@YeshaYahu5417 There are lots of better devices they can come up with. While the Switch is very good, to say it's perfect would be simple fanboyism. We can always improve on something.
Just think of the stuff that people bring with themselves all the time. Everyone I see have their mobile phone already, that can play some games. Aside from that, some people bring with them a tablet as well. I see a lot of those in the commute everyday. I do bring mine too. But then, if I'd want to do some more "serious" gaming on the go, I also bring my Switch in my backpack. That's THREE devices right there.
The Switch is great because it merges toghether the concepts of home console and portable console. You buy one and you have both. It's practical. It's smart.
Now what if someone puts out a good mobile phone with a slideout physical gamepad? What about if that phone runs on Android so you already get access to tons of apps you already use, but also have a dedicated marketplace of "console games" to play on the go? This would mean gamers like me could buy ONE device, and only bring one with me instead of two. I'd have my portable console with me at all times, as I have my phone with me at all times.
We just need to think things further.
Releasing a new dedicated gaming portable today (that doesn't do anything else) wouldn't be smart. But combine that with something else to reduce the number of devices people have to bring with them, and you may be onto something. No?
@Dalarrun I agree. Sony can only blame themselves. But I'm still bummed out that they're not even trying anymore. Even just for the sake of having some competition in the market.
It wouldn't be too hard to develop a product that would be interesting. While the Switch is a move in the right direction, I'm still thinking that the concept could be improved a lot more. Just picture a phone-sized device with a slide-out gamepad (similar to what the Xperia Play had, but better), running a custom version of Android with a dedicated PlayStation game marketplace (secured), that can be used like a regular phone as well.
The idea nowadays, and part of the reason that the Switch was so successful, is that combining home console and portable console is seen by people as being smart and practical. Everyone can clearly see the advantages of such a setup. Now Sony would just need to find a similar idea, one that people would think makes sense. And to me, having a single device that acts as my mobile phone AND a dedicated portable console would be an idea I'd be all over. I mean, bring just one device instead of two. And even if the gaming side of it ends up not supported anymore in the future (because Sony is pretty good at quickly dropping support of less performing products), if the device in itself is a solid, quality one, it will still function as a nice phone.
There ARE possibilities Sony could explore. Problem is, they may lack the imagination to do so properly.
I personnally liked the Vita more than the 3DS. And I'd still say that, so far, the Vita had a lot more games I was interested in at the time, than the couple of games on the Switch that interests me right now. People can be fanboys all they want (and this being a Nintendo-oriented site, I assume many here are), but the reason Sony failed with the Vita is that they built it like we were still in 2004.
Sony failed to acknowledge the rise of mobile gaming. And while Nintendo said they also felt the mobile gaming impact, the fact that their 3DS line was marketed in a general "family-friendly" way, made them the default go-to solution for parents wanting to buy a portable system for their kids. Sony always wanted to market themselves as more "serious, mature and edgy (whatever that means)" which means it was aiming at an oder, more traditional console gaming market (case in point, the Vita was marketed as being more like a "home console but playable on the go").
Problem was, nowadays, that this crowd already have a device they bring with them all the time that can play games - their mobile phone - and while being more of the casual type of games, it is ok for many that don't feel the need anymore to bring along yet another device in addition to the one in their pockets already. Many didn't buy the Vita because they didn't see a reason to pay that much, for something that won't bring them a lot more over what they have already.
In the original, pre-3DS and pre-Vita days, a portable console to play games on the go was like "wow, that's cool". Now, gaming on the go is pretty common. Even our parents are doing it now.
And so, where Sony failed, is that without the "family-friendly" free pass that Nintendo is getting, they had to offer a reason for people to care about the Vita. And this is where they failed miserably.
Way, way overpriced, almost mandatory memory cards (Sony wanted everything to be proprietary - more cash to them through licences - and to limit piracy)
Media functionalities were laughable.
The trend to send AAA franchise development to third-grade studios with low experience or hideous track record.
Many good games, but no "killer app" to speak of (see above point for a possible reason why)
Sony relegating the platform to a "legacy platform" about less than two years after launch.
No flexibility. Instead of offering a dock with TV out, they launch a completely different TV box device made to play some Vita games only and stream PS4 games. And still, with laughable media playing integration.
The whole Vita saga is almost a story on what not to do.
It is sad, because the Vita was, hardware-wise, awesome.
And Sony exiting the game only means less competition, and that is NEVER a good thing, as companies tend to stall innovation when there is no competitor out there.
I wouldn't mind buying a collection featuring this game among others, but as I've got it on Dreamcast in the old days, got it on PC, and also got it on Vita, I played this one too much already to consider buying it AGAIN, to play it. I mean, I agree the game is good, but it seems the only platform this hasn't been ported to yet is my kitchen toaster. lol!
I'd be more interested in playing the XBOX sequel that I didn't have a chance to play.
I have found memories of playing the Monkey Island game they did, as well as the Sam & Max games. Back to the Future was also pretty enjoyable too. I also LOVED the Wolf among us. Got the first Batman one too, but I kind of backed off of it a bit because it seemed too much focus on quick dialogue choices and QTEs... anyways, never got far enough in it to be presented a "point-and-click" part with "puzzles" to solve. I'll replay it again for sure eventually, but first impressions were "cool, but maybe later", contrary to their other games I mentionned that hooked me right from the start.
I guess they suffered from trying to make too many titles too fast. And relying on expensive licences more and more can only add financial strain. I remember hearing their Jurassic Park game being pretty bad, and people wondering at that time if this was an indication of where things were going for them. Guess it somehow was.
While I'm usually not against people trying to make the device they own do what they want, when it comes to these kind of things, and so soon, I can't help but feel that this only serves as an argument for manufacturers to implement even more restrictive DRM in the end. And when that happens, everyone lose.
I mean, I understand that to some, this is seen as a challenge. I can relate to that in some way, a lot of people likes a good challenge. But playing emulated games on the go is possible through tons of devices. There are many gaming portable out there, some linux-based, some Android-based, some with custom "os", that can do that. But then again, the whole point being, I guess, making the Switch do it as well.
It's just that... I don't know. All of this is wrong. Especially so soon after this lauch. Like I said, only gives more reasons for even more drastic DRM. And no one wants this.
Are people expecting XBL or PSN level of features and perks? Those services are $70 a year in Canada. Granted, they give you more. But at $70, they should.
At $25, I never expected Nintendo to match what the others are offering in terms of feature for that price. I just set my expectations accordingly.
With that in mind, I think that's perfectly fair. And I'll hop on board no problem.
@Vee_Flames I'm not sure this will target anti-cheating measures specifically, but from a business perspective, it is pretty much evident that they have a responsibility towards the online experience their console provides. In this day and age, no manufacturer could legitimately release a console with online features without any form of control, where anything goes. This would be a magnet for lawsuits all over the globe. Especially from a company still seen by many parents as making stuff suitable for the family.
Truth is, the only way to provide a safer environment for all, is to impose some form of control. So even if most games are working in a peer to peer manner, you need games to go through Nintendo servers first to link your IP address with your Nintendo ID, if only to show your name to other players or other info. Nintendo may also need to keep an activity log for security reasons, and forcing players through Nintendo servers first make sure those who hacked their consoles and have been banned for it aren't ruining the experience of others.
I'm pretty sure that if a completely free, p2p server functionality wuold be implemented, it would not take long for people to complain about the tons of cheaters, and the impossibility to ban anyone from ruining games of others. When you don't have any consequence to fear, you could hack your console away and make a hell of all the games you join.
Anyway, manufacturers of consoles don't have a choice to control their online experience. Be it free or not, they have to control it. And this control has a cost. Whether we like it or not.
@Vee_Flames Sure, P2P doesn't cost anything as it doesn't require servers. But then, some servers are needed somewhere to tie in your IP address with your online ID. This way, if someone is cheating illegally, the ID could be banned by those who operates the servers. Something that wouldn't be possible under a free P2P connection, as no control is done.
A free P2P connection, without any link whatsoever with Nintendo would render the online experience complerely uncontrollable. Could you imagine the lot of complaints that people will send Nintendo? I'm pretty sure you know how gross, stupid, aggressive, annoying and mean people can be online when there is no consequences to their words or actions. If we want to go down this road, we should be aware that this will terminate Nintendo's image of being seen as a family-friendly console. And this whill guarantee Nintendo will be sued to hell and back by angry parents all over the world because some unknown jerk traumatized their kids while playing a game online.
A paid online infrastructure gives the owner of the network some control over what's happening. And all console manufacturers need that minimal level of control. They don't have a choice. They're selling a product to everyone, it should be suitable and safe for everyone. That include the online environment they provide on their consoles as well.
So hey guys, I'm going to start a business where I'll be selling cups to my clients for like $60, and then they can come and get free coffee every morning, forever and ever.
