fact that its offering isn't on par with competitors. No voice chat, for instance, or voice chat relying on a phone app, which is a convoluted and ridiculous setup.
With all that in mind, $25 isn't so bad for a yearly subscription.
Although I hope Nintendo will improve the service, add games to its subscription library (and not just NES ones), and include standard integrated voicechat eventually.
Comments 466
Re: Review: Sphinx And The Cursed Mummy - A Bit Musty Due To Age, But Still Worth A Look
Looks like this game is going to be released physical for $30 (in my corner of the globe anyway). Compared to most new releases cashing in at $80, is pretty fair for a port of an old GC-era game, now in better resolution with widescreen support.
Never played the original, although I saw it on the shelves at the time and remember seeing ads in magazines for it. Never struck me as original in any way, and I think reviews at the time reflected that, like, not bad, but spectacularly average.
But I would give it a go at that price for sure. Seems that recently, I've been playing more games coming from this era, and sometimes, even average ones gives me plenty of fun for the money compared to many (overpriced) titles available on the Swtich's library. So I'll probably pick this one up later this week.
Re: Final Fantasy X | X-2 HD Remaster And Final Fantasy XII Receiving Physical Releases In Europe
The problem I have with these ports, is that I don't think $80 (price of brand new releases in Canada), is really abusive when we're dealing with brand new games. These games require tons of work to create. That $80 support all the works that needs to be done for that game to be created. Also, when ports happens really close to the main release, I don't have a problem with that either.
Now, ports of older games, or ports happenning when original releases have dropped price since a good while already, weren't actually made from scratch. A lot of what would've been needed for the game already exists. All art assets, voice-acting, music, textures, motions data, levels and whatnot, are things that could, at best, be taken as is, or at worse, modified to fit a system's constraints. Asking the same $80 for something that didn't require as much work from as many people to create, to me, is just not right. (This is how I view things, you might disagree).
I'm not dissing on the fabulous work some of those ports required to happen (especially on the Switch). But no way porting a game that has all (or most) existing assets already done is worth the same amount of money than one created from scratch by a team of hundreds of people, if not more.
Sure, other factors need to be considered too, like for a physical release, cost of medium (and Switch carts are pricier to make than plain discs), and this means we can't always expect price to be on par with other platforms. But when you have games like Doom selling for about $20 everywhere elese, and $80 on the Switch, it's not just slightly pricier. It's like 400% the price.
Understand : It's not the price in itself. It's the fact that most multiplatform titles available on Switch give the buyer the impression that it's the worst deal ever. Sometimes even when on sale, a game is still pricier than on competing platforms. This prevents me from buying a lot of games. Not because I'm cheap (I have the money and would gladly spend it on an original game). But because I can't get around the idea that I'd get the game for a lot less somewhere else. And it makes me go "no way I'd pay $80 for a title I can get for $20 elsewhere".
I don't think people complaining about prices are cheap. Many won't see a problem paying full price for an original work like Zelda, Mario, or even a brand new multiplatform title released simultaneously everywhere. The problems often are with late ports, sometimes over 1+ year later, sold for full price without anything extra added to them.
Re: Reminder: The Wii Shop Channel Closes This Month, Here's What That Means For You
@lilock3
"Once the re-download ability is gone, we just have to be as careful with our digital copies as we do with the physical, because neither are going to be replace free of charge should we lose them."
True. At least for games. The problem I have with this, is that (to me at least) it is much easier to accidentaly loose what you have on your media storage (SD cards or other) than with physical copies. Granted, the situations that may lead to them breaking are different, but I've seen my share of SD cards just ceasing to work, and the small size make them easily lost too.
Some would say that physical discs can be scratched until unplayable or broken in pieces, sure, but I still find this much more less likely to happen to me than an SD card just randomly ceasing to function, or an HDD failing. I've even seen an SD card (old one, granted) loosing its content when it was dropped on the floor (No idea why). I practically got almost every cartridge and disc-based system since the Atari 2600 days, and never, ever, had a problem with any disc or cartridge whatsoever. Which I can't say of SD cards or HDDs or recordable DVDs (except M-discs).
Re: Reminder: The Wii Shop Channel Closes This Month, Here's What That Means For You
@Yorumi
Well, the thing is that we can't assume anything about how Nintendo run things on their end. And while $100,000 may be a grain of salt in their books, if it doesn't bring over more than what it costs, it may very well get the axe.
Look, we can't always assume that all big companies are run by the most intelligent people. Or that because they're successful, what happens behind closed doors is obviously super intelligent. I'll tell you a story of a major bank making billions every year. Know someone who works there. You'd think that a bank making billions would run on super modern systems, with all kind of automated things going on... but... no. They still run on antiquated servers, using various different platforms for different services that don't talk to each other which require manual entry of data in multiple places... you know, stuff that if the average user would know about would give them serious doubt about doing business with that bank. But it's one of the biggest bank in Canada. Go figure.
The biggest telcom company in Canada is also run with the stupidity meter at 11, for knowing many people who worked there. So we should never assume that big companies always hire top talent. They often do things (that we don't always know about) that are super stupid. Like not listening to their tech guys saying an upgrade to their system wouldn't work, only to ignore that and proceed nonetheless and break theitr support system across the whole country...
Also, even if something doesn't cost a lot, most businesses out there would shut it down if it doesn't bring a value that is perceived as being more than this cost. Even if it's 0,01% of their total budget.
Maybe the way things are setup at Nintendo's end makes keeping this online more troublesome than what it's worth. Who knows? In an ideal environment, of course, what you described would probably work as a solution. But it may not be that simple for Nintendo, for whatever reason we most probably don't know. The corporate world is sometimes full of inconsistencies and stupidities. For instance, many companies would gladly spent tens of thousands on an external solution to their problem, while someone inside the company could've done the same at a much lower cost. So really, who knows why they're doing this....
