Realnoize

To me, it's a breath of fresh air to see a new print magazine getting out these days. In fact, I think that releasing one, right now, can be in part interpreted as a sign of dedication towards the subject covered by said magazine. Launching one takes money, lots of planification and logistics. A print publication is also, generally, featuring a more eye-pleasing graphic design and reader experience than a website (my opinion), and is much better suited to long, in-depth articles. Websites are unrivaled for staying up to date on news, but magazines are where it's at when you want to deep dive into a specific subject.

Very glad to see print media isn't dead. Although I know that it'll become (already is) somewhat of a niche product in these technological ADD generations.

@Anguspuss

In Canada, it's $60, which is what full retail games used to cost during the last generation (PS3/360).

I would've been tempted to buy this, mainly to play these games on the go, but given I already have both on PC, and paid about $5 each for them, asking $60 for these two is pretty insulting. We're not talking about a "remake" here. It's the same games, just with slight graphic tweaks here and there.

So again, the Nintendo "tax".

@NEStalgia
I totally get you. There are too many stores out there that just don't understand the reason why people are shopping there. Many brick and mortar stores think business is hard because of online stores offering lower prices, but what I'm hearing most of the time from various people is that they'd PREFER having a store to go to buy their stuff and get some service if something doesn't work. Many people think getting your product right away beats having to wait for the order to arrive.

The problem, is that stores don't see that it's all about the customer experience. Piss off too many people with stupid store policies, and those people will simply go elsewhere. And sometimes, that elsewhere is online competitors because there is no real local alternative. THEY are pushing people to go online because of bad customer service.

You know, there's a place I go often to buy some vinyl records. Even ordered some in store that I went to pick up later. Why don't I order online? Because last time I went there, the manager saw me and greeted me by my first name from across the store, and took the time to introduce me to his newest employee telling her that I'm a regular and usually know what I'm looking for. Then we had a nice discussion about music, Led Zep, the latest from McCartney, and other stuff... I'm going there often because I feel important, as a customer. It's friendly, they know their stuff, and the overall experience is something I wouldn't get from ordering online. Another store I go for records looks like KSKSLOSKSJSBSBSSH, but the overall experience is A+ and, again, staff know their stuff and are super friendly.

So many stores just don't get it... Thinking business is hard because of online store... not realizing THEY are often the ones pushing their customers to go elsewhere, online...

@NEStalgia
Exactly. Me too, I'd love to go to a decent videogame store with knowledgeable, passionate staff, that sells all kind of games and geeky stuff, but like you said, GS kind of go out of their way to make sure the customers' experience ends up being a lesson in crappiness.

I always tell people that many companies have it wrong when they say online commerce is hitting them hard. They always say customers go online simply because it often costs less, but they never think that many customers are actually resorting to order online because you simply pissed them out of your stores because of bad customers experiences. Many times, large retail stores and chains are themselves pushing customers towards online competitors. But they never think about this, do they?

Of course they don't. Because otherwise, they'd be hell-bent on giving good service (which is the main reason people still go shop in stores instead of online).

@Switcher,
Yeah, buying "new" games that have been opened.... This is another thing I can't stand from GS employees. I mean, the ONLY thing that can guarantee me that a game is new, is if it's unopened, still wrapped in its case with, when applicable, the usual seal. If it's openned, it cannot be considered "new" as there is litterally NO WAY TO TELL.

Their insistance on making me believe these opened games are "new" is quite irritating. You know, I also have all these "new" games at home too.... Yes, I can guarantee you they've never been played. I swear! Just trust me!

The rare times I went in there looking for a specific game, I always specify I want a NEW, WRAPPED copy. If they try to pass me an openned copy, I let them know I have no way to tell its new, and no, their word doesn't mean a thing. Then I just leave. Although, I'm rarely shopping there anymore (horrible service, fraudulent ads, no real good deals to be found, etc, etc...)

There are many, many, many reasons why I stopped going there (it's still called EB Games in Canada). I remember a time (possibly 20 years ago or so) where I was often going there as they had good deals back then. And their selection of used titles were actually priced relatively fairly (as in, low enough to not canibalize sales of new copies).

But the one event that contributed the most in stopping me from going there, is when they offered me $2 for a title they were selling used for $40. I know the whole point is to make money. but that's way beyond what anyone would sensibly consider as insulting.

And after that, whenever I tried to benefit some promo from them, most of the time, what they'd be giving me for my games (current gen ones at the time and never sports crap) was often pretty insulting. How in hell they can get so many people selling them their games for so little cash is something I'd never get.

Also, they often run flase advertising up here, as when you get in store, the clerks and even managers sometimes contradicts what's in their own flyer and refuse to honor the promos in their own ads...

I sometimes still go there when I have nothing better to do (rarely). But I never end up buying anything as they NEVER have good prices, or never have the stuff I'm looking for.

I hope Gamestop do the gameing industry a favor and just die. Sad for those who'll lose their jobs though. But I still want them to die.

Yeah, 1000 games. But then, even if many are great for fans of retro-gaming (or retro-inspired gaming), the Switch is still the platform (at least in Canada) on which playing costs the most money - most multiplatform titles on there being priced higher than on any other platforms, and often even when they're on "sale".

And their digital storefront is a complete mess too. How good is having 1000 games if most of them are hard to find or discover?

@Moroboshi876
40 is about the price in Canadian dollars when it's ON SALE on the Switch eshop. I was always curious about this game, but guess that instead of buying it on Switch, I'll buy it for about $15 or so in the next Steam sale.

Unless I'm getting something wrong, switching from arcade games to NES games would probably require a bit more work than a simple swapping of files, no? "Emulators" have to be switched, and all the code from the menus on their device would probably need to be modified as well to take this into account.