Any semi-intelligent businessman will say that this business would be unsustainable. And any elementary school kid could see that unless I get more clients everyday forever and ever as well (which is impossible), this can't hold up and will drive me towards bankruptcy.
That's also similar to the whole moviepass program (or whatever it was called). Unlimited movies in theatres every month for a flat fee. It didn't take a genius to understand that this wouldn't be sustainable. And it isn't. And they had to start imposing limits.
Same thing here.
Something has a recurring cost. You can't expect that your purchase, which has a fixed amount of profits tied to it, covers for a cost that will reccur every day, month, year.
But hey, let's all think that it should be free because, you know, we want it to be free.
@1UP_MARIO Nintendo's already said that free to play games like fortnite will continue to be free, you don't need to pay Nintendo for this.
Epic games, creators of Fortnite, have their own servers and cover their costs with the tons of constant microtransactions people are paying in that game. So Nintendo's isn't charging you to play this game online because all the online functionalities for that game happens on Epic games servers.
But any game relying on Nintendo's own online infrastructure, are using servers which are maintained and operated by Nintendo. Even if a game relies on peer-to-peer for online play, all players need to know the IP address of the other players they want to play with. And unless you can contact every player yourself outside of the game and ask them their IP address, you can't do it. So that's why you need a server to handle all of this, and link these IPs with Nitendo IDs, and so on...
@1UP_MARIO "Same as I payed for my game and then payed my internet provider to play my game online"
You paid for your game. Fine. You didn't pay to have servers up and running 24/7 to handle matchmaking. You paid a one-time fee that covered the costs of developpement and marketing for your game, + profis for the developper.
Your internet provider provides you with traffic lanes and nothing else. You can indeed play your game online, provided your game knows the IP address of all the other players you want to connect and play with. Your internet provider doesn't give you that. Someone else has to give this to you.
@Travan Exactly. I like your movie analogy. I'll add that it's not because they let you go to the movie for a year, that it didn't cost anything to them.
It's like they bet on compensating the costs with you buying popcorn and sodas at inflated prices, but then people keep expecting better and better movies all the time (that cost more to produce), prices of popcorn and sodas supplies are increasing, you have to raise your employees salaries from time to time, they expect you to renovate the theatre and all of that.... and at some point it doesn't become a viable solution anymore and they don't have a choice to charge a bit.
People don't seem to see it this way. Most think that because someone else paid for it before (because this had a cost), that it should be free forever.
@electrolite77 I agree, everyone can decide for themselves if it's worth it or not. But I still believe a person thinking somethng that costs money (because it does) should be given for free is part of the definition of feeling entitled.
Truth is, free will always beat "not free", whatever the amount is. There are people who pirated games sold for $1 a bundle (so less than $1 each) on Humble Bundle. So of course, some people are going to complain about a $2 per month service.
I personnaly prefer to see a reasonable fee for such a thing, than seeing ads all over the place and Nintendo selling private information to third parties and the likes to cover the costs of their server infrastructure. But that's me.
@Old-Red, Yeah, I guess all those people hired to maintain the network do it for free. Those servers that, even if just doing matchmaking, need to run to match the many thousands of requests at any given time, run on free air, and never break, ever. Oh and all those security measures too. I'm sure these servers are all housed into an unprotected building somewhere. Free visits for anyone! Everything's free. And Nintendo doesn't have to pay for anything. It all just happens, you know...
This thinking is typical of someone not having ever worked in Tech services. If you'd have ever work in a business environment with a decent network infrastructure, you'd know that even a simple network is FAR from dirt cheap, when considering everything that needs to be taken into account (security, backups, maintenance, electricity (not only for servers but for air conditionning as well), staff (and you don't want cheap labour for this, you want top network engineers present if anything goes wrong, etc...)
"I paid for my game, so that should cover any online service related to it, and its recurring costs, forever and ever for life".
Hey, I paid for my car, the manufacturer should buy me gas foerever.
The conception that all of this costs nothing comes from the fact that many services don't charge MONEY for it. But nothing's free. If it's free, it's because someone else is paying for it. Google sells your information to third parties. They're selling your eyeballs to advertisers. That's why their services are free. Platforms like Steam gives free online because they choose to absorb the cost (they also don't have to maintain as big a workforce as they don't build consoles - they are mostly about software). You don't pay money, but it has a cost.
And that's a recurring cost. A one-time payment for a game cannot cover for a service forever and ever. Business-wise, that's never going to work.
And of course, Nintendo's going to profit from this. They're not a charity. They're a business. And that's what businesses do.
Look, I can complain about a lot of things, and I'm usually the one complaining about prices on the Switch for anything (as most games on there are pricier than their equivalent on other platforms), but this ain't part of my complaints. I see this as a good deal. I mean, an annual plan at $24 CDN, means about two bucks per month. TWO BUCKS.
I mean, holy sh... people spend more than that on coffees everyday.... If you have a family, the cost of a family plan FOR A YEAR is about the cost of a single meal for the whole family at McDonalds.
I can't believe people are so entitled these days...
@Old-Red, Yeah, what is it with companies charging us for the service they provide? All of those services provided by those servers, all those freebies, storage space for gamesaves... this should all be free. How DARE do they charge us for this? Right?
Man.... I had issues with XBL and PSN being $80 per year in Canada, but this is $25, and provides the online service, cloud saves, some "freebies" you may or may not care about... which is similar to what others are doing (although with less interesting freebies), but I don't have any issue with this. This is good value, even if ONLY considering the cloud saves. I haven't heard a lot of negative comment about this, to be frank.
What people don't seem to get, is that running online services (even only for matchmaking) costs money. We should stop pretending that this should be "free". Someone, somewhere, need to run those servers, house them, provide electricity to those, maintain them, and so on. Those companies have a huge workforce to maintain and pay too, they can't absorb the costs of running these servers forever, just because some think they deserve to have it for free.
Now THIS is what I call a collection. Packaging about 5 to 10 titles, while interesting, often isn't worth the artificially inflated price (because Nintendo platform) of admission. But with so much games in a single package (provided it's not only half and the other half offered as DLC - don't know how this was on other consoles), then this is worth the money. Hope this comes to NA as well.
@Dayton311 Well, just picture that in Canada, it'll be priced at $40 + tx. Game might be fun, and I'd really like to play it on Switch, but no way I'm going to spend $40 on this. At $20 I'd be buying it though. Especially for a game that regularly go on sale (both digitally and if you find it in bargain bins), or even being used as a freebie bonus. I mean... $40... ouch...
This whole initiative from Nintendo only serves as another argument towards retro gaming needing to get on with the times and become as simple as all other media out there, namely, movies and music.
There is absolutely no freakin' reason (other than greed) for companies to rerelease their games over and over again and asking us to pay for them over and over again. Granted, this is a bit different, adding some features like online play, but this feature seems to be tied to the "emulator" running these games and not the games themselves (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Think about this. What if Apple required its users to buy their music and movies all over again whenever they upgrade their phone or tablet to the new model? Do you think Blu-Ray would have had any kind of success if it didn't allow people to play their regular DVDs as well?
It seems videogamers are a strange breed indeed, as they're often willing to put up with stuff that wouldn't fly anywhere else. You even sometimes see some fiight in favor of such nonsense!!!
Videogames need to mature. At least the retrogaming aspect. They need to become like music tracks/albums or movies. You bought it, it's yours and there is no reason why you should be asked to pay for it again (not talkking about remasters or new editions of those games - in that case, paying is ok - like having bought a movie on DVD doesn't grant you the "right" to the superior Blu-Ray edition in better definition).
It would be interesting though, if instead of selling us these old games over and over (individually or through perks), companies like Nintendo would instead sell us their emulator (improved each generation with new features) to allow us to play the games we bought (digitaly) from them since forever... That, I'd be on board with. And I'd have no problem buying new emulators each generation (kind of like upgrading your Blu-Ray player, or Music player to get better features).
There's a couple of things in there that sparked my interest. The biggest one is that new Animal Crossing game. Provided it is not a port of the mobile game (they said "new game" so... I hope).
The Capcom brawlers collection is also very interesting.
As is Luigi's Mansion 3, and New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe. And Diablo III but that was alreayd announced. And everything Final Fantasy too. That's great.
I'm tempted to get Bastion, but then, I already have it on PC, and I had it on my Vita when I had one... And paying $20 for it makes it a bit pricey to me because of that. I want to play this on the go, but maybe I'll wait for when I get my GPD Win 2 and play the PC version I already have on that, eventually.
Interesting, but it'll all depend on the price, as I already played it on another platform previously. But I'm not getting my hopes up regarding price. The trend so far seems to be "pricier on the Switch than anywhere else" for most titles. Not all, but most.
@Octane I remember that one. God, that was awful. Almost as bad as the Batman Arkham City GOTY edition... or almost all of the TG-16/PC Engine games released in North America. Or the original Megaman North American box...
I'm kind of passionate about all these graphics trainwrecks. I mean, I can't help but wonder what these people were thinking...