I'm not trying to excuse them, because I personnaly see this as an example of them being mostly incomptetent at being forward-thinkers. They must have a reason to do this, even if it may be something illogical (in our minds).
Re: Reminder: The Wii Shop Channel Closes This Month, Here's What That Means For You
@Yorumi
I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that there's a lot more to think about when you're dealing with a platform that has an online store component, and millions of users, even if only a small portion of them are still active. While many functionalities are automated, you would still need a support team to take care of this, as the platform is a completely different one.
The problem isn't happenning on Steam because Steam has always been a single platform that evolved over time. There was never a second Steam platform launched, requiring a new login and granting you with a new library, incompatible with the old one.
Nintendo is just simply not forward-thinking. They could've have everyone on the same platform since the Wii days. One account tied to you, working on all devices. Wii, Wii U, 3DS, Switch, and so on. With content bought on previous ones available on other platforms as well, if available through the system. This would've been perfect, and since the same platform would have been used for all, the old Wii store and apps would have been able to continue living inside the current store at no additionnal cost.
The thing is, right now, this sucks. And I don't think Nintendo does that out of being evil or whatnot. There's probably a monetary reason behind this all. Keep in mind, the bigger a company is, the more responsibilities people will be expecting out of you. They couldn't just "let this live" as-is without providing some sort of support. Even a small team of a couple of people required to take care of this could cost them a couple of 100,000$ per year, which may not be worth it anymore because so few people are buying games there anymore.
I don't think Nintendo is evil (even from a commercial point of view). But dumb and not forward-thinking? Hell yeah.
Re: Reminder: The Wii Shop Channel Closes This Month, Here's What That Means For You
@Yorumi
** sorry for the wall of text. I was inspired when I wrote it. lol! **
Keeping stuff available online has costs. And for a big company, it's more than just server space. You'll still have to provide customer support, especially if your company is known for simple products aimed at the whole family. You can't just make them available and let people sort it out if they're experiencing problems. And even if you can piggyback the server maintenance to existing teams, it still would add some costs.
So basically, that means paying for an infrastructure that you don't get any profit from anymore. While this may be a small amount in the grand scheme of things, you can't, from a business point of view, support all your previous platforms forever and ever and adding their small costs on top of each other all the time. At one point, those small amounts required to support each platform will add up to a bigger chunk of money.
This could've been avoided if companies like Nintendo were ACTUALLY forward-thinking, keeping the same infrastructure and basic network functions for each new generation. Maybe upgrade it over time. That's the way most big software/hardware companies work nowadays, except maybe, some from the videogame world. In most platforms out there, your account and downloads are following you from device to device without much problems. But that's because companies stick with their platforms, and it was tought this way from the start.
Nintendo has always been late when it comes to managing console connectivity. In a way, they are now roughly where Microsoft and Sony were when the 360 and PS3 launched. And even worse, Nintendo seems to make closed ecosystems for each of their consoles. They manage users Nintendo IDs, that most users have to link to each different ecosystem on different consoles. Nintendo seems to have taken a slightly more modern approach with the Switch, but until they release a new console, there's still no way to tell 100%.
It's easy to think, from a consumer perspective, that keeping a whole system of online store downloads online has almost no costs. But if anyone actually worked for a company with any form of big, national network infrastructures, you know that nothing "just works" without any costs. Stuff break. Stuff goes down. You need to provide support. You need a help desk for every service you provide, and so on...
If a company's smart, they won't scatter their services on different servers across multiple different platforms, different logins, etc... If you keep all your stuff on a single platform, not only it simplify things from a support point of view, it also offers a lot more future-proofing.
This happens mostly because Nintendo wasn't smart on that aspect.
Re: Reminder: The Wii Shop Channel Closes This Month, Here's What That Means For You
@Razieluigi
The problem is that for those who care about what some people call "art" (movies, music, books, videogames), digital distribution is mostly hell.
A movie, music, book or game, is something that should be enojoyed by anyone, independent of how long it has been out. A good movie doesn't become bad as it ages (well, some do, but some don't - and it's all relative to an individual's tastes). Same for music, or books.
Saying that "... anybody who missed their chance (whether by choice or circumstance) deserves to go without it." makes it look like you consider games as simple products that you consume, and not much else.
That might be fine with you if you only play games while they're "current" or "popular", but a lot of people like to play older games as well, and find "disturbing" the idea of buying a game at full price, knowing that you may end up not being able to play it anymore in the future, with that not being up for you to decide.
I understand the business logics behind all of this. I do. It would be ridiculous to keep up an infrastructure very few people still use. But then again, that means most digital-only titles that were available on the platform are not available anymore. Legally, anyways.
This would be like Disney removing all Star Wars or Marvel movies from EVERYWHERE, including their own platforms. Sure, some will share them illegally on the web, but what would you say to anyone wanting to watch these movies and not having access to someone having them physically (improbable but still) ? You deserve to go without it?
Everytime a platform like this closes down, I kind of see it as a reminder that if you want to keep anything, buy it physical (if available - of course). As long as you take care of your stuff, you'll always be able to get back to it. Which isn't true of digital distribution. Well, not always.
Re: Sega Teases New Ocean View Map And Music Track For Team Sonic Racing
I thought that a sequel to Transformed would have kept the same formula (more or less), as it was something that made the game pretty unique and fun. From what I've seen (and heard) so far, this new game feels a bit uninspiring, and somewhat back to a more "standard" kart racing game. Bummer.
Re: Looks Like Retro-Bit Is Resurrecting Sega's Switch-Like Handheld, The Nomad
@Dayton311
I was about to say the same thing. I had one of these back in the days, and what I remember the most from it was how it ran through batteries at an insane rate. I loved it, loved the idea behind it, but having to change batteries every two hours, throw them away if not rechargeable or have six batteries put in the charger when most chargers were only accomodating 4 at the time, was too expensive and/or too cumbersome, especially for the college student I was back then.