Saying that they "had" to revert to NES roms at the last minute but then not having enough time to update the packaging is hard to believe. I mean, unless you ALREADY had plans for a NES version that was "ready to use as system image", it's actually quite a strecth to say there wasn't enough time to update packaging with the info. Heck, even putting some stickers over the packaging would have been an option.

To me, the fact that they never talked about this before some started to point it out means that they knew very well that it was unnacceptable, but chose to go along with it nevertheless in the hopes no one would notice...

How come companies like Atari, Sega, and Namco are still doing business with such people? Anyone with a brand name and a reputation to protect would normally avoid those, as their licenced products give yours a bad name.

HOLY BALD DiSLEXIC HYPOCONDRIAC KNIGHT!!!

I was just saying last week how I wish this game was on Switch, as I already played it and finished it numerous times, and would be willing to buy it again and play it again and again if it was to come to Switch....

Wow.... Ok... Now.... Man I wish XCOM or XCOM 2 would come to the Switch....

I'm on a 300mbps connection at home, and sometimes, streaming services like GeForce Now (on Shield TV - wired to router) lags just enough to be noticeable and affect gameplay.

And besides, like so many others say, not going to pay $80-$100 (Canada), for streaming a game. If it's going to be like a glorified rental, it should be priced as such IMO. I have trouble buying things and then letting third parties having complete control over it, and deciding without any notice, that they can stop me from playing when they see fit.

I think some people don't even know that phones with built-in controllers (other than the Xperia Play) exist. The Much/Snail W3 and there was one by JXD too. Both chinese companies, I admit, but lately, I found that most innovative products are comming from chinese companies like Xiaomi and GPD.

I played Skyrim on the go on a GPD Win quite some time before its release on Switch. The GPD Win is actually a Win10 PC the size of a 3DS with built-in controls. Played Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Xcom, replayed the Mass Effect Trilogy on it, Borderlands, Crysis, Life is Strange, Final Fantasy X remastered, Lego games and countless other PC games. It was about the price of a Switch when I bought it. I just recently sold it because I'm planning on getting the GPD Win 2 soon, which is even more powerful (but also a lot pricier).

I also bought recently a Xiaomi Mi Box, which is the best Android TV box you could buy for under $100, and the build quality is practically Apple-level.

Chinese products aren't always crap. You just need to buy products from established chinese brands.

I wouldn't have a single problem buying a Huawei or Xiaomi phone. Most companies build their products in China anyways, and sometimes use parts from the same manufacturers.... (CPUs, memory chips, storage, etc...)

I loved GamesTM. Used to buy it in print, then bought it digitally for a while. Loved that it had more in-dpeth articles about the industry than just being pages after pages of screenshots like EGM used to be. It had genuinely interesting content, its layout and articles were not catering to childish fanboys but more serious gamers at large, whatever platform you gamed on.

But one thing that I still love about magazines (still subscribed to Maximum PC - digitally), is that you get a good picture of what's happenning out there, even in fields you are sometimes less interested in. Most gaming websites tend to be focused on some aspects, and most platforms like Facebook and Google are usually becoming huge echo chambers feeding you only things that they think you're interested in. I often read magazines from start to finish, and I can attest that I learn a lot more stuff doing so, than browsing through gaming websites.

I personnaly don't like too much where we're going, with that all-digital future because while it's interesting to be able to search for all these things on the web, ultimately, you don't search for things you don't even know exist. And like mentionned before, if Facebook or Google see you browsing to Nintendo-oriented sites, then they'll tailor their news feed so you see Nintendo stuff. Other things you might have found interesting may not be shown to you.

I like the "curation" a magazine does. Editors pick out news and articles for you to read, and while some websites do a good job of doing that too, it's just not the same.

Comments regarding price... Skyrim, in Canada, still sells for near $100 on Switch, if you take into account sales taxes (depending on province). And this is no "deluxe edition". A game I paid less than $15 on Steam some years ago...

Right now, The Room is $11 up here on the Switch, while I can get it on the Google Play Store for $1.29.... and given that it's a touch-based game, mostly, why in hell would I spend $11 on this?

The problem with this "Nintendo Tax", is that as long as people will pay, games will continue to be pricier on Nintendo platforms. And sadly, I'm sure many will pay the $11 for The Room on Switch, as there are many who paid near $100 for Skyrim or Doom as well, and some who paid over $40 for South Park Stick of Truth too (a game given for free with the purchase of the sequel on some platforms).

Nothing against the game in itself, it's just that the prices on Switch are often completely disconnected with what people are paying everywhere else. The Switch is kind of the anti-thesis of good value in the console world. I love the device, but damn.... gaming on this thing is much, much more expensive than on competing platforms....

It makes justifying game purchases a lot harder... I mean, everytime there's a multiplatform game on Switch I'd like to buy, I kind of don't, because I see the price on Switch sometimes being 125% to 400% the price of the same game other platforms (Doom for $80 vs. less than $20 on PC), and it makes me feel like I'm just being ripped off and end up not buying it. In the case of "the Room", the Switch price is like around 900% the price on the Google Play Store right now. That's some serious Nintendo Tax there....

Like I said in a previous thread, this is no gaming phone. You cannot say a device is a gaming one without it having a full working gamepad. Having half a gamepad and relying on the touchscreen for button presses doesn't make it a gaming phone.