I agree with most in saying that this game, with Life is Strange, is one of the few that successfully leave you a profound impression after finishing it. Although, there's less "game" in there than in "Life is Strange", and so it doesn't really warrant that price for the two to three hours it'll take you to finish the story (as it's more interactive storytelling than game).
But if you find it on sale for less than $10, I'd say go for it, if you haven't played it already on another system.
While I'd love to play this as I never had a chance on the Gamecube, I'd like to set my expectations a bit low as I'm practically sure it'll be released at the terrible price of $80 (Canada), as per the recent trend of "remastering" old games and selling them again at full price (which as gone up in Canada from 60 to 70 and now 80 over the course of about a system generation). So if it's again something like this, I'll probably skip it, again.
I can't help but see all these remasters as relatively easy cash grabs, as unless they are completely redone from scratch, upgrading some assets and some code is far, far less costly for a studio than creating a whole new game. And price should reflect that.
Now, that being said, game looks fun. And it will be added to my wish list.
Played the hell out of Game Dev Story some years ago on mobile. Very fun game. But then, unless it has been updated since the old releases, I can't see myself playing this one again. Unless it is priced really cheap, which it won't, because we know it won't. At least in Canada it won't.
I'm a bit tired of the trend of re-releasing old games on Switch and charging more for them because the port is a "new" game on the platform. Nothing against the games in themselves (keep them coming), but stop asking $15 for a game I bought for less than $5 on mobile some years ago....
Mutant Mudds was a surprise hit with me some time ago on PC. Gameplay is tight and very old school, and it gave me that itch to complete every level to 100%, which is a thing not many games do. Art style is also very retro, but this is one of the few that I think got the "feel" right.
I bought the collection on Switch some time ago already (and completed the game 100% again), and the inclusion of the puzzle game and the more challenging Mutant Mudds sequel made this a purchase I'll never regret.
Xeodrifter, on the other hand, while not completely "bad" is probably the only game I regret buying on the Switch. Bought it on sale a while back, because it comes from the same team, so I expected an experience as tight as with Mutant Mudds, but even on sale for only a couple of bucks, I feel it wasn't worth it. It felt like a cheap flash game to me. But that's my fault, I should've checked the reviews and some gameplay vids first...
I'm both glad and bummed out about the entry fee. I mean, from the perspective of a small indie developper team of one or two persons, it may kill a dream to have a game on the Switch, as the cost of entry is relatively high. Some people not having the budget still might be able to create an absolutely great game.
But from a consumer's perspective, this means it can also act as a way to filter out some cheap cr4p,. For every good game coming out of these game making suites, there are about 30 or more that are bad, unpolished, buggy, and/or just plain uninteresting.
Scores, as in, numebrs, are meaningless. The only thing they do, is invite comparison to other games that aren't comparable to the one reviewed. "This game gets a 9, so it's definitely better than this other game that got 7". This is completely stupid.
Numbers are a plague, when used as a way to compare things. Like in photography (or TVs), some people think that the number of pixels is a good indicator of image quality. It is not. There's a lot more to it than that, and reducing this to a simple number is only there to make things simple for people who don't bother to actually read an informed opinion.
I personnaly like (sometimes love) games that were rated as "average" by the critics. And some other games that are almost universally loved, I hate. Scores are meaningless. 2001: A Space Odyssey was panned by critics at the time. It went on to become a classic. Scores are meaningless. Reviews are not. Reviewers can detail what they like, what they don't like, and then it's up to YOU to decide if that game is worth your money or not.
Scores are there for people who don't want to do any research before buying something. For people who trust others telling them what they should or shouldn't like/buy.
Scores can be fun (not really usefull, but fun) if being an average from user inputs, as in how much people who played it love this game, but a score tied to a professional review of a game is meaningless. It's relatively arbitrary too. Points can be given or substracted over some aspect of a game, while some other game having the same pros or cons, may not get the same treatment because the reviewer "feel" these aren't as important, and so on...
I like how Kotaku works now. Game is recommended or not, with some basic "You'll like this game if..." and " Not for you if...". Simple, to the point, gives the info that matters.
@ICISAZEL "Imagine if car manufacturers start pulling this bs."
They won't. They don't have to. A new car isn't the same thing as a used car. A used car comes with mileage. It comes with cosmetic blemishes, or worse. It may come without the manufacturer's warranty (or what's left of it). Some parts may break sooner than later too (usage). It's also priced a lot less BECAUSE of all this. It's priced less because a used car is not the same as a new car. When someone buys a new car, the usual argument for this is an economic one. If I'm looking to buy a used car, then I'm more than probably not the target market for car manufacturers. Me buying a used car isn't a lost sale for car manufacturers as I wasn't looking to buy a new car anyway (because money).
A "used" game is THE SAME as a new one. Graphics aren't worse, gameplay is the same, sounds the same, everything is the same. This is a compeltely different situation, as there is NO point to justify a lesser price, like for a physical product. And given that, most stores are thus selling these "used" games for almost the same price as a new one. But this also set aside the economic justification for buying used. You can't say a brand new $80 game is too expensive, and then say the $75 "used" priced is right. When you buy a used game for almost the same price as a new one, it is effectively a lost sale for the developper, as you obviously have the money but chosing to not pay them, but get THE EXACT SAME THING from someone else and giving them all your money.
Publishers disdain for the used market is perfectly understandable. Someone buying it "used" is benefitting from the exact same thing you originally sold, but you get no money from them. When you buy a used car, you're not getting the new car experience. You're not getting the same thing. But you do for a game. And for mostly anything IP-based.
We need to stop applying rules and thinking that work for physical products, to IP-based or non-physical products. Their very nature makes the same rules unnaplicabble. Software isn't degrading with usage. And results from usage is the whole reason why used goods are sold for less. This doesn't work for digital anything.
It's not a simple concept to grasp (according to the number of people out there still considering these the same as any physical product). But it is nonetheless problematic.
I so would've bought this if it was on Switch... Don't have a 3DS anymore (my fault, I know), but I don't really understand why Nintendo keeps putting so much effort (and time, and money) into a platform that's way past its prime... I mean, it's good they still support their old console, it's just that I think this would've been a lot better fit for the Switch, who would be more than capable of handling ports of GC games.
I remember some time ago, that Nintendo said the (still not named Switch), would receive ports of Gamecube games. I'm still waiting with my open wallet for this to happen.
@MaSSiVeRiCaN Some may like that, but I never actually asked the question myself if I'd ever want to read comics on a TV. It sounds so absurd to me (but that's me) that the thought of it never even occurred in my mind. Ever.
I like having it on a portable device because, like comics, like books, I can bring them everywhere and read them everywhere. Being tied to a TV to read my comics is a huge inconvenience to me. Most of my reading is done in the commute ride every day, or in bed, or... at place other than in front of my TV.
It's fine for those who like seeing a frame at a time (Comixology calls this "guided view") but I prefer looking at a whole page when reading comics. So this requires a big enough screen (8 inches and over) and a resolution sharp enough to read small text comfortably (so above 1080p). The Switch doesn't have either, so I'll stick to my tablet, thank you.
I'd love to play these on the Switch, but already spent a lot of money on PC for many tables (after previously having bought some on my Xbox360 back in the days)... I'd prefer having all my current collection of tables on a single platform, thank you, as I'm not going to buy these twice...
@sanderev Indeed, but I tested some streaming apps myself YEARS ago, and one in particular (Kinoconsole), allowed me to play a fighting game (Injustice) in a state good enough to be able to pull off moves successfully and win matches like I was sitting in front of my PC.
So while there will always be some lag, it may sometimes be small enough to be "almost" inconsequential, if the platform is good enough, and the network fast enough. My PC was wired at the time. I assume a wireless connection would induce more lag.
Also, Valve released their own Streming app already, so anyone having an Android TV device, or a porable android device with a built-in (or clip-on) gamepad could, in therory, stream their PC games to that. I haven't tested it yet, but I will, eventually. There are already many streaming solutions available for various devices out there, although none for the Switch, And while I think such an app could be interesting (provided lag is not too problematic), I admit I can't see myself using it that much, my PC already being a gaming laptop that I can set up anywhere I want.
Anyway, some streamers handle lag a lot better than others, and your PC being wired instead of wireless can make a BIG difference too.
@Varkster I don't mind developpers "dumping" their games on the Switch as long as they are priced accordingly (they're mostly not, BTW). And while I haven't read the reviews, I admit that from time to time, I happen to like games that gets criticized by many, and sometimes hate games that are almost universally admitted as being awesome. So I cannot say such game shouldn't be made or ported to a platform because it got bad reviews.
Like I mentionned, my main issue is the trend to charge full price for games that were released often YEARS ago on other platforms. Sure, porting costs some money, but all (or most) game assets, art direction, music, etc... has been done already. The price should reflect that. Right now, most indie games on Switch cost more than they would on every other platform (at least in Canada, they do), making the Switch, all current consoles considered, the most expensive platform to play on.
