I don't like this either. I mean, I'm not saying these games shouldn't exist. I know some people who love these type fishing games. But I'm kind of worried about third party support. I would understand a rationale based on hardware and costs of porting as the Switch is closer in performance to consoles from the previous generation than the PS4 and XB1, but so far, what thrid parties are saying is that they base their decision purely on what they think Switch gamers want. And all they think they want, is the same thing they somehow wanted on the old Wii. Mario, Zelda, with tons of casual distractions and shovelware.
Nope. Switch owners don't want what sells milliopns on the other systems. They are very different gamers. Fishing, party minigames, casual stuff, catz, dogz, horse stables, and cheap kart racers wannabe. Yep, that's all these gamers want.
I'd be very pleased to see a new iteration of the franchise, but if they really want to start capitalizing on their acquisition, they could simply release a compilation of the first three games (on all platforms), and this would be one of the very few game out there I'd be willing to buy on day one (provided they price it right, of course).
Looks interesting, although I feel like it lacks a slight coat of polish. And as someone who love reto-style games, I'd never thought I'd say this but I'm kind of a bit fed up with the 8-bit retro aesthetic. I mean, it's nice and all, but now that everyone and their dog are doing it, the art direction seems a lot more important to me now. Art style need to ne "more" than just 8-bit type graphics. It needs... I don't know. Maybe more "personnality" for lack of a better term.
And I hope things aren't going to be that small when playing in portable mode, otherwise, I have bad news for my eyesight (yes, I'm getting old. lol!)
This is a perfect example of a game being appealing to both casual players and more traditionnal gamers. Simple game mechanics, cheerful atmosphere, some game modes can be played party-style, main campaign with ramping difficulty, etc...
This is indeed a proof that simple ideas can lead to awesome games, and be comparable to big budget releases.
Come on SEGA. Even the Vita got a new Monkeyball game... I'd even settle for a compilation of the first two games... provided you don't tackle in forced motion controls... (just make them optional if you absolutely want to push them in).
While I understand that some people may want this type of game, I kind of also agree that this isn't what the Switch needs right now. Let me explain.
The problem with this, is that there isn't, right now, a lot of big productions (aside from the usual Zelda, MK and al.) to draw and keep traditionnal gamers on the Switch platform. And Nintendo still has that image attached to them since the Wii days, of a platform filled with shovelware that, apparently, somehow, manage to sell (otherwise, no one would make such shovelware).
A game like this, I wouldn't have a problem with on an already well-established platform. I'm not speaking about units solds. I'm speaking about platforms that are already established as providing a good library od big productions aimed at traditionnal gamers.
A game like this, on the Swtich, right now, might simply continue to propagate the idea that the Switch is a more "casual" platform (like its predecessors), and bring more water to the mill feeding the bad arguments of many developpers everywhere. How many times have you heard a developper say that their game wouldn't be a right "fit" for the Switch, but good for evey other platform out there? We're not talking about hardware here. We're talking about developpers still thinking that all Nintendo Switch owners care about is Mario, Zelda, and stupid Carnival Games compilations.
Like I said, I'm not dimissing the fact that some people might enjoy this game. But these type of games are, right now, sending a wrong signal to all other developpers out there by supporting the rationale that these are the type of games that Switch owners actually want.
I can clearly see my daughter wanting such a game. I don't have anything against said game.
But the more I see what publishers and developpers are putting out on the Switch, the more I estimate that we're really close to Ubisoft resurecting Dogz and Catz games and seeing the system being flooded with Hot Wheels and My Little Pony cheap cash-ins and generic party games compilations and cheap kart racers by the dozens.... You know, the Wii days...
Again, another game on the Switch that gives you the nice feeling of being ripped off because it's, again, cheaper practically everywhere else. This feeling prevents me from buying so many games on the Switch because I always feel like I'm getting a very bad deal buying it on that platform. Sometimes even when on sale, it's still pricier than on competing platforms.
Anyways...
The game looks fabulous, I love the art style, but given it seems pretty average otherwise, this has been moved to my "when under $10" bin.