BUT, contrary to what others are saying, there ARE many nice games on Android, and many working with gamepads out of the box, that aren't f2p crap. It's just that you need to search for them a bit, as they're not always showing up on the frontpage of the storefront. I played a whole bunch of games on a portable Android gaming device. Many LEGO games (which were the same versions as the Vita versions), Telltale games, XCOM, Civilisation Revolution 2, Counterspy, Oceanhorn, Riptide GP renegade, Final Fantasy games, GTA games, Life is Strange, just to name a few... Maybe not recent AAA games like Zelda, but still, that's simply not true to say there is only crap games on there (although there is a lot of crap you have to filter through, I agree)

@OberonPrime

Yeah, I know. But still, while not perfect, some manufacturers of Android-based consoles include an utility allowing people to map on-screen touches to physical controls. I successfully played many games on Android with this that weren't even designed for gamepads from the start. And I'm pretty sure the manufacturer could have "profiles" already made (and updated) for games that lend themselves to such controls. Granted, this would rely on dedication from the manufacturer, but it's not technologically impossible to do.

Also, if a proper "gaming phone" would exist, nothing would prevent anyone from not using the gamepad and still rely on the touch screen when it works better (or when gamepad isn't supported). Touch screen still makes a lot of sense in some type of games, like some puzzle games and point-and-click adventures.

I've been a strong believer in the idea of a "do-it-all" device for gamers. I find it profoundly stupid that there's no company out there (aside some cheap chinese manufacturers) that tried making such a phone (and not do an half-assed job at it). And I laugh whenever a company launches a "gaming phone" (Acer, Razer) that lacks a physical gamepad. I mean, what makes it a gaming phone? That ridiculous "gamer aesthetic"?

I really wish Nvidia would make one, even if slightly underpowered compared to the Switch (needs to be passively cooled). I'd be lining up to buy one.

As someone who own a GPD XD (Android based console) I can assure you that while it's tue most of the games on Android are F2P or pay to win trash, there are many good games available and I had tons of fun on there with many games that were ported over to Android that I was previously playing on my Vita. Many Telltale games on there, Lego games as well, and a lot of those indie games available now on Switch were available on Android before, and still are.

Granted, you won't get the AAA games coming from the Switch, but there is still plenty to play. And I personnaly don't care about games being "old games". If I haven't played a game before, it's new to me. And I often prefer good, older games, over many of the recent offerings out there.

The only reason I wouldn't be interested in such a device, is only having a left gamepad, and relying on touchscreen for buttons. This is dumb. I'd LOVE the idea of such a device, provided it gets a proper gamepad. Maybe a slide-out one similar to the old Xperia Play (but better). Get me ONE device that can do everything, and I'll be a happy guy that won't have to lug around two or more devices.

But this "gaming" phone seems like a half-assed solution to that. Unless you have a PROPER controller built-in, I can't consider that a gaming phone.

I have a bit of trouble with calling it ""a surprisingly ungreedy approach to content access" when the starter pack costs $100 (I live in Canada).

This seems like pretty fun to me, but probably not $100 worth of fun. Somehow I can't seem to see the price of the digital edition in CDN $ right now. But maybe I'll be interested, depending on the price...

@DartBuzzer
Oh, yeah, it's because they can't handle the "truth"... lol!

I'd prefer to think that the adults in the room are usually the ones knowing when to leave a conversation. Thing is, you canot debate with someone who's already convinced of something. These type of conversations kind of remind me of irrationnal console fanboys threads of old, full of 12-year old kids writting expletives in all caps to all and everyone who dared not think like they do. Or all these forums filled with conspiracy theorists or religious nuts that are all so convinced they have the truth and that everyone else is oh so wrong....

There's no conversation to be had with people that constantly cherry-pick their arguments to go with what they believe, and automatically dismiss anything that say the contrary. This is the same behavior as religious nuts, conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, political sheep or any fanboy in general. People you can't just converse with in an adult manner without it turning into a contest of who can urinate farther.

That is why people are ignoring. Not because they can't handle the truth. But because they are full grown adults, know the "truth" is comprised of many sides, and aren't going to sit there listening to people who only see one, telling them what they should think.

I don't like to be preached to. And most sane people don't.

@Zidentia
That's what I've been tring to explain to many. It's not about whether you think it's "the future" or not. It all come down, ultimately, to money and potential profits. And right now, VR is a huge money pit for hardware manufacturer and producers of AAA content. Numbers are actually showing a decline in VR hardware sale anywhere between 50 and 70% compared to the same period last year. And you can have the most incredible hardware out there, if too few people buy into it, it's not going to work out, and maybe you won't even consider all those "improvements" for a second generation.

And that's what most VR preachers aren't considering. A lot of products had planned "improvements" that would've fixed what people said they didn't like, but all R&D stopped because too much money was lost during "generation 1".

It's just annoying though, that whenever there are talks about VR nowadays, you have a bunch of zealots anwering EVERYONE on a forum that dares speak against what they think is "teh futurez". And also not understanding that the masses just don't care about VR. It's like "How can someone not want VR?" and every answer to that is, to them, a wrong answer. I mean, there's few things as insulting as someone actually telling you they know better than you what YOU want... or need.

Never thought of using the ignore function, but thanks to your post, I think I'll do the same as you with some others around here.

VR is currently a niche market, and will probably stay that way. Why? Because it's simply not a product that fits in the lifestyle of the masses right now.

History shows us that all technology that ends up having widespread adoption actually do so because they bring something that facilitates and simplify the lives of people. Either by answering a need, or making even more convenient an existing product. VR fill none of those blanks, at least as far as entertainment is concerned (it may be different in other fields).

Now to every VR fanboy out there, I'm not saying VR is bad, or no fun. It is indeed quite fun. But even so, I, and I'm sure many others, don't have the intent of buying into it. VR isn't something simple. It isn't something you can use everywhere. In fact, it is more like something you have to plan for, as VR usually implies cutting you out of the world around you, which isn't always an option for many people out there. For all those people, this isn't something that simplifies or facilitate their lives. In fact, it complicates things further. We all need entertainment, but we can't all sidestep our real responsibilities. Anyone with kids can attest to that.