Although, this aspect aside, the concept behind it was way before its time. If you stop to think about it, Nintendo didn't really invent anything with the Switch. It's just a better (much better) executed version of the same idea.
Re: Blaster Master And Zelda II Arrive On The Switch Online NES Service This Month
For those saying they don't understand Nintendo, I don't know why you feel this way. This is very, typical Nintendo. This is Nintendo doing what they often do best : not making any sense from a commercial standpoint. And sticking to it.
Sometime it can be for the best (don't try to imitate what others are doing - cater to a different crowd, etc...), but this is not one of those times. This is one of those time where we all gather around the big N and laugh at it collectively, with some people in the crowd waving huge boards with "WTF" written in big bold letters. Some even share memories of the Virtual Boy. Ah! Fun times. Everyone laugh. And everyone agrees that the Nintendo online services, even at this low price, is FAIL material. We all laugh again. This is one of those times.
Re: Former SSX And Skate Devs Are Bringing Snowboarding The Next Phase To The eShop Next Week
@Retr0gamedad
... as countless others that are released on Switch as well...
I find that a bit tiresome, to be honest, as while playing games with proper physical controls is infinitely better, I'm usually not very fond of paying $20 or more for a port of a $1.99 mobile game. Even worse if it still has microtransactions up the wazoo.
Kind of also tired of that graphic style that looks too much like it was made to work on the lowest spec mobile phone from the last 5 years or so.
Although... I'm dying for a new SSX game and this game may fit the bill. Maybe when it'll be on sale eventually, as it is the only way to pay "non-inflated" prices (read: normal) for ports on the Switch.
Re: Thimbleweed Park Dev Ron Gilbert Shares Fascinating Breakdown Of Sales By Platform
@SwitchForce
I don't consider this grabbing for straws as both are stores you buy from to play the game on the same PC platform. Granted, PC is different than consoles because you have multiple stores to buy your games from, but ultimately both Steam and GOG (and even Windows Store, Green Man Gaming, EA Origin and so on...) are part of the same PC platform.
You could have separate numbers for GOG and Steam for analysis purpose, but ultimately, these should've been categorized as the "PC" platform.
I'm just curious about the rationale behind separating sales from different vendors despite the game being for the same platform (PC). Unless the idea was to compare digital stores between themselves (which seems to be the case), and not necessarily the platforms. Although I find that not as relevant as a breakdown by platform.
Re: Thimbleweed Park Dev Ron Gilbert Shares Fascinating Breakdown Of Sales By Platform
Well, the platform that leads sales isn't the Switch but the PC. Steam and GOG are both stores on which you buy the PC version of the game. PC counts for 36,5%.
Also, is the game available on the Microsoft PC store as well? And are both Xbox One and PC sales on the Microsoft stores calculated under "Microsoft"? It would make sense, as it's a bit strange that the Xbox One market, which is similar to the PS4 market in some way, is about 3 times bigger. Not impossible though. I don't even know if it's available on the Windows store, so what do I know?
The thing we know though, is that sales on Switch are much bigger than the other two consoles of this generation combined. Although, they are still smaller that PC sales (Steam + GOG).
Re: Video: Digital Foundry Revisits DOOM On The Nintendo Switch
Doom on PC. $18.
Doom on Switch : $80.
Doom on Switch when on sale : $40
(CDN $)
Well, I'd love to play it on my Switch, but holy jumping mother o' god in a side-car with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib!, that price is insane.
It's all awesome that a team is supporting their game like this post release, but man.... this isn't worth an additionnal $60 just for that.
Re: Review: V-Rally 4 - A Bumpy Ride That Will Only Reward Dedicated Motorsport Fans
"The Switch isn’t lacking when it comes to racing games..."
Maybe it isn't, but it is seriously lacking in good ones... I mean, aside from Mario Kart, which is kind of a category of its own (fun kart racers with powerups), is there anything on the Switch in the racing category that is actually great? Not just ok, or good, but really great? Without being a kart racer? (nothing against these, but racing is more than just this).
I've been playing Forza Horizon 4 on the Xbox One recently and THAT's a stellar racing game (although more on the arcade side of things with its physics). How about some open-world racer like this on the Switch? I mean, even the Burnout Paradise remaster that got out on XB1 and PS4 would surely work on the Switch... I would certainly buy that.
Because right now, I'm trying to think of a great racing game on the Switch that isn't a kart racer, and my mind is more on the blank side of things.
So when I read "The Switch isn't lacking in racing games"... I'm slightly puzzled. Like when Nintendo said the Switch have over 1000 games or something like that. That's not important. What's important is how many of these are actually worth playing to you? Maybe it isn't lacking in racing games, but it is surely lacking in great ones I'd be interested in buying...
Re: Nintendo Will Be Taken To Court Over Its "Illegal" eShop Pre-Ordering System
@Kiyata
I guess sometimes people may preorder because of stupid incentives some publishers do to build up a maximum of sales. Like including an "exclusive" DLC or something. Or doing a special sale for those who preorder who'll get the game for $5 less or something.
The problem is that a lot of actors in the industry are actually using pre-order sales numbers to validate or estimate interest in a given game and act accordingly. Like, using preorder sales to estimate how many overall sales a title will generate. This is part of the problem, as it encourage them to find various strategies to pre-sell as many copies they can. That includes all those stupid collectors editions shipped with $5 worth of extra goodies for $50 extra.
Re: Feature: Every Nintendo Console Ranked From Worst To Best
@SmaggTheSmug
I completely agree with you. In fact, I like to play with VR once in a while, especially at fairs and some tech expos and the like. I think, like you said, that it is a niche product. My point was merely aimed at those VR fanboys (we all know one or two) who'll argue to no end about VR being what everyone is actually dreaming of. I was even told once that every "true" gamer out there now has already embarked on a VR platform (implying that anyone not into VR right now is not a true gamer). I mean... I haven't seen this level of irrational fanboyism since childish console wars of old...