Started Bastion on PC... but never finished it, actually. So I'm willing to get it on Switch, IF the price is right, even if I have the feeling it won't. I'm all for re-releases on Switch. But not for re-releases sold at the full price they originaly released at back then. Yes, lots of work is involved in a port. But most assets, art direction, etc... is already done. Price should reflect that.
@Heavyarms55 While reading the article, I thought the same thing. Sales on Steam usually put forward many, many, triple-AAA productions, or wildly successful indies that we've all heard about. Most smaller indies aren't featured a lot on Steam, and so, even when on sale, are harder to find.
On Switch, when there are sales, it is practically ALL indies anyways (except some big productions sprinkled here and there occasionally), so it is a LOT easier to get noticed for a smaller studio. A lot of indie productions on Switch seems like new games to me, and it's only after some research that I notice it was already out on PC for quite a while already, but never heard of it (and I have over 600 games in my Steam account).
If the Switch E-shop was doing sales on most of its big triple AAA software all the time, with smaller indies practically never being seen in the main sale page (even if on sale), then it would be like Steam, with low sales for them.
It's all about them being at the forefront of the "deals" section on the e-shop, mainly because there's not enough AAA productions on the Switch on sale at any given time to eclipse indies.
I was talking about Crash Bandicoot the other day with a friend, as these days, we're both feeling like the PS1-PS2 generations were somewhat a nice middle ground between the "hard-as-nails" older days (according to some, not me, as I remember having beat the original Contra without using the infamous cheat code everyone else used), and the recent trend of not making games "too" difficult.
It's like game makers from that era figured how to make games accessible, but also progressively difficult in a nice way. Now, it's more like "here's an hour-long tutorial, and we'll be holding your hand all along the ride too, in case it's too hard for you".
I've been having a lot of fun with the Crash trilogy lately. It's hard to come by a game nowadays that still has a "game over" screen. Even if the game isn't really over, you still have a finite number of lives, and when they run out, you have to restart the level with the basic number of lives it gives you.
Like I said, it's a nice "bridge" between generations, in terms of difficulty. Older games had a true "game over" ending (or limited continues), and many new ones have "infinite" lives, just making you restart levels indefinitely until you succeed or get bored.
And the Crash Collection price was right too ($40 - CDN). Which may explain in part why it is selling well.
Didn't play it because you cannot play it offline. I don't buy games that I cannot play offline. My phone data plan is insanely limited (data costs a lot in Canada, most third-world countries have better plans than us, yep...). But I'm all for games charging a one-time flat fee instead of trying to charge you forever and ever. I bought games like Xcom and Civilization for my Android phones/tablets, at around $10 - $15 each.
Got this yesterday. Weirdly, I got it for $39.99 for a physical copy (which seems to be an error for Canada), while it is $50 on the Nintendo shop. Never would've paid $50 for this but so far, no having encountered any bug, I think 40$ is "fair". I agree though that the interface would need some work, but otherwise I've been enjoying it a lot. Oh, and first time I played, the game received a patch (quite large one, I estimate). Don't know if that fixed or improved anything.
This game has been on my radar for some time already on Steam, but again, this is a case where a Switch port of a game will be pricier than all other platorms its available on. Regular price in Canada for the Switch version will be $25, while it's $22 on Steam. Not a huge amount of a difference, but still, again, the feeling that I'm getting a bad deal by purchasing it for the Switch... I think pre-orders are on sale at $19 right now (Canada), which is an ok deal, but without knowing how it performs on Switch (waiting for review), I'm not sure I'd bypass my general rule of never preordering anything.
I think the $14 price mentionned in the article is a pre-order promo. Regular price will be higher than this.
@PhilKenSebben I wouldn't count on a reasonable price for a remaster/re-release on the Switch. So far, the only one I've seen with a reasonable price was the Crash Bandicoot collection, which was $40 (Canada). I expect both Saint Row 3 and Diablo to be released at full price of $80. If the Spyro collection is ported to Switch, I also anticipate Activision pricing it above the Crash collection. I think they priced it like this thinking it wouldn't sell all that well, but I'm sure they'll raise the price for Spyro, seeing that there is actually a demand for these type of remasters.
My thoughts exactly. I'm personnaly not going to subscribe to another service like this. I mean, in Canada, it'll be around $10 per month, and for that price (or around that price), I can subscribe to Comixology Unlimited, which has, I'm sure, a larger (much larger) collection. And while the Switch screen is fine for playing games, for reading comics, I have a hard time settling for anything under 1080p, as I prefer looking at comics a page at a time, and so I need a larger screen, and better resolution (usually quad-HD or better).
I mean, cool if some people are getting something out of this, but I personnaly view this as a bit underwhelming. Even if it was a Comixology app, the Switch Screen would be a bit uncomfortable to me for reading comics anyway...
I'm still remembering, before the Swich was released (I think it was around when it was initially unveiled), that it was supposed to receive some ports of GC titles... Am I the only one remembering that?
I understand the will of Nintendo to keep alive it's "affordable" portable system, but this, to me, feels like a lost opportunity. I'd love to revisit the game on the Switch, while on the go. I don't have a 3DS anymore. Many still do, but many don't.
The problem is that in Canada, we went from not so long ago (maybe 5-6 years), with new releases costing $59.99. And now it is $79.99. And we're now even getting remasters (or collected editions) of 2012 games for full retail price.
Meanwhile the collector's edition on PC is $39.99. And I can play it on the go as well on my GPD Win.
I REALLY want to buy games on the Switch. I like the platform and its features, but god almighty... When it's not overpriced indie releases (or re-releases), it's 6-year old games being sold again for full price... Those being sold for a reasonable price are not the norm... (although there are a couple out there).
I really want to support companies bringing games other that Pony Stable 3 or MiniGame Party Mix Turbo 4, and I even find great the idea of re=releasing old games some people might not have played yet. But re-releases should be sold, IMO, not at same price as brand new games. Most of the development cost has been spent in prevision of the initial release, and while there ARE costs linked to a re-released, this doesn't warrant, in most cases, a $80 price tag.
Anyway. Cool that Diablo III is getting released on Switch. Not cool that I'll have to wait for it to drop in price to buy it.
However good news this is (I'd love to play this on the go on my Switch), I'm still bummed out that this will sell for $80 in Canada for a game that was originaly released in 2012., and is probably the single reason why I won't buy it.
I can't help but feel I'd be paying too much for this, as collectors editions on PC are sold for about half the price. Sadly, this is a reccurring story for the Switch. Same games costing less (sometimes WAY less) practically everywhere else. The Switch has become, to me, a LUXURY platform, whrere you pay for the "privilege" of playing on the Switch. Gamer with money to burn? Man, get a Switch!!!
@cannedpancakes I agree, the story is awesome. I share the same concern though, especially in Canada, where it'll probably be around $25, because Nintendo. Which in the end, makes this a hard sell to anyone already having a basic PC even with integrated graphic, or probably any other console as it will more than likely be cheaper there. It's often what prevents me from buying games on Switch. Not that I don't have the money, but the feeling that I'm always getting the worst deal out there, as most multiplatform games are often priced less, mostly everywhere else... and this kind of infuriates me. I know. I may not be normal. lol!
Comments 466
Re: Sony Will Step Away From The Handheld Games Business In 2019, Leaving It All To Nintendo
@YeshaYahu5417
There are lots of better devices they can come up with. While the Switch is very good, to say it's perfect would be simple fanboyism. We can always improve on something.
Just think of the stuff that people bring with themselves all the time. Everyone I see have their mobile phone already, that can play some games. Aside from that, some people bring with them a tablet as well. I see a lot of those in the commute everyday. I do bring mine too. But then, if I'd want to do some more "serious" gaming on the go, I also bring my Switch in my backpack. That's THREE devices right there.
The Switch is great because it merges toghether the concepts of home console and portable console. You buy one and you have both. It's practical. It's smart.
Now what if someone puts out a good mobile phone with a slideout physical gamepad? What about if that phone runs on Android so you already get access to tons of apps you already use, but also have a dedicated marketplace of "console games" to play on the go? This would mean gamers like me could buy ONE device, and only bring one with me instead of two. I'd have my portable console with me at all times, as I have my phone with me at all times.
We just need to think things further.
Releasing a new dedicated gaming portable today (that doesn't do anything else) wouldn't be smart. But combine that with something else to reduce the number of devices people have to bring with them, and you may be onto something. No?
Re: Sony Will Step Away From The Handheld Games Business In 2019, Leaving It All To Nintendo
@Dalarrun
I agree. Sony can only blame themselves. But I'm still bummed out that they're not even trying anymore. Even just for the sake of having some competition in the market.
It wouldn't be too hard to develop a product that would be interesting. While the Switch is a move in the right direction, I'm still thinking that the concept could be improved a lot more. Just picture a phone-sized device with a slide-out gamepad (similar to what the Xperia Play had, but better), running a custom version of Android with a dedicated PlayStation game marketplace (secured), that can be used like a regular phone as well.