This is the classic story of a company exploiting the masses that don't know any better. Just rebrand something you already produce, implying that it's "better" because it's made expressly for a certain use (it's not), jack up the price because of that "perceived" betterness, and then grab the profits....
If you actually pay more for such a thing, then you know, maybe you deserve to pay more....
Maybe you're right. Maybe Nintendo itself doesn't want to get rid of that image. But I still feel that it's a mistake. It wouldn't be if the Switch was a pure home-based system, but it being a portable as well, and pretty much the only one seriously considered for gamers right now (3DS is on its last legs and Vita is dead since awhile), it can't survive on its usual exclusives alone. Well, it can, but there comes a point where people want to play other AAA productions, and the fact is that launhing one every 4 to 6 months isn't going to cut it for many. Some indies are great too (and thank god for them otherwise the system would be a wasteland), but you can't live on these alone (ask the Vita about it).
And with the ton of shovelware about to hit the platform in the future, I'm truly wondering where the Switch is heading... really...
@EightBitMan I don't think the problem is that the hardware is inferior. I mean, it is, compared to PS4 and XB1, but while it is the least powerful current-gen home platform, it is, at the same time, the most powerful portable game platform.
I think that the problem is more related to Nintendo having cornered itself into a family-friendly type of market share since the Wii days, an image that it has a lot of troubles to get rid of. I mean, when companies like 2K Games think people are excited for games like "Carnival Games", the problem is CLEARLY not one of hardware specs, but of perception. Companies are still seeing the Switch as "the new product from those guys who made the Wii".
I''m not surprised that Steep got cancelled. I wanted to get it, thought it would be a nice game (not a stellar one, granted, but fun nonetheless), but it seems that Ubisoft still think that the Switch is only good for Rayman and smaller productions. Like what most other big publishers (EA, Activision, to name two) seem to think as well.
What the Switch needs, is a AAA production rated MA, that sells MILLIONS, to make companies notice. I can guarantee you that if Rockstar create a GTA collection of some sort, and that it sells by the truckload (which it would), then big companies will start noticing and MAYBE, you'll see a change of attitude.
Thing is, a lot of ROM collectors (let's call them that for the purpose of this post), are not very different than many people who pride themselves on their large CD or Vinyl collection. Or movie collection.
But the main difference (problem) old games have is that contrary to all other mediums, their format is locked in time because games are mostly restricted to a single system, each one having their own format, and many (most) of them not being manufactured anymore.
You can buy a turntable from many different manufacturers nowadays, at various price points. Even cassette tape players are still made and can be bought. An album is often available on multiple type of support, from vinyl LPs to CDs. Someone collecting music can have a collection spanning DECADES, all playable, mostly, on their current device. And if it breaks in ten years, you'll be able to buy a NEW replacement easily. Or even upgrade to a better model.
The game industry, compared to other entertainment-based industries, is stupid. Its widespread business model forces the need for exclusive platforms, and discourage making anything backward compatible (you want people to buy new games, not keep playing their old ones).
Games need to start being like music, like movies. Especially since we're more and more reliant on digital downloads now. Digital downloads restricted to a single system that's going to be dated and not manufactured again in, let's say, 10 to 15 years, is bad. THIS, is what essentially pushes people to download ROMs of old games. The game industry is litterally asking people to keep all of their past consoles since forever to be able to play their old games. This is insane. You don't see Panasonic making Blu-Ray players that can't play DVDs and ask people to just keep their other player. You don't see Apple restricting acces to the music and movies you paid for to the device you bought them on, asking you to rebuy everything when you upgrade your phone or tablet.
It's time the game industry grow up, and start being content producers first and foremost, and find ways to make games like music and movies. Buying a VC game on the Wii shouldln't mean having to rebuy the same ROM to play it on a new "emulator" on the WiiU or any other platform. You bought the ROM, they should let you play it on the device you currently have. Brand restriction could still play a role (Nintendo stuff playable on Nintendo platforms), but at least, this would vastly reduce the number of people going to these ROM sites to enjoy games they usually already paid for in the past.
As someone who play myself with these type of creation tools on a regular basis, it's cool that this opens the gate to smaller talented developpers, but like others mentionned before, this may mean a LOT of shovelware and other bad games done quickly by people who think they can create the new retro sensation or casual hit. Not everyone is able to create a Shovel Knight.