Maybe "ill-fated" was a poor choice of words in the article. But I'm just surprised that it hasn't created some form of angry VR fanboy mob lashing at it on this page, given how vocal they can be.
Re: Guide: Every Nintendo Console Ranked From Worst To Best
"...Meanwhile, VR had a small, yet also ill-fated, comeback 20 years later."
I'm surprised, given how rabid VR fanboys can get, that they haven't got into some sort of apesh!t rage over that comment yet... publishing tons and tons of links "proving" somehow that VR is taking the world by storm and everyone saying the contrary is completely delusionnal...
I think the rankings of consoles is still perfectly debatable in a civilised way, as most posts here are showing. But just start dissing VR... and you're litterally, usually, asking for trouble...
Re: Nintendo Will Be Taken To Court Over Its "Illegal" eShop Pre-Ordering System
@Jokerwolf
To each their opinion, of course, but I haven't met a game that I could'nt get the "feel" of by watching videos either on YouTube or Twitch or elsewhere. There are so many resources available out there to get an educated opinion on a specific game that there is no need to actually buy (or pirate) a game to know if you'll like it or not.
Sure, there are factors that might have been overlooked sometimes, like replayability, or a game that starts real good and then gets boring fast, but these things are also often mentionned in good reviews.
I don't think there is anyone but ourselves to blame when a game we buy isn't living up to our expectations. It's not like we're still in the NES and SNES days when we had to rely on paid magazine subscriptions to read reviews and rely on back of box pics and descriptions to "guess" how good a game potentially could be.
I don't remember having been truly let down by a game I paid for since at least the PS2 era. But then again, I never preorder, and I read a lot before buying anything.
Re: Nintendo Will Be Taken To Court Over Its "Illegal" eShop Pre-Ordering System
@Jokerwolf
Reviews. Gameplay videos. I think it's pretty simple nowadays. I mean, I buy lots of games and I don't even remember when was the last time I bought a game that I didn't like, because I actually research my purchases before buying.
If people preorder or buy stuff without knowing anything (or very little) about a game, or just don't read reviews or watch gameplay video before, I fail to see who's at fault here beside their own selves.
I personnaly NEVER buy a game without waiting for reviews. And if I'm still unsure, some gameplay videos are often making a good job at showing what's the game like. Sure, that implies waiting for the game to actually get released (I don't really trust pre-release stuff coming from the developpers), but then again, this means no impulse buy, and practically no let down. Ever.
Now, that doesn't excuse Nintendo from not giving any refunds whatsoever on digital purchases. Many countries have laws that require companies to offer refunds given various situations.
Re: Netflix-Style Comic Subscription Service InkyPen Arrives Exclusively On Switch Next Week
Most of my purchased digital comics are through Comixology. Some others I bought DRM-less from Humble Bundle.
I'm not to subscribe to a service to read comics on my TV, or on a small screen 720p device. If there's one thing I like ultra high-res screens for, it's for reading comics. I only read them in page view (so it still feels like a proper printed page). And in that format, 720p just doesn't work. And the Switch screen is too small for that too.
Re: Video: Gorgeous Platformer Gris Receives Launch Trailer Ahead Of Tomorrow's Switch Release
@Gen0neD
So, living in Canada, that would mean about $20-$22 or so... + sales taxes... which would bring the price close to or over $25...
And given what others have been saying about the game being about 3 hours long with no replay value.... Not sure I'd say it is worth $25... Even as gorgeous as it is.
Will definitely put in my wishlist though. But I'll wait for a review, and probably a sale.
Re: Video: Gorgeous Platformer Gris Receives Launch Trailer Ahead Of Tomorrow's Switch Release
Wow. Just... wow. Art style, music... wow.
Might get this tomorrow, if price is decent.
Re: Panic Button Unleashes Hell On Switch With A New Performance Update For DOOM
While part of me would really like to buy Doom on the Switch and encourage these guys (as they're doing a wonderful job with all these ports and support of their games), I can't justify paying $80 for a game I can get for less than $25 on PC (and elsewhere). Even when on sale at 50% off, it is still priced much higher than the regular price we would pay elsewhere.
And that's the problem I have with many titles on the Switch. Most indies and ports are getting released on the platform at an inflated price that make them look like the worst deal ever.
I just hope Doom (and Skyrim, and Wolfenstein, and countless others) will eventually come down in price so they don't feel like bad deals, even when on sale.
Re: Celebrate The Game Awards With These Switch eShop Deals (North America)
It is sad in a sense to see that most of the titles that are multiplatform are still available for less (much less) on other platforms out there, even when on sale. I mean, I can get Doom for $18 right now instead of $40. And before someone says "yes but the added value of playing it on the go".... At $18, on PC, I can play it on the go on a portable console (GPD Win), or on the big screen TV too. So that's not an argument.
The reality is the Switch, even if I love mine, is the console on which it is the priciest to game on. It's like that brand that you pay extra solely for the "privilege" of owning that brand.
I'd love to play Doom, Wolfenstein or Skyrim on my Switch, but wake me up when the price for those are getting in the "normal" zone, compared to the competing platforms.
Re: Dead Or Alive Xtreme 3: Scarlet's First Trailer Shows Exclusive 'Soft 4D' Joy-Con Feature On Switch
To all those comments about these games being only an excuse to objectify women, well, I won't say you're wrong. And I agree that you don't see men portrayed the same in games or other media, but there is a very logical reason for that : most women don't fantasize about men the same way men do about women.