The idea nowadays, and part of the reason that the Switch was so successful, is that combining home console and portable console is seen by people as being smart and practical. Everyone can clearly see the advantages of such a setup. Now Sony would just need to find a similar idea, one that people would think makes sense. And to me, having a single device that acts as my mobile phone AND a dedicated portable console would be an idea I'd be all over. I mean, bring just one device instead of two. And even if the gaming side of it ends up not supported anymore in the future (because Sony is pretty good at quickly dropping support of less performing products), if the device in itself is a solid, quality one, it will still function as a nice phone.
There ARE possibilities Sony could explore. Problem is, they may lack the imagination to do so properly.
Sad.
Re: Sony Will Step Away From The Handheld Games Business In 2019, Leaving It All To Nintendo
I personnally liked the Vita more than the 3DS. And I'd still say that, so far, the Vita had a lot more games I was interested in at the time, than the couple of games on the Switch that interests me right now. People can be fanboys all they want (and this being a Nintendo-oriented site, I assume many here are), but the reason Sony failed with the Vita is that they built it like we were still in 2004.
Sony failed to acknowledge the rise of mobile gaming. And while Nintendo said they also felt the mobile gaming impact, the fact that their 3DS line was marketed in a general "family-friendly" way, made them the default go-to solution for parents wanting to buy a portable system for their kids. Sony always wanted to market themselves as more "serious, mature and edgy (whatever that means)" which means it was aiming at an oder, more traditional console gaming market (case in point, the Vita was marketed as being more like a "home console but playable on the go").
Problem was, nowadays, that this crowd already have a device they bring with them all the time that can play games - their mobile phone - and while being more of the casual type of games, it is ok for many that don't feel the need anymore to bring along yet another device in addition to the one in their pockets already. Many didn't buy the Vita because they didn't see a reason to pay that much, for something that won't bring them a lot more over what they have already.
In the original, pre-3DS and pre-Vita days, a portable console to play games on the go was like "wow, that's cool". Now, gaming on the go is pretty common. Even our parents are doing it now.
And so, where Sony failed, is that without the "family-friendly" free pass that Nintendo is getting, they had to offer a reason for people to care about the Vita. And this is where they failed miserably.
The whole Vita saga is almost a story on what not to do.
It is sad, because the Vita was, hardware-wise, awesome.
And Sony exiting the game only means less competition, and that is NEVER a good thing, as companies tend to stall innovation when there is no competitor out there.
Re: Jet Set Radio Series Tops Sega AGES Poll As Most Wanted Retro Release
I wouldn't mind buying a collection featuring this game among others, but as I've got it on Dreamcast in the old days, got it on PC, and also got it on Vita, I played this one too much already to consider buying it AGAIN, to play it. I mean, I agree the game is good, but it seems the only platform this hasn't been ported to yet is my kitchen toaster. lol!
I'd be more interested in playing the XBOX sequel that I didn't have a chance to play.
Re: Telltale Games Voice Actor Posts Message About Incomplete Projects
I have found memories of playing the Monkey Island game they did, as well as the Sam & Max games. Back to the Future was also pretty enjoyable too. I also LOVED the Wolf among us. Got the first Batman one too, but I kind of backed off of it a bit because it seemed too much focus on quick dialogue choices and QTEs... anyways, never got far enough in it to be presented a "point-and-click" part with "puzzles" to solve. I'll replay it again for sure eventually, but first impressions were "cool, but maybe later", contrary to their other games I mentionned that hooked me right from the start.
I guess they suffered from trying to make too many titles too fast. And relying on expensive licences more and more can only add financial strain. I remember hearing their Jurassic Park game being pretty bad, and people wondering at that time if this was an indication of where things were going for them. Guess it somehow was.
Re: Hackers Are Already Uploading Additional Games To The Switch NES Library
While I'm usually not against people trying to make the device they own do what they want, when it comes to these kind of things, and so soon, I can't help but feel that this only serves as an argument for manufacturers to implement even more restrictive DRM in the end. And when that happens, everyone lose.
I mean, I understand that to some, this is seen as a challenge. I can relate to that in some way, a lot of people likes a good challenge. But playing emulated games on the go is possible through tons of devices. There are many gaming portable out there, some linux-based, some Android-based, some with custom "os", that can do that. But then again, the whole point being, I guess, making the Switch do it as well.
It's just that... I don't know. All of this is wrong. Especially so soon after this lauch. Like I said, only gives more reasons for even more drastic DRM. And no one wants this.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
Are people expecting XBL or PSN level of features and perks? Those services are $70 a year in Canada. Granted, they give you more. But at $70, they should.
At $25, I never expected Nintendo to match what the others are offering in terms of feature for that price. I just set my expectations accordingly.
With that in mind, I think that's perfectly fair. And I'll hop on board no problem.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@Vee_Flames
I'm not sure this will target anti-cheating measures specifically, but from a business perspective, it is pretty much evident that they have a responsibility towards the online experience their console provides. In this day and age, no manufacturer could legitimately release a console with online features without any form of control, where anything goes. This would be a magnet for lawsuits all over the globe. Especially from a company still seen by many parents as making stuff suitable for the family.
Truth is, the only way to provide a safer environment for all, is to impose some form of control. So even if most games are working in a peer to peer manner, you need games to go through Nintendo servers first to link your IP address with your Nintendo ID, if only to show your name to other players or other info. Nintendo may also need to keep an activity log for security reasons, and forcing players through Nintendo servers first make sure those who hacked their consoles and have been banned for it aren't ruining the experience of others.
I'm pretty sure that if a completely free, p2p server functionality wuold be implemented, it would not take long for people to complain about the tons of cheaters, and the impossibility to ban anyone from ruining games of others. When you don't have any consequence to fear, you could hack your console away and make a hell of all the games you join.
Anyway, manufacturers of consoles don't have a choice to control their online experience. Be it free or not, they have to control it. And this control has a cost. Whether we like it or not.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@Vee_Flames
Sure, P2P doesn't cost anything as it doesn't require servers. But then, some servers are needed somewhere to tie in your IP address with your online ID. This way, if someone is cheating illegally, the ID could be banned by those who operates the servers. Something that wouldn't be possible under a free P2P connection, as no control is done.
A free P2P connection, without any link whatsoever with Nintendo would render the online experience complerely uncontrollable. Could you imagine the lot of complaints that people will send Nintendo? I'm pretty sure you know how gross, stupid, aggressive, annoying and mean people can be online when there is no consequences to their words or actions. If we want to go down this road, we should be aware that this will terminate Nintendo's image of being seen as a family-friendly console. And this whill guarantee Nintendo will be sued to hell and back by angry parents all over the world because some unknown jerk traumatized their kids while playing a game online.
A paid online infrastructure gives the owner of the network some control over what's happening. And all console manufacturers need that minimal level of control. They don't have a choice. They're selling a product to everyone, it should be suitable and safe for everyone. That include the online environment they provide on their consoles as well.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
So hey guys, I'm going to start a business where I'll be selling cups to my clients for like $60, and then they can come and get free coffee every morning, forever and ever.
Any semi-intelligent businessman will say that this business would be unsustainable. And any elementary school kid could see that unless I get more clients everyday forever and ever as well (which is impossible), this can't hold up and will drive me towards bankruptcy.
That's also similar to the whole moviepass program (or whatever it was called). Unlimited movies in theatres every month for a flat fee. It didn't take a genius to understand that this wouldn't be sustainable. And it isn't. And they had to start imposing limits.
Same thing here.
Something has a recurring cost. You can't expect that your purchase, which has a fixed amount of profits tied to it, covers for a cost that will reccur every day, month, year.
But hey, let's all think that it should be free because, you know, we want it to be free.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@1UP_MARIO
Nintendo's already said that free to play games like fortnite will continue to be free, you don't need to pay Nintendo for this.
Epic games, creators of Fortnite, have their own servers and cover their costs with the tons of constant microtransactions people are paying in that game. So Nintendo's isn't charging you to play this game online because all the online functionalities for that game happens on Epic games servers.
But any game relying on Nintendo's own online infrastructure, are using servers which are maintained and operated by Nintendo. Even if a game relies on peer-to-peer for online play, all players need to know the IP address of the other players they want to play with. And unless you can contact every player yourself outside of the game and ask them their IP address, you can't do it. So that's why you need a server to handle all of this, and link these IPs with Nitendo IDs, and so on...
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@1UP_MARIO
"Same as I payed for my game and then payed my internet provider to play my game online"
You paid for your game. Fine. You didn't pay to have servers up and running 24/7 to handle matchmaking. You paid a one-time fee that covered the costs of developpement and marketing for your game, + profis for the developper.
Your internet provider provides you with traffic lanes and nothing else. You can indeed play your game online, provided your game knows the IP address of all the other players you want to connect and play with. Your internet provider doesn't give you that. Someone else has to give this to you.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@Travan
Exactly. I like your movie analogy. I'll add that it's not because they let you go to the movie for a year, that it didn't cost anything to them.