For the general masses, VR isn't something that they feel would bring something worthwhile to their lives. And even if you think it does, it's a the cost of cutting you out from what happens around you. And any technology that comes as a compromise, that make people feel like they'll have to "set aside some time" to use it, is not something the masses will invest massively in. Many people playing games just want to sit on the sofa and relax when they have the time. They don't want to have to "plan" for it because they'll be unreachable doing it.

For instance, the Switch is a huge success, even with being not as powerful as the competition, because its hybrid home/portable console nature is clever and allow people to continue their games wherever they go.

Many people are also not buying movies on physical media anymore, even if those physical media offers superior image and sound compared to streaming. Why wouldn't people stay with those then? Because streaming is much more convenient to them. The same way people aren't jumping on the VR bandwagon because what they currently have to play games on is much more convenient to them and suits their lifestyles better.

A lot of VR adepts right now are acting exactly the same way as religious nuts trying to convert people to their beliefs. "Why don't you want to be saved"? - Not understanding why other people aren't thinking the same way...

VR will live on... but mostly as a niche market (and there's nothing wrong with that).

Anyone trying to sell "VR" with a 720p screen should be laughed at. Even if that's not VR.

Besides, even current VR tech isn't THAT impressive to me. The most impressed I was with VR happenned last week, when I tried a setup of a dedicated machine that makes you believe you're flying. You're strapped face down to some sort of motorized contraption, that moves with your orientation. You have to move your "wings" to fly, and there's even wind being blown at your face. What's impressive about it wasn't the VR in itself (powered by a Vive headset) but the combination of everything, and the machine moving you in sync with your movements. Tried other VR games as well, shooters and others, but without any real-world stimuli to immerse you better, I see VR as nothing more as a cool toy that is fun to try from time to time. And yes, I tried others as well (Occulus), many times as well in the past. I'm only moderately impressed.

Pixels are still way too big for me (wake me up when we'll have a 4K screen for each eye), and 3D effect in VR is still "faked" by not making the difference between each eye the same as in real life.

Anyway, the problem with this "VR headset" for Switch, is that it isn't VR, and it also gives people a bad impression of what VR is about. People not having experienced VR trying this will not only be let down by the product, but also VR in general (even if, to me, it's cool but not at a level that impresses me a lot yet).

I hope online puiblication stops talking about these projects while they are in active development. Because all that public attention snowball all over the web on various sites and then leads to a cease and desist not long after that.

It's like websites reporting on these things are simply helping shut these projects down...

@FantasiaWHT

Oh.... How I wish Rogue Legacy was available on Switch... I'd replay it again and finish it gladly for the... I think... fifth time... or so... One of my favorite game ever. Never get tired of it. Bought it on PC, on PSN... would rebuy it on Switch if available.

Is there a similar game on Switch, that while maybe not as good (Rogue Legacy is hard to top, in my opinion), is still good enough? I'm not sure Chasm would fit the part...

The best way to fight piracy, is to actually give people a decent, no-fuss and reasonably priced opportunity to get what they want.

Piracy will never be eliminated. For many people, "free" will always beat "not free" (there are people who torrented games offered in a $1 bundle on Humble Bundle for f sake. $1 !!!!).

That being said, if we want to reduce piracy, companies will need to start thinking of their back catalogues like how people think of them as well. Most people buy their music once (those who still buy it anyways), and it usually can be played on various devices. Music doesn't cease to be playable when you upgrade your music player or phone. Movies on DVD are still playable in Blu-Ray players. Why? Because they're usually sold in a "universal" format.

Games from the past need to be treated in a similar manner. In fact, files like ROM files are the equivalent of MP3 files (or FLAC, or whatever format you prefer) for music. You should be able to buy these games, and be able to have a "player" for them on various devices.

Now, I know most companies would never do this, because it opens the gates to people messing with their IPs through hacking, and if people can get unofficial emulators for those, who knows what could happen, as you can't provide a guarantee something would work ok on a software you didn't make yourself... But then again, it's the same with music... Nothing prevents people from using the player they want, with various features sometimes affecting the sound output greatly. And people are ALREADY doing that with old roms anyways...

Anyways... I don't know how companies will end up working this out, but I still think that a transition to a model similar to this would be needed at some point if companies want to truly reduce piracy and ROM sharing. Otherwise, it's a fight (against piracy) they will never win.

When there's no excuse to pirate games, or when it's easier getting content legally than pirating games, piracy will stay marginal, and most won't even bother.

@jhewitt3476

Often, 8-bit and 16-bit art is not only an artistic choice, but also the only way those small teams are able to put out something decent, as they often don't have a huge budget. Many indie games are made by a team of a single-digit. You can't expect the same level of amazing graphics you'd find in a game from big studios having thousands of employees across the globe.

Now, that being said, I agree that some of them are still not very nice looking. Great 8 and 16-bit art could be awesome when done right. Shovel Knight is awesome, for instance. A good game is a good game despite whatever graphic style they use. I'd take a Shovel Knight over any "hidden object" game despite the later having "better" graphics.

Just finished "The Way Remastered" on my Switch. Which was a game I enjoyed a lot, btw. And yes, even with its old-style graphics (which reminded me of old Sierra point-and-click game graphics, somehow - and I see that as a good thing). And one of my all-time favorite is still Rogue Legacy, with its crude 16-bit type graphics. One heck of a fun game that I'm never tired of replaying again and again... (I wish this one would come to the Switch, but I don't think it will)

Maybe not willing to buy Trine 3 on its own, but if released as part of a trilogy containing all 3 games for the Switch, then I'd be much, much more interested.

@ozwally
Tegra 4 is very old. The current Tegra chipset (used by Switch and Shield TV units) is the Tegra X1. Specs for Tegra X2 are detailled online, but the chip hasn't been made available yet (and I don't think a definite timeframe for release has been announced), so who knows.