People who aren't able to critic themselves seriously (it's hard to be truly objective about your own work, it usually takes a lot of experience to be able to do so), should be cautious. You need the basic decency to know if your game is actually quality material, and if you're unable to do that, ask others before publishing, and require they be honest about it. No, your mother's or very good friend's opinion doesn't matter.
You know, there's a reason why I haven't published anything yet. lol!
I think most companies like Nintendo fail to understand a clear and very simple principle: Preventing people access to roms isn't going to solve anything. But making people not having to resort to these sites will.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why old games that aren't tied to a licence of some sort aren't available to play on modern devices. Just imagine a world where all movies and music bought on a device would need that specific model of device to be played and wouldn't play on anything else. This would be insane. And no one would support such a model. But somehow, gamers seem to STILL consider this as "normal" somehow.
There is no reason why PS1 games from Sony aren't playable (digital or disc) on modern consoles like the PS4. Same with all NES, SNES, N64 and GC games, at least on the digital front, on the Switch or other Nintendo platforms. And make these a PERMANENT PURCHASE as well. No one who bought a VC game on their Wii should have to buy it again on their Wii U or other console, if using the same account. I don't have to rebuy my music and movies again when I change my phone or tablet.
So, in a nutshell, make old games more like music and movies. Treat them like CONTENT, sold for a fair price, that people can keep and play again in the future, whatever the current device you're selling right now. THIS, right there, would kill A LOT of piracy, as people wouldn't have a need to resort to ROM sites in most cases.
Look at PC. While there is still piracy, many people, including myself, see no reason to pirate anything because most of what we want is readily available to buy for a fair price. If not on Steam, it's on GoG or other legal sites. There are games I bought many YEARS ago that I can still play today. Games from GoG I bought again for cheap, that were released DECADES ago. Playable today.
Cut the need for people to go to ROM sites, and you'll solve a good chunk of your piracy problem right there. Just shutting down sites and not offering any valid alternative won't do anything impactful, I'm afraid.
Looks more like an interactive novel to me, although, I'm still slightly curious (barely) because I like the art style.
This trailer, right now, make it looks like some animations made from cut-scenes material with zero gameplay shown. Is it because the actual "game" part is still not in a state it can be shown? I understand this seems to be just a reveal, but still.... It lacks substance right now, and there's not a lot in there to create any actual kind of hype whatsoever for the game... I mean, just knowing a game is being made without any indication of what it'll be really like doesn't make me want it. Like I said, I find the art style interesting, but that's not near enough to warrant any serious interest from my part....
Looks interesting, but more as in "maybe when I'll have nothing else to play" kind of "interesting". I usually love these kind of games, and I really liked Oceanhorn for what it was, but this looks a bit generic to me. I get the fact that the dev team was more than probably inspired by the Zelda series (as it was the case with Oceanhorn), but it kind of lacks some soul, as some others said before. Although, we might be mistaken, as a trailer is sometimes not a proper thing to base our judgment on.
Although, usually, the job of a trailer is to create some hype for a product (game, movie), and so, you try to put your best into it. So either the game might not be that special, or those who made the trailer did a poor job of selling the game.
I'll put it on my wishlist so I don't forget about it, but this is definitely something I'd like to see a review of before committing in any way.
I had a lot of fun with the original on the Wii back then. If a new game would be released for the Switch, or even a remake of the original or its sequel, I'd be very happy.
Played it on a portable console some tima ago already. Very good game, but since this is story-based, there's not that much reason for me to play it again right now, I don't see a lot of replay value for these type of games (even if they're great). So no double dipping for me either on that one.
But I'll recommend it to anyone who haven't played it. Provided the price is right (and not, like mostly all other Switch non-exclusive titles, a lot cheaper elsewhere, feeling you're getting a bad deal by buying it on the Switch).