It's like they bet on compensating the costs with you buying popcorn and sodas at inflated prices, but then people keep expecting better and better movies all the time (that cost more to produce), prices of popcorn and sodas supplies are increasing, you have to raise your employees salaries from time to time, they expect you to renovate the theatre and all of that.... and at some point it doesn't become a viable solution anymore and they don't have a choice to charge a bit.
People don't seem to see it this way. Most think that because someone else paid for it before (because this had a cost), that it should be free forever.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@electrolite77
I agree, everyone can decide for themselves if it's worth it or not. But I still believe a person thinking somethng that costs money (because it does) should be given for free is part of the definition of feeling entitled.
Truth is, free will always beat "not free", whatever the amount is. There are people who pirated games sold for $1 a bundle (so less than $1 each) on Humble Bundle. So of course, some people are going to complain about a $2 per month service.
I personnaly prefer to see a reasonable fee for such a thing, than seeing ads all over the place and Nintendo selling private information to third parties and the likes to cover the costs of their server infrastructure. But that's me.
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@Old-Red,
Yeah, I guess all those people hired to maintain the network do it for free. Those servers that, even if just doing matchmaking, need to run to match the many thousands of requests at any given time, run on free air, and never break, ever. Oh and all those security measures too. I'm sure these servers are all housed into an unprotected building somewhere. Free visits for anyone! Everything's free. And Nintendo doesn't have to pay for anything. It all just happens, you know...
This thinking is typical of someone not having ever worked in Tech services. If you'd have ever work in a business environment with a decent network infrastructure, you'd know that even a simple network is FAR from dirt cheap, when considering everything that needs to be taken into account (security, backups, maintenance, electricity (not only for servers but for air conditionning as well), staff (and you don't want cheap labour for this, you want top network engineers present if anything goes wrong, etc...)
"I paid for my game, so that should cover any online service related to it, and its recurring costs, forever and ever for life".
Hey, I paid for my car, the manufacturer should buy me gas foerever.
The conception that all of this costs nothing comes from the fact that many services don't charge MONEY for it. But nothing's free. If it's free, it's because someone else is paying for it. Google sells your information to third parties. They're selling your eyeballs to advertisers. That's why their services are free. Platforms like Steam gives free online because they choose to absorb the cost (they also don't have to maintain as big a workforce as they don't build consoles - they are mostly about software). You don't pay money, but it has a cost.
And that's a recurring cost. A one-time payment for a game cannot cover for a service forever and ever. Business-wise, that's never going to work.
And of course, Nintendo's going to profit from this. They're not a charity. They're a business. And that's what businesses do.
Look, I can complain about a lot of things, and I'm usually the one complaining about prices on the Switch for anything (as most games on there are pricier than their equivalent on other platforms), but this ain't part of my complaints. I see this as a good deal. I mean, an annual plan at $24 CDN, means about two bucks per month. TWO BUCKS.
I mean, holy sh... people spend more than that on coffees everyday.... If you have a family, the cost of a family plan FOR A YEAR is about the cost of a single meal for the whole family at McDonalds.
I can't believe people are so entitled these days...
Re: Switch eShop Maintenance Scheduled For This Evening, Nintendo Online Service Ready To Go
@Old-Red,
Yeah, what is it with companies charging us for the service they provide? All of those services provided by those servers, all those freebies, storage space for gamesaves... this should all be free. How DARE do they charge us for this? Right?
Man.... I had issues with XBL and PSN being $80 per year in Canada, but this is $25, and provides the online service, cloud saves, some "freebies" you may or may not care about... which is similar to what others are doing (although with less interesting freebies), but I don't have any issue with this. This is good value, even if ONLY considering the cloud saves. I haven't heard a lot of negative comment about this, to be frank.
What people don't seem to get, is that running online services (even only for matchmaking) costs money. We should stop pretending that this should be "free". Someone, somewhere, need to run those servers, house them, provide electricity to those, maintain them, and so on. Those companies have a huge workforce to maintain and pay too, they can't absorb the costs of running these servers forever, just because some think they deserve to have it for free.
Re: Sega Mega Drive Classics Is Coming To Switch This Winter With Exclusive Features
Now THIS is what I call a collection. Packaging about 5 to 10 titles, while interesting, often isn't worth the artificially inflated price (because Nintendo platform) of admission. But with so much games in a single package (provided it's not only half and the other half offered as DLC - don't know how this was on other consoles), then this is worth the money.
Hope this comes to NA as well.
Re: South Park: The Stick Of Truth Brings Crude Humour To The Switch On 25th September
@Dayton311
Well, just picture that in Canada, it'll be priced at $40 + tx. Game might be fun, and I'd really like to play it on Switch, but no way I'm going to spend $40 on this. At $20 I'd be buying it though. Especially for a game that regularly go on sale (both digitally and if you find it in bargain bins), or even being used as a freebie bonus. I mean... $40... ouch...
Re: Soapbox: Why I'm Not Excited About Playing NES Games On The Nintendo Switch
This whole initiative from Nintendo only serves as another argument towards retro gaming needing to get on with the times and become as simple as all other media out there, namely, movies and music.
There is absolutely no freakin' reason (other than greed) for companies to rerelease their games over and over again and asking us to pay for them over and over again. Granted, this is a bit different, adding some features like online play, but this feature seems to be tied to the "emulator" running these games and not the games themselves (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Think about this. What if Apple required its users to buy their music and movies all over again whenever they upgrade their phone or tablet to the new model? Do you think Blu-Ray would have had any kind of success if it didn't allow people to play their regular DVDs as well?
It seems videogamers are a strange breed indeed, as they're often willing to put up with stuff that wouldn't fly anywhere else. You even sometimes see some fiight in favor of such nonsense!!!
Videogames need to mature. At least the retrogaming aspect. They need to become like music tracks/albums or movies. You bought it, it's yours and there is no reason why you should be asked to pay for it again (not talkking about remasters or new editions of those games - in that case, paying is ok - like having bought a movie on DVD doesn't grant you the "right" to the superior Blu-Ray edition in better definition).
It would be interesting though, if instead of selling us these old games over and over (individually or through perks), companies like Nintendo would instead sell us their emulator (improved each generation with new features) to allow us to play the games we bought (digitaly) from them since forever... That, I'd be on board with. And I'd have no problem buying new emulators each generation (kind of like upgrading your Blu-Ray player, or Music player to get better features).
Re: Guide: Everything Announced In Yesterday's Nintendo Direct
There's a couple of things in there that sparked my interest. The biggest one is that new Animal Crossing game. Provided it is not a port of the mobile game (they said "new game" so... I hope).
The Capcom brawlers collection is also very interesting.
As is Luigi's Mansion 3, and New Super Mario Bros U Deluxe. And Diablo III but that was alreayd announced. And everything Final Fantasy too. That's great.
Re: Nintendo Download: 13th September (North America)
I'm tempted to get Bastion, but then, I already have it on PC, and I had it on my Vita when I had one... And paying $20 for it makes it a bit pricey to me because of that. I want to play this on the go, but maybe I'll wait for when I get my GPD Win 2 and play the PC version I already have on that, eventually.
Re: EGX 2018 Game Listing Reveals That Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath Is Headed To Switch
Interesting, but it'll all depend on the price, as I already played it on another platform previously. But I'm not getting my hopes up regarding price. The trend so far seems to be "pricier on the Switch than anywhere else" for most titles. Not all, but most.
Re: Random: Warner Bros. Seems A Little Unsure On How The Switch Actually Works
@Octane
I remember that one. God, that was awful.
Almost as bad as the Batman Arkham City GOTY edition... or almost all of the TG-16/PC Engine games released in North America. Or the original Megaman North American box...
I'm kind of passionate about all these graphics trainwrecks. I mean, I can't help but wonder what these people were thinking...
Re: Play Popular Party Games With Just A Flick Of The Wrist In Party Arcade For Switch
One thing that Nintendo gamers can't get enough of, are casual party games. Please publishers, keep'em coming!
</irony>
Re: Gone Home - A Peerless Masterclass In Interactive Storytelling Comes To Switch
I agree with most in saying that this game, with Life is Strange, is one of the few that successfully leave you a profound impression after finishing it. Although, there's less "game" in there than in "Life is Strange", and so it doesn't really warrant that price for the two to three hours it'll take you to finish the story (as it's more interactive storytelling than game).
But if you find it on sale for less than $10, I'd say go for it, if you haven't played it already on another system.
Re: SNK Heroines: Tag Team Frenzy - A Sexy Street Fighter That's Perfect For Beginners
I love fighters, and I'd love to play this one, but I can't justify spending over $70 to play it.