The only way I'd see the Switch using the X2 (if available by 2019, which I think it could be) would be to make the unit a bit more energy efficient, as the X1 has a tdp of 10-15 watts, and the X2 seems to be rated at around 7.5-15 watts, so probably more efficient in low-power scenarios and probably more efficient as well for running the same tasks as the X1. I don't think Nintendo would allow developpers to make games that works only on the X2. Maybe make those games run better on the X2 (better framerates, for instance) but then that would probably negate (or diminish) battery life gains if using more power to improve those games.

But I'm no expert at this, and we don't have a lot of info, so really, who knows? Everything is just speculation at this point.

Was interested in Disgaea 1 complete, but at $65 + tx (ouch), I'll pass....

I think a combination of a slightly bigger battery and maybe slightly more energy-efficient components may improve battery life, but not by a ton. And unless there is a revolution in battery technology happenning right now, I wouldn't count on significant improvements, which also kills the idea of a 1080p screen, as this would consume a lot more battery, and would probably make it runs a bit hotter as well.

Is anyone aware of Nvidia working on an updated chipset? I mean, of course they do, but if no one has heard any rumors on that front, I think this would rule out anything boosting performance significantly. And as many said before, that would be a bad idea because it would segment the userbase. Unless it's like the PS4/PS4 PRO thing where the new one only makes games play slightly better.

What I think it'll be, is a slightly cheaper (very slightly) model, maybe a tad wee bit smaller (not much), and maybe a better quality screen, although still 720p. Slightly better battery life as well, but not by much. Maybe 10-20% more.

Given that the Switch userbase is in general split 50/50 between people who play more on the go, and people who play more with the unit docked at home, such a strategy alienates about half of your potential clients right there, as I doubt Wifi good enough to play this will be available everywhere you go (although this is Japan, I may be wrong about this).

Also, this is, much more than digital distribution, a glorified rental as it puts you even more at the mercy of a third party that can decide if you're allowed to play or not, or can shut down their server anytime without any obligation to you, who paid for the game.

I personnaly like to actually own what I pay for, and when it's only available digitally, I need a price to reflect that I'm not the one in control of my library. Why would I pay $80 for a game I may not be able to play in the future, while I can get usually the same game for the same price in physical form which will allow me to play it as long as I take care of my system and the game?

Granted, in this case, the game probably wouldn't be able to run on the Switch without some SERIOUS compromise to graphics and maybe other game aspects as well. I'm not against streaming games. The idea isn't bad. For instance, provided the price is right, a Netflix-like game streaming service would be surely interesting. But we're talking here about individual games that you probably pay good money to stream.

Anyone knows how much will be charged for this?

I think Nintendo is doing the right move. While I anticipate VR taking off in some fields (art, 3D modeling, medecine, to name a few), I don't see entertainment being one of those. At least not in the foreseeable future.

People tend to forget that yes, many established technologies we had today initially required tons of investment in the beginning, but the difference is that in most cases, adoption of those technologies showed a progression that those investors could bank on.

The "problem" with VR right now, is that the only ones making money out of it and those doing small, independant productions for it with a small budget that are easy to recoup. There is a userbase somewhat large enough to support those, but that userbase isn't large enough to support big-budget productions in VR right now, and many studios are slowing down (when not stopping) their investment in VR content. Most of the "big" titles that are out in VR right now (or soon to be) are projects that were started mostly when VR was supposed to take the world by storm. Right now, good, convincing VR is a money pit with no sign of it breaking even anytime soon. And I see most big companies these days investing in VR as a tool, than investing in it as an entertainment platform.

So while VR will continue to grow and be more and more useful as high-tech tools, entertainment uses for it gives no indication right now that it's going to be more than a niche market. Unless some drastic evolution in technology makes VR almost "natural" (and we're very far from that), it won't get the traction required to become mainstream. Think that many people didn't invest in 3DTVs because wearing simple glasses bugged them. Think that the whole "motion controls" in gaming fad also kind of died in the eyes of the public too. While die hard VR fans will continue to buy into VR, the general public probably won't.

Nintendo, since some time already, usually tries to make profits off their consoles from day one, meaning that they don't go out of their way to make hyper expensive boxes that they have to sell at zero profit, in the hope game and accessory sales will compensate. Maybe when VR will be more performant (resolution and refresh roughly in the same ballpark as the human eye, and we're still far from that) and at a cost that makes it viable commercially, in a package that will be very attractive for the common folk (simple plug and play with no fuss whatsoever), THEN you may see Nintendo invest in it. Maybe. Which is, from a business perspective, pretty understandable.

@Yorumi

I understand all of this. My point was only that we shouldn't negate and dismiss these studies based solely on the conclusion they came to, a conclusion we may not like (which I suspect a lot of people are doing here). If, like you said, that specific study goes to extreme and ridiculous lenght to "prove a point they were already convinced of from the start", then of course, that's bogus and should be dismissed.

Problem is, that same behavior, that same attitude of doing studies to prove a point, is also used by other people out there that no one (or very few) will try to discredit. Like, for instance, I'm all for the environment, but I've seen my fair share of environmentalists using (or displaying) statistics in a way to make it worse than it is, or cherry-picking facts to suit what they wanted to say. And I hate this because it doesn't help the cause. Doing this actually give minution to all those climate-change deniers out there, the same way the study mentionned in this article might give munitions to paranoid parents thinking their kid will mass murder people because he played Fortnite.

I'm all for highlighting bogus studies. I'm just wary when people outright disclaim them as fraudulent in an aggressive, nondescript manner devoid of any logic. Like saying to someone "Man, you sure are an overreacting person" and then getting "What? F*ck You" as an answer. This is kind of not helping make the point accross, you know?

If we know why we can call a study BS, then call it like it is. But blatantly calling it BS because a study attacks what we like is a bit stupid.