Yes, these games aren't portraying women in a realistic way. No women are and act like this in real life. And yes, this may have a negative impact on the way some men think about women the same way cheap romance novels, shows and movies may affect how some women think about men, as they too, mostly aren't portraying men in a realistic way. In both cases, women and men are portrayed in ways that aren't reflective of real life. It's just that women are objectified in a more sexual manner, but it the end, both men and women end up being presented wrong and false images that affect how they should perceive the opposite sex.
No women are like this. And no men are like what's described in romance novels made for women.
Not saying either is right, or that one is worse or better than the other. Is sexually objectifying women is worse than objectifying men in a non-sexual way? In both cases, it's showing a false image of reality that can influence one's perception. In both cases, it is fantasy (although a different one) that is sold to a specific gender.
Re: Rumour: German Retailer Lists Assassin's Creed Compilation For Nintendo Switch
I enjoyed the AC games I played, and would gladly pay some money (not $60 though) for a collection on Switch, provided that no internet connection is required, of course.
I mean, to me, that's completely stupid to make such a game (a single player one) require an internet connection, on a platform where about 50% of people play in portable mode (thus, not always having internet access).
Re: Rumour Buster: No, Sony Isn't Launching A New PlayStation Portable To Rival Switch
The problem with Sony is that while they seem to know their customers in the home console market, they still haven't figured the handheld market, even after having created two handheld consoles.
Despite what some are saying, yes, the mobile gaming market changed something. I firmly believe that a pure handheld console with no additionnal functionalities, if released today, would fail to catch on with the general public. Why? Because these consoles ask people to bring ANOTHER device with them to play games, despite having one already able to do so with them at all times (their mobile phone). Maybe (definitely) not the same type of games, but for many people (most), it's good enough for them.
The Switch got popular because it merged two fields into one. It brought mobility to the home console market. It provided something that was uncommon (to the masses anyways): the ability to bring your home console with you and continue playing the same games wherever you are. THIS generated interest. A lot of people who ceased playing home console games for a lack of dedicated time started playing again.
The reason Sony failed with the Vita was mainly because they build it like we were still in 2001. An era in which the sole way to play videogames on the go was to get a dedicated portable console. All other aspects of the Vita besides games was an aftertought. It didn't bring anything new to the table, and every functionality besides games were badly implemented and were laughable, mediocre at best.
I still believe there would be a place for another handheld. BUT, it would need to go where people are right now, not where people were 15 years ago. A new handheld would need a PURPOSE. The Switch succeeded because it has a purpose.
How about a real mobile phone with a slide-out gamepad, based on an OS like Android, with, like for Amazon devices, a dedicated marketplace? Make games dependant on specific hardware to be playable (to avoid people playing them on other Android devices). Let people bring all their digital life with them on that single device (because it's Android, most apps people already use would work out of the box), so THIS would bring the fusion of portable gaming and mobile communications into one. ONE device to bring with me, instead of two (phone and portable). I know Sony tried that with the Xperia Play, but that was a bad phone that was outdated even before being launched. And it was badly supported.
Anyway... I'd be surprised if Sony would release another handheld. They tried it two times, and given how Sony is quick to abandon their products as soon as it doesn't sell as planned, I think having made a second handheld was already a miracle.
Re: Switch Owners Aren't Worried About Visual Presentation, According To Crashlands Dev
I think a lot of people (developpers included) are misinterpreting or mixing up technology and style.
While I agree that (IMO), the fun factor is what matters in the end, the way a game looks is often the first contact anyone has with any title (through images or videos), and so anything that fails to projects a specific "soul" or "personality" is bound to fail. And this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a game is a 2D or a 3D one. There are magnificient 2D games out there, and there are very bad ones too. Same for 3D games.
This kind of goes along with what I've been saying in previous comments about other news. It's not about the tech, it's more about the art direction. You can have games that get it right, and you can have games that look like someone failed their graphic design course, or look like a lazy pre-made resource collection.
You can have a minimalist style, a cartoon style, a hyper-realistic style, as long as that style grants the game a personality of its own, it's good.
I care DEEPLY about graphics and visual presentation. And I'm pretty sure most Switch owners do, contrary to what the title of this article says (which isn't really what Crashland's dev was saying). Article's title sound like most Switch owners don't care if a game looks like sh!t. That's not true. They probably don't care about a game being 2D or 3D though. But I assure you that "good looking" is important. Which relates to both 2D and 3D games.
Re: Saints Row: The Third Brings The Full Package To Nintendo Switch Next Year
@Rohanrocks88
"when it inevitably drops under $20"...
This is the Nintendo Switch. A platform where a game with even a 50% discount is pricier than its regular price elsewhere. A platform where games launched on release day are still sold $80. Where most re-releases of old games are repackaged and sold at brand new prices. The Switch is the platform where cost of gaming is the most expensive of all the consoles of the current generation.
I mean, I love my Switch, but I also know that this game will undoubtedly be released at a price point much higher than what it should be, and will not be significantly discounted, ever, unless in some special sale down the line about a year after its release, for like, maybe, 25%, or even %50, which will price it at best on par, or at worse still pricier, than on all other platforms out there.
I'd have bought a lot more Switch games if I didn't have the feeling I'm getting the worst deal out there, even when on "sale".
Re: The Switch Is About To Get Its Next "Hardcore" Platformer In Dexteritrip
@Gen0neD , @sfb
Thanks for the comments guys. BTW, one thing I failed (IMO) to describe properly, is about the importance of every element you use in minimalist design. I mentionned the importance of style, but that's not exactly that. It's more like the less elements you have, the more important every aspect of those elements need to be thought about. Position. Size. Colour. Everything. These all contributes to visual balance, and so, the less elements you have, the less "tools" you have at your disposal to attain balance. So it becomes harder. Not easier.
It's like trying to create a personnality for a character in a story. With fewer and fewer character traits at your disposal, it becomes more and more difficult to create an interesting character. But when you succeed, it works, and everyone understands it. It's kind of like that.