Re: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Remastered Edition Announced For Nintendo Switch
While I'd love to play this as I never had a chance on the Gamecube, I'd like to set my expectations a bit low as I'm practically sure it'll be released at the terrible price of $80 (Canada), as per the recent trend of "remastering" old games and selling them again at full price (which as gone up in Canada from 60 to 70 and now 80 over the course of about a system generation). So if it's again something like this, I'll probably skip it, again.
I can't help but see all these remasters as relatively easy cash grabs, as unless they are completely redone from scratch, upgrading some assets and some code is far, far less costly for a studio than creating a whole new game. And price should reflect that.
Now, that being said, game looks fun. And it will be added to my wish list.
Re: Kairosoft Is Bringing Two Popular Simulation Games To The Switch eShop
Played the hell out of Game Dev Story some years ago on mobile. Very fun game. But then, unless it has been updated since the old releases, I can't see myself playing this one again. Unless it is priced really cheap, which it won't, because we know it won't. At least in Canada it won't.
I'm a bit tired of the trend of re-releasing old games on Switch and charging more for them because the port is a "new" game on the platform. Nothing against the games in themselves (keep them coming), but stop asking $15 for a game I bought for less than $5 on mobile some years ago....
Re: You Can Now Get 50% Off All Atooi Games On Nintendo Switch
Mutant Mudds was a surprise hit with me some time ago on PC. Gameplay is tight and very old school, and it gave me that itch to complete every level to 100%, which is a thing not many games do. Art style is also very retro, but this is one of the few that I think got the "feel" right.
I bought the collection on Switch some time ago already (and completed the game 100% again), and the inclusion of the puzzle game and the more challenging Mutant Mudds sequel made this a purchase I'll never regret.
Xeodrifter, on the other hand, while not completely "bad" is probably the only game I regret buying on the Switch. Bought it on sale a while back, because it comes from the same team, so I expected an experience as tight as with Mutant Mudds, but even on sale for only a couple of bucks, I feel it wasn't worth it. It felt like a cheap flash game to me. But that's my fault, I should've checked the reviews and some gameplay vids first...
Re: Feature: Creating A New Generation Of Indie Gems With YoYo Games' GameMaker Studio 2
I'm both glad and bummed out about the entry fee. I mean, from the perspective of a small indie developper team of one or two persons, it may kill a dream to have a game on the Switch, as the cost of entry is relatively high. Some people not having the budget still might be able to create an absolutely great game.
But from a consumer's perspective, this means it can also act as a way to filter out some cheap cr4p,. For every good game coming out of these game making suites, there are about 30 or more that are bad, unpolished, buggy, and/or just plain uninteresting.
Re: Talking Point: Do We Still Need Review Scores?
Scores, as in, numebrs, are meaningless. The only thing they do, is invite comparison to other games that aren't comparable to the one reviewed. "This game gets a 9, so it's definitely better than this other game that got 7". This is completely stupid.
Numbers are a plague, when used as a way to compare things. Like in photography (or TVs), some people think that the number of pixels is a good indicator of image quality. It is not. There's a lot more to it than that, and reducing this to a simple number is only there to make things simple for people who don't bother to actually read an informed opinion.
I personnaly like (sometimes love) games that were rated as "average" by the critics. And some other games that are almost universally loved, I hate. Scores are meaningless. 2001: A Space Odyssey was panned by critics at the time. It went on to become a classic. Scores are meaningless. Reviews are not. Reviewers can detail what they like, what they don't like, and then it's up to YOU to decide if that game is worth your money or not.
Scores are there for people who don't want to do any research before buying something. For people who trust others telling them what they should or shouldn't like/buy.
Scores can be fun (not really usefull, but fun) if being an average from user inputs, as in how much people who played it love this game, but a score tied to a professional review of a game is meaningless. It's relatively arbitrary too. Points can be given or substracted over some aspect of a game, while some other game having the same pros or cons, may not get the same treatment because the reviewer "feel" these aren't as important, and so on...
I like how Kotaku works now. Game is recommended or not, with some basic "You'll like this game if..." and " Not for you if...". Simple, to the point, gives the info that matters.
Scores (numerals) don't matter.
Re: Here's Why Nintendo Switch Games Cost More Than Those For Other Consoles
@ICISAZEL
"Imagine if car manufacturers start pulling this bs."
They won't. They don't have to. A new car isn't the same thing as a used car. A used car comes with mileage. It comes with cosmetic blemishes, or worse. It may come without the manufacturer's warranty (or what's left of it). Some parts may break sooner than later too (usage). It's also priced a lot less BECAUSE of all this. It's priced less because a used car is not the same as a new car. When someone buys a new car, the usual argument for this is an economic one. If I'm looking to buy a used car, then I'm more than probably not the target market for car manufacturers. Me buying a used car isn't a lost sale for car manufacturers as I wasn't looking to buy a new car anyway (because money).
A "used" game is THE SAME as a new one. Graphics aren't worse, gameplay is the same, sounds the same, everything is the same. This is a compeltely different situation, as there is NO point to justify a lesser price, like for a physical product. And given that, most stores are thus selling these "used" games for almost the same price as a new one. But this also set aside the economic justification for buying used. You can't say a brand new $80 game is too expensive, and then say the $75 "used" priced is right. When you buy a used game for almost the same price as a new one, it is effectively a lost sale for the developper, as you obviously have the money but chosing to not pay them, but get THE EXACT SAME THING from someone else and giving them all your money.
Publishers disdain for the used market is perfectly understandable. Someone buying it "used" is benefitting from the exact same thing you originally sold, but you get no money from them. When you buy a used car, you're not getting the new car experience. You're not getting the same thing. But you do for a game. And for mostly anything IP-based.
We need to stop applying rules and thinking that work for physical products, to IP-based or non-physical products. Their very nature makes the same rules unnaplicabble. Software isn't degrading with usage. And results from usage is the whole reason why used goods are sold for less. This doesn't work for digital anything.
It's not a simple concept to grasp (according to the number of people out there still considering these the same as any physical product). But it is nonetheless problematic.
Re: Pre-Order Luigi's Mansion From The Nintendo UK Store To Get A Boo Lamp Or Luigi Hat
I so would've bought this if it was on Switch... Don't have a 3DS anymore (my fault, I know), but I don't really understand why Nintendo keeps putting so much effort (and time, and money) into a platform that's way past its prime... I mean, it's good they still support their old console, it's just that I think this would've been a lot better fit for the Switch, who would be more than capable of handling ports of GC games.
I remember some time ago, that Nintendo said the (still not named Switch), would receive ports of Gamecube games. I'm still waiting with my open wallet for this to happen.
Re: Izneo Will Bring "The Netflix Of Comics" To Nintendo Switch Next Month
@MaSSiVeRiCaN
Some may like that, but I never actually asked the question myself if I'd ever want to read comics on a TV. It sounds so absurd to me (but that's me) that the thought of it never even occurred in my mind. Ever.
I like having it on a portable device because, like comics, like books, I can bring them everywhere and read them everywhere. Being tied to a TV to read my comics is a huge inconvenience to me. Most of my reading is done in the commute ride every day, or in bed, or... at place other than in front of my TV.
Re: Izneo Will Bring "The Netflix Of Comics" To Nintendo Switch Next Month
It's fine for those who like seeing a frame at a time (Comixology calls this "guided view") but I prefer looking at a whole page when reading comics. So this requires a big enough screen (8 inches and over) and a resolution sharp enough to read small text comfortably (so above 1080p). The Switch doesn't have either, so I'll stick to my tablet, thank you.
Re: Zen Studios Acquires Bally And Williams Pinball Licence, Tables Headed To Pinball FX3
I'd love to play these on the Switch, but already spent a lot of money on PC for many tables (after previously having bought some on my Xbox360 back in the days)... I'd prefer having all my current collection of tables on a single platform, thank you, as I'm not going to buy these twice...
But good news nonetheless.
Re: Rainway App Is Apparently Still In Development For Nintendo Switch
@sanderev
Indeed, but I tested some streaming apps myself YEARS ago, and one in particular (Kinoconsole), allowed me to play a fighting game (Injustice) in a state good enough to be able to pull off moves successfully and win matches like I was sitting in front of my PC.
So while there will always be some lag, it may sometimes be small enough to be "almost" inconsequential, if the platform is good enough, and the network fast enough. My PC was wired at the time. I assume a wireless connection would induce more lag.
Also, Valve released their own Streming app already, so anyone having an Android TV device, or a porable android device with a built-in (or clip-on) gamepad could, in therory, stream their PC games to that. I haven't tested it yet, but I will, eventually. There are already many streaming solutions available for various devices out there, although none for the Switch, And while I think such an app could be interesting (provided lag is not too problematic), I admit I can't see myself using it that much, my PC already being a gaming laptop that I can set up anywhere I want.
Anyway, some streamers handle lag a lot better than others, and your PC being wired instead of wireless can make a BIG difference too.