This looks like it's going to be around $50 in Canada (+ sales tax), which is a bit high for this, especially since it'll more than probably require a download, thus some sd card space. These are very fun games though, but I still have trouble paying near what used to be the full retail price for most games a couple of years ago. Our dollar went down, so everything went up in price, but no one's earning more money... :/
Looks like fun. But not $25 fun (like it is now in Canada). It's $22 on Steam. Again, this make it look like you're not getting a good deal by buying it on Switch. Granted, it's only a $3 difference, but still, having both a PC and a Switch, this, AGAIN, makes it hard for me to justify spending money on Switch games.
Although, for a change, it is friggin' $27 on the PS4, which makes the Switch not the worst platform out there in terms of game pricing.
The crashes and the extremely long loading times moved this game into the "wait for a patch/sale" bin for me. Sad, because I wanted to spend my money on this to show that charging a flat fee instead of continuous microtransactions is the right thing to do on a console (leave the f2p or freemium cr4p on mobiles please, I didn't bought a Switch for that).
The problem with the videogame industry since its inception, is that contrary to books, movies and music, games were designed as products to make money out of, first and foremost. Books, movies and music are essentially created by a creator who wants to express its creativity. I won't dispute that there were game creators out there falling into this category as well, but most of what was available to consumers in the early days came from programmers hired by a company to create games, sometimes not even being credited for them. Games were considered a simple product, a toy, like any other. They weren't designed as something that needed to be "preserved". Technology was, and is still, proprietary, despite gaming having grown up to be now a medium almost as important (if not as important) as movies, music and books.
Music, books and movies always were about the content in itself, mostly irrelevant of the medium it was put on. If music was created as a product, like games were (and still are), we wouldn't be able to play or music on devices it was not licensed to be played on. Imagine! You buy an LP that was made to play only on Pioneer turntables and not anything else. And even if some services tried to sell music with DRM at some point (cough cough Apple cough cough), many if not most modern platforms have reverted to files you can share across devices without any problem.
I'm not going to argue for or against emulation. But while piracy IS a problem, and preserving gaming history is another, the MAIN problem with gaming is that it is still viewed as a proprietary product that should be locked to specific devices that are themselves relevant only for a short period of time. The old argument of "go buy an old console and play your old game on it" is completely bonkers. This argument would be laughed at everywhere EXCEPT in the gaming world, where most gamers seem to find this completely normal. IT IS NOT. Imagine if whatever music you buy on your iPhone (or any other mobile) would be eternally stuck to that particular model of mobile. How "just keep your old mobile to play that piece of music, you stupid you" sounds? Is having to keep your old mobiles forever to play the music you bought on them sounds "normal"?
Gaming need, at some point, to free itself from being "just another product sold for money". There is NO reason why I cannot play old games without an old console gathering dust in the house. This is backwards. I didn't bought the game for its cart or disc. I bought it for what these contained. Game code. The same I didn't bought CDs for the medium, I bought it for their contents. I'm not buying a Switch game because of Nintendo. I'm buying it because of the game itself. The platform is a vessel. It's a turntable. It's a disc-based movie player.
For gaming to evolve, it doesn't need better hardware. It actually NEEDS to be separated from hardware. I understand this would require console makers to completely change their business model. But if we want to get rid of illegal emulation and rom websites, that's the ONLY way to do it. Eliminate the need for people to resort to them, and you'll eliminate them.
And right now, that's not what most console makers are doing.
Will buy this. I don't want f2p shenanigans on Switch, I prefer supporting a "pay once, play forever" scheme. Otherwise, to me, that defeats the purpose of buying a Switch if I could play the same thing on another device I have. Buying a dedicated game console, to me, is NOT to get the same f2p nag screens and constant "buy this" icons and stupid artificial "waiting times" made to sell you stufg constantly... I'm all ok to charge a flat fee for a full complete version on the Switch. Will buy.
Come on, people. Get real. This is the Switch we're talking about. This is the platform publishers see as a way to port old games and sell them for full retail price, compared to half of that everywhere else. I'm pretty sure this will get released at $80 over here in Canada, or at least $50 minimum. Doom is still selling full retail price even if sold for half everywhere else. Same for Skyrim. Most older games are re-released on Switch at their original retail price, or close enough.