I mean, I love gaming, so does my kids, but I can consider without a problem that some games experiences might affect us more than others. Both in a positive or negative way. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that some games, in some situations, might condition people to act differently. This is not unbelievable. For instance, if you take "Life is Strange", this game affected me a lot more in game form, than that same story would have in novel or movie form. Us players taking part in what happens in game is not something strange to this.

Anyway, nice discussion. Cheers!

@Yorumi

(long post, sorry, lol!)

I think it all depends on how the study is done, and how open those responsible for it are. I admit I haven't looked in details at the study. But the way I understand it (if it has been reported correctly) they found a small statistical fact present in various enough settings (countries) to warrant further studying. Finding that statistical fact in a single pool of data doesn't mean a thing. But the repetition of that same fact in various pools (different cultures, different countries, settings) might be a lot more significative.

In one book I've read some time ago, which was about statistics (yeah, I like to read strange things, lol!), there was a strange example I liked a lot. First, it was about abortion in the U.S., which many knows is quite a controversial topic. The study demonstrated that, strangely, in all states that legalized abortion, there was, about 20 years later, a drop in criminality. Now this doesn't mean a thing, of course. But now consider that the drop was similar in percentage in all states that legalized it, and the drop happenned in the same order as when it became legal in those states, with the same drop not happenning in states that didn't legalized it. Truth is, a single stat doesn't mean a thing, but when correlations keep popping up, the more it backs the fact that there might be a link because there is less and less chance of that being randomness.

I won't go into the explanations the authors tried to come up with to explain this. While it ended up making sense, it was still only a theory, although one based on the stats on hand.

Now, where I'm going with this, is that if this study found the same small indication in not only one pool, but in many, it lends much more credibility to the idea that there MIGHT be something that links these games to higher aggressiveness or foolish behaviors. A small statistical incident doesn't mean a thing when alone. But the SAME small statistical incident happening in all the different pools you studied might be indicative of something.

Now, playing violent games and having bad behavior might both be linked to a third factor that may be independantly linked to both. Who knows? And since its a small statistical incident, it may imply that this only affects a minority of people as well. Who knows?

Truth is, we can't really discredit numbers. What we can discredit, or argue about, is the conclusion people get to when trying to analyze those numbers.

We also live in an era of fake news, and people twisting facts and numbers to suits what they want to say. A study could say it hasn't found any link, and then you'd have headlines saying "Study proves there's no link", which isn't what the study said (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence). And then people reading this believes it, and repeat it ad nauseum.

So let's not discredit studies like this. It's mostly the media who balloon these studies into something they're not. Media spin these studies into what they want them to be. And I'm sure most gaming websites (like this one) and their followers will do all they can to turn it into an anti-gaming propaganda of some sort.

Thanks for reading.

I think that refutting these studies is stupid. Calling nonsense all of that statistic collection is far stupider in my mind.

First, this study said they found a statistical link, a correlation, even if it was admitted it was a small one. We're not talking about causation here. I know that in this modern world of ours, people often have a hard time understanding this (correlation doesn't mean causation), often accusing people of bias because they didn't understand that.

Truth is, there are still a lot of things that needs to be taken into consideration that this study don't go into. Maybe both aggressiveness and violent games are linked through other factors, explaining the correlation, without games being a direct cause (which in fact the study isn't claiming, as far as I know, games as being the cause).

Maybe it isn't about the violent aspect of games, but the fact that most violent games tend to be action-based and thus making our adrenaline levels higher.

Could it also be linked to mental illness? Maybe those with a benign form of mental problem may be more attracted to violent games, thus affecting the numbers?

Thing is, this study provides statistics, which show a corrrelation. Now, it is up to us to interpret this in a various ways.

Also, games ask us to take an active part in what happens on screen, which is much different than reading a book, or watching a movie. It is somehow proven that the more you involve someone in something, the more it can have an effect. I mean, this is some of the basis of a lot of behavioral studies and sciences. It's not unreasonable to think that gaming might have a better influence on us, in some cases, than movies or other passive medium. Not saying that's the case, only that's it's not unreasonable to to consider it.

Let's all be mature about this, and stop acting like kids who feel attacked because somone said what we do might have an effect on us. You know what? Drinking affects our cognitive and physical abilities, and no one's disputing this fact. Some do, but that drunk guy over there isn't really credible when he says drinking doesn'T affect him... My point is, by attacking those who study the effects of gaming, we can sometimes look like that stupid drinking dude.

So while it's perfectly fine to ask questions about such a study, how data was collected, what was collected, how everything was compiled, factors considered, and so on... Let's just be adults here, and not simply protest this because we like games ourselves...

Anyway.,.. sorry for long post.

@Dalarrun
I agree with what you said. What I've been saying about these type of apps on the Switch is purely from an entertainment point of view. If I'd need to have anything serious done, I wouldn't rely on my Switch, as I wouldn't rely on my Android tablet or phone either. I'll be using my laptop if there was a need to get serious things done.

But the whole point, in my opinion, is to make the Switch flexible enough so that people like me would have one less device to bring with them. If I didn't need my tablet to watch Netflix (with offline download ability, like on tablets or phones) or read comics from Comixology, or other media-based activity, then it would be a lot more convenient. To me at least. I much prefer lugging my pone + 1 device, than my phone + 2 devices.

Ideally, a phone with a large screen and a built-in gamepad would replace everything, but we're not there yet.

I definitely think that the Switch could benefit from additionnal features. I'm not thinking this could make a big difference in sales (probably won't, people would still buy it for gaming, essentially), but there are multiple times when I was litterally stuck in a game (for various reasons) and wanted to check online why that was. Having the possibility to do it straight from the Switch (provided it doesn't force you to close your game to start the browser), would be a lot more convenient (when in portable mode) than going to my phone or tablet or PC for that.