Minimalist artwork is truly a thing of beauty when done right. And not just in gaming. In everything. Less is more.
Like B&W photography. Colour is like crutches. Colour distracts the eye from the core of the photo. A nice B&W shot can be a lot more emotional than a colour one. B&W forces us to focus on details we otherwise don't pay attention to. It forces us to see differently. Hence, you need, IMO, more talent to create truly great B&W shots because you don't have colour to rely on to create a wow effect (less tools at your disposal). You want to know if your photography skills has legs? Get rid of the crutches.
Cheers!
Re: The Switch Is About To Get Its Next "Hardcore" Platformer In Dexteritrip
@Gen0neD
I agree. I mean, I love minimalists approaches, but as a graphic designer myself, the less elements you have in your visuals, the harder it gets to get it right. People think that going minimalist is easy. On the contrary. The time you're not spending in creating visual assets, you NEED to spend it in finetuning your designs until they're perfect. Style is becoming more important the less elements you have. You can't just throw assets in there.
This game, to me, isn't approaching the level of "perfection", from a visual standpoint, I'd expect from a minimalist approach. The first N+ game got it right. I haven't played the second, but to me, screenshots looked liked it's visually worse. Doesn't affect how fun it could be though.
But as always, fun factor is king, so if this game gets rave reviews, I might have to check it out.
Re: Former Xbox Exclusive Ms. Splosion Man Blasts Onto Switch eShop Next Week
Fun game. Glad to see this coming to the Switch. And I was interested in buying it until I saw the price. I mean, this will more than likely end up being $20 in Canada, which is way too much for such a re-release of an older game. Especially considering you can get it on mobile for less than $5, and on Steam for $11.
So yet another re-release on Switch with a jacked-up price higher than anywhere else that game is sold.
Not surprised. This has become somewhat of the way we should expect things on this platform. Waiting for a huge sale so I get to pay the REGULAR price it is sold for everywhere else. **sigh**
Re: Luigi's Mansion Scares Away The Competition To Snag Number One In The Japanese Charts
I don't think this is going to make the charts here in NA. I mean, most stores that sell DS games have about less than 10 of them stored on the lowest shelf of their Nintendo section, already filled with Switch titles.
Re: Video: Nintendo Really Wants You To Know That The Switch Has More Than 1,000 Games
The problem is that while there are some great games, most games available on the platform are games that :
A. Are available everywhere else, often for much less.
B. Are cheap ports of $0,99 mobile games sold for $11.99
C. Are mobile-like endless runners, hidden objects and the likes...
D. Are often simple affairs without much depth to them
E. Are ports of much older games now resold at inflated price
I'm not hating indie games. Some of them are true gems. But for each one that shines, there are about 10 that are cheap, uninspired and simply not needed.
When people say that the Switch has no games, I don't think they mean it litterally has no games. It more than probably means not enough major AAA big releases with significant depth to them. And on that front, I'd have to agree. The vast majority of those "over 1,000" games are small indie titles. Nothing wrong with that, but for many, me included, you can't live on these alone. You also need "meatier" titles to sink your teeth into. And these are few and far between on the Switch. There are some, of course. The usual Nintendo suspects (Zelda, Mario, etc...) being among them, as well as a couple from third parties as well, but these are few, if we compare to competing platforms.
I know it's all relative to everyone's tastes and opinions, but "over 1,000 games" means nothing. To be reflective of what everyone's truly want to know, you'd have to talk about the number of "meaningful" games. As no, that cheap game nobody heard about that goes on sale for $0,19 on a regular basis is not a "meaningful" game.
Re: Video: Nintendo Really Wants You To Know That The Switch Has More Than 1,000 Games
@masterLEON
It maxes out? This means I'll eventually have to delete some from my wishlist if I want to add new ones? That's very dumb.
I mean, most games I want on Switch are overpriced (as in, available elsewhere for much less, or I already have but want to play them on the go on my Switch) so I'm waiting for some decent sales (which are rare for the games I'm interested in).
I don't have much games, but my wishlist must be over 100 games now.
Re: The Switch eShop Finally Adds Search Filters For Genre, Price Range And More
They should have operators working in search...
So we can add "NOT shovelware" when doing searches.
Re: Nintendo Wins $12 Million From Trademark And Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
While I'm all for companies protecting their IPs, this highlights an ever-growing problem in this day and age: no easy access to old products in a legal manner.
And I'm not speaking about videogames only. Nor I'm saying I'm for piracy. What I'm saying is that most companies out there are usually failing pretty bad at offering their old catalogue of products to consumers. I saw this happenning in schools recently, where a movie (from the 90s) used in some work sessions isn't available on DVD and teachers have to rely on an old VHS tape because there is no legal way to buy a DVD copy anymore.
I'm very glad to see Nintendo and Sega and Sony and SNK and Atar doing retro micro-consoles with a bunch of games on them, but these aren't encompassing all that was available back then.
I saw a recent study that showed that movie and TV piracy was on the rise, after many years of slowing down. One theory is that the streaming market is now segmenting itself across various services, each with a subscription fee, which means anyone wanting a diversified offer now needs to pay a lot more money to watch what they want. Every company and network now wants their own streaming service with their own exclusives. All the people who became cable-cutters because they didn't want to pay cable companies a ton of money are now asked to pay a ton of money to watch what they want. That doesn't excuse piracy. But it's easy to believe that there's a connection.
What this highlights, is that companies need to think about offering an easy, affordable access to their back catalogue, if they want to reduce piracy. If they put too many hurdles (of logistic or financial nature), then this actually pushes some people towards piracy. Not saying that this is right. Or moral. Or legal. Just an acknowledgement that this happens with some people.
I would be all for Nintendo creating some sort of "Netflix for older games". They kind of got the right idea with their online subscription service, although their execution of the concept leave a lot to be desired, IMO. Do that with most NES games, SNES games, and even other platforms (like the old VC had), and you'll see a lot less interest in piracy out there.