Re: Lifeless Planet: Premiere Edition Brings Mysterious Sci-Fi Adventure To Switch Next Week
@Varkster
I don't mind developpers "dumping" their games on the Switch as long as they are priced accordingly (they're mostly not, BTW). And while I haven't read the reviews, I admit that from time to time, I happen to like games that gets criticized by many, and sometimes hate games that are almost universally admitted as being awesome. So I cannot say such game shouldn't be made or ported to a platform because it got bad reviews.
Like I mentionned, my main issue is the trend to charge full price for games that were released often YEARS ago on other platforms. Sure, porting costs some money, but all (or most) game assets, art direction, music, etc... has been done already. The price should reflect that. Right now, most indie games on Switch cost more than they would on every other platform (at least in Canada, they do), making the Switch, all current consoles considered, the most expensive platform to play on.
Re: Indie Classics Bastion And Transistor Are Both Bound For Nintendo Switch
Started Bastion on PC... but never finished it, actually. So I'm willing to get it on Switch, IF the price is right, even if I have the feeling it won't.
I'm all for re-releases on Switch. But not for re-releases sold at the full price they originaly released at back then. Yes, lots of work is involved in a port. But most assets, art direction, etc... is already done. Price should reflect that.
Re: Switch eShop Sales For Blossom Tales Are Twenty Times Higher Than Steam Sales
@Heavyarms55
While reading the article, I thought the same thing. Sales on Steam usually put forward many, many, triple-AAA productions, or wildly successful indies that we've all heard about. Most smaller indies aren't featured a lot on Steam, and so, even when on sale, are harder to find.
On Switch, when there are sales, it is practically ALL indies anyways (except some big productions sprinkled here and there occasionally), so it is a LOT easier to get noticed for a smaller studio. A lot of indie productions on Switch seems like new games to me, and it's only after some research that I notice it was already out on PC for quite a while already, but never heard of it (and I have over 600 games in my Steam account).
If the Switch E-shop was doing sales on most of its big triple AAA software all the time, with smaller indies practically never being seen in the main sale page (even if on sale), then it would be like Steam, with low sales for them.
It's all about them being at the forefront of the "deals" section on the e-shop, mainly because there's not enough AAA productions on the Switch on sale at any given time to eclipse indies.
Re: Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy Finally Gets Knocked Off UK Chart Top Spot After Eight Weeks
I was talking about Crash Bandicoot the other day with a friend, as these days, we're both feeling like the PS1-PS2 generations were somewhat a nice middle ground between the "hard-as-nails" older days (according to some, not me, as I remember having beat the original Contra without using the infamous cheat code everyone else used), and the recent trend of not making games "too" difficult.
It's like game makers from that era figured how to make games accessible, but also progressively difficult in a nice way. Now, it's more like "here's an hour-long tutorial, and we'll be holding your hand all along the ride too, in case it's too hard for you".
I've been having a lot of fun with the Crash trilogy lately. It's hard to come by a game nowadays that still has a "game over" screen. Even if the game isn't really over, you still have a finite number of lives, and when they run out, you have to restart the level with the basic number of lives it gives you.
Like I said, it's a nice "bridge" between generations, in terms of difficulty. Older games had a true "game over" ending (or limited continues), and many new ones have "infinite" lives, just making you restart levels indefinitely until you succeed or get bored.
And the Crash Collection price was right too ($40 - CDN). Which may explain in part why it is selling well.
Re: Miyamoto Regrets Design Choices Made During Development Of Super Mario Run
Didn't play it because you cannot play it offline. I don't buy games that I cannot play offline. My phone data plan is insanely limited (data costs a lot in Canada, most third-world countries have better plans than us, yep...). But I'm all for games charging a one-time flat fee instead of trying to charge you forever and ever. I bought games like Xcom and Civilization for my Android phones/tablets, at around $10 - $15 each.
Re: Review: Titan Quest (Switch)
Got this yesterday. Weirdly, I got it for $39.99 for a physical copy (which seems to be an error for Canada), while it is $50 on the Nintendo shop. Never would've paid $50 for this but so far, no having encountered any bug, I think 40$ is "fair".
I agree though that the interface would need some work, but otherwise I've been enjoying it a lot.
Oh, and first time I played, the game received a patch (quite large one, I estimate). Don't know if that fixed or improved anything.
Re: Lifeless Planet Discovered On Switch eShop, Arrives Next Month
This game has been on my radar for some time already on Steam, but again, this is a case where a Switch port of a game will be pricier than all other platorms its available on. Regular price in Canada for the Switch version will be $25, while it's $22 on Steam. Not a huge amount of a difference, but still, again, the feeling that I'm getting a bad deal by purchasing it for the Switch... I think pre-orders are on sale at $19 right now (Canada), which is an ok deal, but without knowing how it performs on Switch (waiting for review), I'm not sure I'd bypass my general rule of never preordering anything.
I think the $14 price mentionned in the article is a pre-order promo. Regular price will be higher than this.
Re: Saints Row: The Third Will Include All DLC On Switch
@PhilKenSebben
I wouldn't count on a reasonable price for a remaster/re-release on the Switch. So far, the only one I've seen with a reasonable price was the Crash Bandicoot collection, which was $40 (Canada). I expect both Saint Row 3 and Diablo to be released at full price of $80. If the Spyro collection is ported to Switch, I also anticipate Activision pricing it above the Crash collection. I think they priced it like this thinking it wouldn't sell all that well, but I'm sure they'll raise the price for Spyro, seeing that there is actually a demand for these type of remasters.
Re: Read Comic Books On The Go With InkyPen, The First Worldwide App For Nintendo Switch
@Ralizah
My thoughts exactly. I'm personnaly not going to subscribe to another service like this. I mean, in Canada, it'll be around $10 per month, and for that price (or around that price), I can subscribe to Comixology Unlimited, which has, I'm sure, a larger (much larger) collection. And while the Switch screen is fine for playing games, for reading comics, I have a hard time settling for anything under 1080p, as I prefer looking at comics a page at a time, and so I need a larger screen, and better resolution (usually quad-HD or better).
I mean, cool if some people are getting something out of this, but I personnaly view this as a bit underwhelming. Even if it was a Comixology app, the Switch Screen would be a bit uncomfortable to me for reading comics anyway...
Re: Luigi's Mansion Will Arrive On 3DS Just In Time For Halloween
I'm still remembering, before the Swich was released (I think it was around when it was initially unveiled), that it was supposed to receive some ports of GC titles... Am I the only one remembering that?
I understand the will of Nintendo to keep alive it's "affordable" portable system, but this, to me, feels like a lost opportunity. I'd love to revisit the game on the Switch, while on the go. I don't have a 3DS anymore. Many still do, but many don't.
Re: Diablo III Eternal Collection Officially Announced For Nintendo Switch
The problem is that in Canada, we went from not so long ago (maybe 5-6 years), with new releases costing $59.99. And now it is $79.99. And we're now even getting remasters (or collected editions) of 2012 games for full retail price.
Meanwhile the collector's edition on PC is $39.99. And I can play it on the go as well on my GPD Win.
I REALLY want to buy games on the Switch. I like the platform and its features, but god almighty... When it's not overpriced indie releases (or re-releases), it's 6-year old games being sold again for full price... Those being sold for a reasonable price are not the norm... (although there are a couple out there).
I really want to support companies bringing games other that Pony Stable 3 or MiniGame Party Mix Turbo 4, and I even find great the idea of re=releasing old games some people might not have played yet. But re-releases should be sold, IMO, not at same price as brand new games. Most of the development cost has been spent in prevision of the initial release, and while there ARE costs linked to a re-released, this doesn't warrant, in most cases, a $80 price tag.
Anyway. Cool that Diablo III is getting released on Switch. Not cool that I'll have to wait for it to drop in price to buy it.
Re: Rumour: Leak Signals Blizzard's Diablo 3 Will Unleash Hell On Switch This Year
However good news this is (I'd love to play this on the go on my Switch), I'm still bummed out that this will sell for $80 in Canada for a game that was originaly released in 2012., and is probably the single reason why I won't buy it.
I can't help but feel I'd be paying too much for this, as collectors editions on PC are sold for about half the price. Sadly, this is a reccurring story for the Switch. Same games costing less (sometimes WAY less) practically everywhere else. The Switch has become, to me, a LUXURY platform, whrere you pay for the "privilege" of playing on the Switch. Gamer with money to burn? Man, get a Switch!!!
Re: The Critically Acclaimed Gone Home Is Headed To Nintendo Switch Next Week
@cannedpancakes
I agree, the story is awesome. I share the same concern though, especially in Canada, where it'll probably be around $25, because Nintendo. Which in the end, makes this a hard sell to anyone already having a basic PC even with integrated graphic, or probably any other console as it will more than likely be cheaper there.
It's often what prevents me from buying games on Switch. Not that I don't have the money, but the feeling that I'm always getting the worst deal out there, as most multiplatform games are often priced less, mostly everywhere else... and this kind of infuriates me. I know. I may not be normal. lol!