The Switch having a media player and even Netlfix, on top of a web browser and "maybe" integration with some social networks trough apps, would probably make me leave my tablet at home and just bring my Switch along with me. And as someone using my Switch mainly in the commute ride every day, this would be a BIG PLUS, as it means less devices to carry with me. The Switch is essentially a tablet, only with nothing but games. You could easily add all the functionalities of a modern tablet on it.

The Switch OS is a mix of FreeBSD and Android components, with a graphical API similar to Vulkan and is using webkit to render web content. It seems it would be relatively easy to adapt Android apps to run on it.

Not allowing everything on there, but you know, basic web and media functionalities, and some of the most popular services like Netflix would make the console a lot more flexible to many, including me.

@DartBuzzer,
You know, wake me up when we have holodecks. lol!

Look, I know VR will continue to be developped, but it will mostly happen, I believe, in areas other then entertainment-based ones. It may still succeed in that area as a niche product though, but the truth is that most people out there (the masses) aren't really interested in it.

Not saying it's not cool or anything, but most people don't get a convincing answer to the question of "Why should I buy into VR?". Even I, don't see a reason compelling enough right now. Again, not saying it's not cool, just saying that something being cool isn't all there is to it to make the masses take interest.

Mass-adopted technologies nowadays mostly all share a common aspect : Companies were able to make money of of them relatively quickly. And all tech that fell by the wayside did so because these same companies weren't able to profit from that quickly enough and ceased development on that front.

It's never about the tech in itself, which could be awesome. It's about how well (and how quick) you can make profit out of it.

A good technology takes YEARS to establish itself as a new norm. And when a technology is dependent on content, those who create the content need to be profitable as well. Right now, VR is still a huge money pit for both manufacturers and content providers, and there's no indication of that changing anytime soon as the customer base just isn't there, and isn't growing fast enough to change that.

And something being cool and awesome isn't an argument in itself. History proves that performance, high-quality doesn't sell. Convenience does, and often, at the expense of quality and performance. What sells isn't what's best. What sells is what the masses feel is more convenient to them.

@Mountain_Man
You can't win arguing with these people, man. My own brother is one of those people who get a hard on whenever anything VR is mentionned, he's convinced that VR is going to take over the world or something. And there is absolutely nothing you can say to convince him otherwise. Thing is, I'm not even disputing the idea that VR is cool or interesting. It is. The problem is not that.

The problem is that the masses are just not interested in it. VR, by its nature, is much more suited for evenemential setups. Stuff you plan as an activity, pay for the experience, and be done with it. Like going to the movies. Doing rides at a theme park. Sure, home-bound VR setups are attractive to some, but like 3D movies, they're a lot more successful as activities you plan to do (going to the movies), than as in-home products.

All those games that other guy mentionned are in development right now, were planned since some time already (when VR was touted as the next big thing, selling by millions soon), and those companies aren't going to drop their investments for products that are probably well underway. Right now, many developpers at conferences are saying that there are practically no new projects being considered for VR right now aside from those actually in development, because the market isn't making those projects profitable. Truth is, as far as VR for entertainment is concerned, there is still no profitability point on the horizon for major content developpers, and THIS is a big part of why VR isn't going to hit the masses in any meanfingful way anytime soon. Tech reporters are saying it. Developers are saying it. But somehow, VR fanboys say these are all "lies" or "not what I'm seeing".

@belmont

Stores like Amazon are not allowed to set the price they want, be it under or above what is ordered by the manufacturer. Why? Because every big store chains nowadays agree to some distribution agreements that prevents them from doing so, otherwise the manufacturer will not ship them any more units to sell. And that's more than probably what happenned with Amazon.

This is a way for electronic manufacturers to control prices of their items in stores, which is often illegal in many countries. Price fixing is illegal. But not supplying someone with units to sell because of a contract breach is not.

Nintendo (and others) don't want some stores to sell it for cheaper, as they think this would affect the perceived value of what they sell. Same with Apple, for instance. They want to be seen as a "premium" brand selling premium goods, and so premium goods aren't sold for cheap. You don't want stores competiing by offering better prices, as this will bring prices down. Only way to manage that is to control prices yourself, which is usually illegal, so you sidestep that and do some form of distribution agreement, which means you'll just stop sending units to sell to those who don't sell at the price you tell them to.

@Refurin
Well, of course it is bad. I understand that. I just wanted to use an example to highlight the idea that a business shouldn't be "forced" to sell its products at a price imposed to them by a third party. Because this goes against the principle of competition and free market.

I completely understand that big businesses taking a loss to force smaller stores out of business is bad. That's why I usually shop elsewhere than on Amazon. My example was a bad one (although a store should be allowed to clear some stock below cost if they have overstock that they can't sell - although in Amazon's case, that's not what it is about). But I still insist that forcing vendors to sell at a set price is illegal as well in many countries.

But most big companies nowadays have found other ways to sidestep those legal limitations. And nobody in any competition bureau anywhere seems to care about that.

Game seems to be right up my alley. Price isn't though ($80 regular version, $140 for the ultimate version... WTF???)

Once it'll get to a price I can manage, I'll get it. This one seems to be a sight to behold in action...

@gauthieryannick
Maybe. But Maybe not.
Maybe Amazon wanted to sell Switch consoles at a lower price AND absorb the cost themselves, which should be absolutely NO business to Nintendo. A seller has (or should have) the right to sell their products at whatever price they want. If they want to sell at a loss, it's their decision.

Problem is that all big companies nowadays are finding ways to fix their prices, which is usually illegal in many countries, by way of distribution agreements with retailers. So basically, they're not asking the vendor to set prices at a specific point, but instead only say that failure to sell at MSRP could result in the stopping of shipments of units to sell.