Re: Nintendo Reiterates It Has "Absolutely No Plans" To Offer First-Party Games As Cross-Platform Titles
I personnaly bought a Switch mainly because it allows me to play "console" games on the go. Having to take the train to and back from work everyday (45-60 min ride) this was the main factor that drove me to the console. Of course, Zelda and Mario Kart played a part in my buying decision, but I would say it's more of a combination of all of these things that made the package attractive.
Would a system like the Switch still sell if it didn't have "exclusives"? Probably, because of it's hybrid nature, but a "regular" console wouldn't.
And besides, all systems have "exclusives". It's why Sony and Microsoft are buying so many studios to develop 1st-party content. You don't see Sony or Microsoft porting their games to other platforms (unless PC, which sometimes can get some ports from both sides - More from MS than Sony, though).
Re: Nintendo Suspending Wii Video Streaming Services Early Next Year
@Krull
That's what I want to understand as well. Does Nintendo have explicit control over all third party apps? Does all third party apps on the Wii depends on Nintendo support for basic functionalities?
Even if I can understand, I'm still not at ease with the idea of taking things that are perfectly functional and then forcing ways to make them non-functional anymore, usually to force people to upgrade and buy new stuff. I mean, if there's a real reason associated with performance (or lack of), then, ok. But this feel like forcing people to move on, even if that's 0,05% of current users.
I'm usually someone who always try to repurpose old gear for something else. An old PC? Could convert that into a file server, a SONOS server, Plex server, or whatnot. It is still usefull. The same way an old Wii could be repurposed to grant an old TV set in the house some basic Netflix capabilities. YEAH, I know a Chromecast is $40, but why should I buy something and spend money when I already have something with all the hardware capable of doing it?
I think that, more than ever, people need to self-educate themselves and be more and more able to turn their old electronics (including consoles) into multipurpose devices to extend their useful lives. Because a lot of business decisions nowadays are turning perfectly fine electronics into doorstops.
And this, indirectly, gives more and more munitions to those who "jailbreak" or hack their consoles to give them an extended life and keep them being useful.
Re: Nintendo Adds Trio Of Games To Switch Online NES Library Next Week
@nmanifold
In fact, I'd even add that if not for their usual stellar 1st party offerings (Mario, Zelda, Pokémon, Smash Bros & co), Nintendo would have went the same way Sega did. From a consumer standpoint (in Canada, at least), they have the priciest console out there, their accessories are the priciest as well, multi-platform games usually cost more on their platform than anywhere else... and many games on their platforms never drop in price, even after years of being released.
And let's not forget the tendency they generally have in making customers buy the same games over and over again on any new platform they release. I think they were planning on a VC for the Switch and making people buy their games all over again if they wanted to play them on that new platform, but decided against that and took a different approach.
While the Switch is a nice console (I love mine, really), it's also the console that requires the most investment in money from a gamer to play on. In terms of value for your money, all other consoles out there are beating it, hands down.
But then, the Switch is both a portable and home-console, which others can't offer.
Re: The Capcom Beat 'Em Up Bundle Update You All Asked For Is Now Live
@Moroboshi876
I think it depends on who's you're asking the question to. I've been lucky to live my teen and early adult years when arcades were still pretty much a thing, and despite the advent of consoles that were able to reproduce these games more faithfully, going to the arcades was still a thing for me and my friends. Playing the same games at home was cool and interesting, but it lacked the atmosphere of the arcade, which, I guess, was part of the experience. Maybe it's something the younger generations of today wouldn't really understand. I don't know.
We really started to see a decline in popularity by the time the PS1 era came in full force though. But people were still going. Many machines still had big screens, and sometimes cool multiplayer setups, especially for racing games. I remember one huge tank game from Namco (I think), that had a 3 or 4 player setup in the arcade I usually went to. It was a blast. Also, motocycle games where you had to mount a bike to play... Some arcades still exist in the likes of amusement parks, although nowadays, they mostly focus on experiences that go beyond the simple joystick. Think DDR type dance games, gun games, sit-down racing cabinets and things like that. Classic stand-up arcade games are practically gone nowadays. At least in NA.
Although I know that in Montréal, in Canada, there seems to be a couple of bars that openned around the idea of reproducing (more or less) the atmosphere of those glory days.
Re: Rumour: YouTube Could Be Arriving As Soon As Next Week On Nintendo Switch
Netflix please. With the ability to download content, like on phones and tablets, for offline viewing.
You want more people buying Switches and Switch content? Then don't make people choose between their tablet or their Switch. Just make the Switch the only device people feel they can bring with them. Right now, I'm bringing two devices with me at all times (3 if you count my phone), and I'd be more than happy to leave my tablet at home if I could use the Switch to watch Netflix on the train ride everyday.
The only way I'd ever use YouTube on the Switch is for looking at hints for when I'm stuck in some games, and this, provided YouTube doesn't require my game to be closed to work (YT would be worthless to me if I can't keep my game running while using it).
But Netflix, now that makes a valuable addition, and would make me use my Switch a lot more.
Re: This Lovely Super Mario Maker Edition 2DS Is A Black Friday Bargain
God help us.... those colors.... My eyes are bleeding.
Also, the huge "3DS" on the box, with a 2DS console inside.... it's bordering on the misleading advertisement side....
Re: Sega Wants To Bring Star Wars Arcade To Nintendo Switch
The problem here is that gaming has become a huge cash cow for big companies like EA, who actually develop more "products" than "games" nowadays, in which return on investment and profitability and in-game transactions are much more important than crafting a memorable gaming experience.
Disney will always go towards big companies that can potentially turn their licences into lots of profits. Games made under a licence don't need to be good (they just need to not be abysmally bad). But one thing they want is a game that'll turn in lots of profits, be popular and ends up keeping the franchise name in the spotlight.