Just enough to not be labelled "price fixing" by the authorities, but enough to be, indeed, price fixing in all but name.

So it's not "we dictate prices to all sellers". It's more like "We tell sellers to sell at our prices, otherwise we're just not sending them any units to sell".

Most major electronic companies do this nowadays.

I don't want to defend Amazon here. Not liking them in particular, only spending there when I usually can't get what I want from other sources. But the problem highlighted here is bigger than what people think it is.

This is about, in simpler words, price fixing. A company dictating to others how they should price their products. Which is supposed to go against competition laws in many countries. But companies like Nintendo (and Apple, Sony, Microsoft) actually go aournd these laws with distribution agreements, which in the end gets the same results and prevents vendors to compete with each others as all have the same price.

Those "distribution agreements" are just "price fixing" under a different name. You want to sell our products? Well, we dictate the price, otherwise, we'll stop sending you products to sell.

Practices like these should have no place in a free market.

@TJWorks

In Canada, the game is going to be $40. Which is "ok" I guess, but I still think that this should've been a bit less. Like $35 or even $30. Unless there is a lot of content in there to make it worth the cost. Because with MM games, it never is a really lengthy game, as once you beat it, there's not a lot of reasons to get back to it, at least not right away. Unless you're the type who wants to 100% every game, as this one got in-game achievements, but I'm not, so...

I'm interested, but even if the game is very good, I'll probably wait for a sale. $40 is a lot for a game you can clear in about 5 hours and not touch again afterwards (even if its very good).

I don't want to sound negative here to all people who still think VR is "teh futurez" in terms of entertainment, but we're still very far off from that. VR for entertainment purposes is still very niche, and depsite all those games getting out now supporting VR on various platforms, these games were planned and made during the last two years when VR was supposed to take the world by storm. Most big studios are now ceasing or drastically reducing their investment in VR gaming. There will always be some interest from smaller studios as VR is still something interesting to experience, but VR is faring barely better than the 3DTV craze of the past.

VR will still be around for creators, and some specialized fields who can use the equipment to improve their ways of doing things, but as far as entertainment is concerned, people just aren't buying. Cost is, of course, a reason (good VR still costs a lot). Also think that a lot of those "motion control" trends of the past (Wii, PS Move, Kinect), failed too because they didn't really improved gaming, and many people didn't want to move around to play some games, they just want to pick a controller, sit down and relax.

And I'm sorry, but all these "cheap" VR solutions are doing VR a disservice. People try these, and then see a really, really bad version of what VR could be and then think that this is what VR is. Many people think that what their phones and a cardboard VR unit can provide is the same thing as a VR setup costing over $1,500 (inclusing the cost of PC here). Even the PSVR, including the cost of the PS4, is very pricey for a product that is not all VR could be.

In fact, I think that aside from cost, it is this type of cheap VR products that actually drove the masses interest in VR down by giving a bad impression of VR.

Yeah, Canada, where this game costs $40, while you were able to get it as a freebie with "Fractured but Whole" on other systems, and can get it for less than $10 currently on PC.

Again, another game I'd like to play on Switch, but won't buy because of the feeling I'd be getting ripped off doing so.

This is my main gripe with the Switch. Love the platform, but the trend of rereleasing and porting older games from other platform and charging a max for those is a big letdown. The Switch has become, at least in Canada, the platform where it's the most expensive to play on.

@NEStalgia
That whole screen size issue may be relative. I had a GPD Win, which allowed me to play full blown PC games natively (not streamed) on a handheld the size of a 3DS (more or less), and it had a 5.6" (or about) screen at 720p. I had no problem playing the likes of Burnout Paradise, Mass Effect, Borderlands, many LEGO games, Final Fantasy X-X2 remaster, and so many others... that were all made to work on bigger screens from the start.

Sure, it's small, but then I noticed that I naturally held this console differently than how I hold my Switch. I held the GPD Win closer to my face, while I hold the Switch a bit further away, lower, with me looking down on the screen.

I'm not seeing this as a big issue. Even Mass Effect, with all that small text, was perfectly playable. So I don't think this is that big of an issue.

@ekwcll
I think that Nintendo, on that aspect (making powerful consoles) is much smarter than Sony or Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft are not making a lot of profits (if any, some suggest they even lose money), on console sales, making most of their profits on game royalties, accessories, PS+ subs, and so on. Same with Microsoft.

Nintendo, from what I've heard, since the Wii days, tried to do things differently and make sure that they do profits from console sales right up front, so they depend a lot less on everything else to make a profit. I'm pretty sure the Wii U still made profits for them. A lot less than anticipated, sure. But still, I think this approach is much smarter.

Look at Sony. They try so much to put high-performance ($$$) hardware in their systems, that when things don't go as planned, they don't have any margin to support it for long.

Nintendo didn't abandonned the Wii U, despite sales far less than stellar. Sony dropped the Vita about a year and a half after launch. Same with the PSP Go back then.

@NEStalgia
I think Sony as a whole, has a problem in the way they tackle their hardware. If what they launch is a huge success, they'll support it no problem, but if something is getting lower sales than anticipated in the FIRST quarter after its release, they're axing it.

Remember the PSP Go? Sony announced it stop supporting it a year an a half after release. Remember the Eye Toy and the whole 2 to 3 games that were made for it? Remember the PS Eye camera? Remember PS Move? God that flopped so hard that Sony is now trying to recycle the old tech in its PSVR. The Vita, Sony dropped it (unnoficially) about a year and a half after launch. And now, PSVR is barely present anymore in retail stores, with many companies saying they're not investing in VR anymore (what we see now are VR games that were started two or more years ago and released now). I expect Sony to announce its dropping the PSVR platform sometimes in 2019 to focus on other things.

Sony is pretty good to quickly abandon anything it did as soon as it doesn't get the success it wanted.