Disney may have been critical of the EA fiasco with the Star Wars licence, but I don't see them ending this relationship YET. And if I'm not mistaken, EA has some sort of exclusivity on SW games, no? I'm pretty sure EA paid Disney big money for that, and if Disney would allow another developper ort publisher to put out a SW game (even an old one), I'm sure they'll be in-line with a bunch of lawyers ready to shut that down.
I may be wrong though. I hope I am, in a sense.
Because to me, EA kind of left my gaming radar since some time already. Mostly because I'm more interested in actual games, than in monetization platforms disguised as games.
Re: Nintendo Confirms That There Are Now More Than 1,300 Games Available On Switch
@Blizzia
I agree that "perceived value" is, in a sense, all there is to it, but it is this way simply because people are accepting this.
I see this the same way as a store who would sell the same item in a "for men" and a "for women" package, despite being the same thing, for 5$ each. And then, at some point, selling again the exact same thing, just in a new package, labelled "NEW MODEL for both men & women" and then ask 10$ for it.
The sole reason business strategies like these are working, is that people are buying that $10 version.
And my personnal problem, is that all I see is still the same $5 item, now sold for $10 with a new label slapped on it. "Perceived value" for me, is exactly what makes me NOT BUY many games on the Switch, because I always get the impression that doing so ends up being the worst deal out there. I'd like to play Doom on my Switch. But it is still $80. I can get it for less than $15 on Steam and still play it on a portable. The Harry Potter Lego collection on Switch should be no more than $30. Not $60. I paid both games $5 each on Steam.
I will agree that the Switch is much better hardware (build-quality wise) than the GPD Win, and that's the reason why I have a Switch. But it is false to say the Switch is the only console providing this type of experience. It is not. It is, however, the only one made by a well-known and reputable brand name and electronics/videogames manufacturer. And the only one that has some sort of "mainstream" traction.
The "Nintendo tax" that so many people mention, is exactly that. The fact that, under the guise of "perceived value" companies selling games on the Switch can charge a lot more, for what is, in essence, the exact same product, more or less, that is being sold elsewhere.
It's the same thing as that "new model now for both men and women" sold for $10 while the same model was previously sold for $5.
But people buy it, so that's why you see companies doing it.
Re: Nintendo Confirms That There Are Now More Than 1,300 Games Available On Switch
@Blizzia
"The Switch has a unique trait that make many of those so-called "old games" available in a totally new and different way: The handheld mode."
Well, that depends on your point of view. I've been able to play Skyrim on a handheld (GPD Win) before it was out on the Switch. I've been able to play the Mass Effect trilogy, Borderlands, Burnout Paradise, and countless of other games, including some that were re-released on the Switch (at an inflated price), that I bought for almost nothing, and yes, all played in handlheld mode. I played the Lego Harry Potter games in handheld mode, bought for about $5 each. And then I see those re-release on Switch for $60. Really???
What you're talking about is only "perceived" value. You don't get both a home-console and a portable version. Your console (that you already bought and paid for) is doing all the job of providing all its games this way. The developpers and publishers aren't the ones providing you with this new way to play. Nintendo is. And you already paid Nintendo for this.
I bought my Switch because it can play games in both docked and handheld modes. This is a hardware feature. Sure, devs need to take some things into consideration, and I don't have a problem with games being priced slightly higher, but not like 2x the price or more. There are games out there I can get right now between $5 - $10 on PC and they are like $60 on Switch....
Re: Nintendo Confirms That There Are Now More Than 1,300 Games Available On Switch
This is typical marketing spin we see all the time from any company out there, that is strictly based on putting out big numbers to somehow "wow" the crowd or change a perception.
Problem is, numbers usually don't mean much without context.
How many of those games are simple ports of mobile ones available for cheaper (or even free)? How many of those games are also ports of small indie games, also available everywhere else, almost always for less? How many of those games are ports of older games, repackaged and resold at a greatly inflated price?
How many of those games are more than a simple, quirky mobile-type experience? Do we really need another "hidden object" game, or match-3 type puzzle, or endless runners?
I agree, some of these indie games (a small %) are truly great. But the problem (another one) is that they're lost among all the crap, without any decent way for you to find them.
So yeah. How many of those 1300 games (that you know about) are games you'd actually want to buy and play? 100, maybe? In my case, it's probably less than that. Especially since I'm counting out all the games on Switch I can get elsewhere for a lot less... that I'm not going to buy on Switch (duh!).
Re: Sega Mega Drive Classics Hits Switch On 6th December, Physical And Digital Versions On The Way
Anyone knows if this collection contains box art and instruction booklets for games? Any specific extras?
I remember the Sega Genesis collection on the PSP some time ago, which had box art, along with facts and information about each game, plus sometimes even video interviews with the team members involved in a game's creation. I thought this made the collection particularly relevant, from a historical point of view. Having access to all these things made me better appreciate each game in the package.
Would be nice to have similar features here.
But even without, that is a day-1 buy for me. Still undecided though if I should get it physical or download.
Re: Over 50% Of Nintendo Switch Online Subscribers Have Purchased The Annual Plan
I paid the $25 for it. I only very occasionnaly play online (rarely), but cloud saves and NES games (although selection is quite sub-par so far) seemed a relatively good deal to me.
Can Nintendo do better? Of course it can. And I hope it will. But while I would never had subscribed for a price in line with what others are charging ($70), $25 is "fair" for a year. The price paid reflects, in a sense, the fact that its offering isn't on par with competitors. No voice chat, for instance, or voice chat relying on a phone app, which is a convoluted and ridiculous setup.
With all that in mind, $25 isn't so bad for a yearly subscription.
Although I hope Nintendo will improve the service, add games to its subscription library (and not just NES ones), and include standard integrated voicechat eventually.