I do love my Switch, but it's the current console on which it cost the most to play games right now. Everything is priced higher than on competing platforms. And when sales happen, we only gets prices about on par with the REGULAR price on other platforms.
Don't hope for this to be released for $20 or $30. It's not going to be under $40us/$50cdn... we all know that.
A Metal Gear Solid collection would be interesting. Like, 1 to 5. Maybe split into two collections because, duh, may be too much for a single one.
Or A Borderlands collections. Like, not just the handsome collection that was released some time ago, but a full collection comprised of 1, 2 and pre-sequel, in time before Borderlands 3 comes out....
There are litterally TONS of game properties that could be awesome on the Switch.
Regarding the whole F2P issue... Yes, people are in control of their spending, but I think many fail to understand why people are complaining. It's not about the money it itself, as most people interested in the game would be ok with paying $10 to get the game.
The problem is that most F2P game mechanics are usually tweaked to hamper game progress at some point to incite players to spend money. Sure, a game can be "fair" up to a point by giving you some in-game currency on a regular basis, but at some point, you'll feel like your progress is slowed down not because you're not good enough at the game, but simply because you're not paying. Games then become an artificially imposed grind-fest that has no other reason to exist than to incite you to pay. The financial logic behind it is fine, as in, how could developpers get money otherwise, right? But then, this model IMPLIES putting artificial limitations in the game to steer you towards paying transactions.
So, a traditionnal, pay-once-play-forever game doesn't have to include slowing-down gimmicks, or other aspects to nake you pay again and again and again to "fix" artificially bad game mechanics that would otherwise be absent from the game.
If that was "free to start" with a simple "unlock the full game for 10$", or if microtransactions would only be for cosmetic items not affecting the gameplay, then I guess I would be totally fine with it.
But to me, being constantly reminded by a game that I should pay real-world money for progressing in a manner I would describe as "normal", is a complete turn off. I play games to escape reality. Not to be reminded at ever turn that I should part with my cash. To me, this sounds like getting a music album for free, but only having access to a low-quality recording, with a notification asking that I pay to get access to the "normal" quality playback. Every time I play the tracks. I know, that example may be exagerrated, but it is still what F2P in general feels like to me.
I would have probably bought it at some point. Looks like a cool game. And at around 10$, it would've been good value, I think. But making it F2P kind of make me loose interest in this instantly.
I really want to get this game on Switch. But even on sale, it's like $40 in Canada. I could've bought it on Steam recently for about $20. The eShop "sale" price is almost like the full price of the PC version. lol!
I understand the Switch release of the game is more recent than on PC, but really, these type of things are whats preventing me from buying more games on Switch, as I ALWAYS feel like that, even when on sale, I'm not getting a good deal. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more (as the portable aspect is a plus to me), but not that much.
The Switch, to me, is right now the current platform where the value for your dollar (what you get per dollar) is the lowest of all, when comparing the same games on all other platforms.
I still love my Switch. But man, this "Nintendo tax" makes it hard to love it as much as I'd like to.
Quite frankly, I'm a bit sick of all the industry mentality about Switch owners not being interested in games that are larger in scope than small & colourful indie productions, cartoon platformers and kart racers. SEGA's not alone in there. Practically all the big publishers, except maybe 2K and Nintendo themselves, seem to view the Switch as a console only good for small productions. EA isn't publishing anything serious on the Switch, Ubisoft isn't either...
It's like they all consider the PS4 and XB1 as "adult" consoles, and the Switch a console for kids.
The Switch, when talking about third parties, is almost like what the Vita was. They're not considering it anything else than a portable console with low capabilities compared to other platforms. They feel it's not a "legitimate" channel for their full-fledge mature games. So either they just don't care, or they appoint inexperienced branches of their studios to work on those, like it's an aftertought.
At least, there are good indies on it, but major, AAA releases (that interest me) are few and far between.... What the hell SEGA? Ubisoft? EA? Activision? (And no, Crash Bandicoot isn't a major AAA release). Anyone?
The problem I see here, might largely depends on what you consider your Nintendo Switch to be. This console is essentially, an ARM-based tablet with a tegra chipset from Nvidia, not dissimilar to those Nvidia Shield devices. I personnaly consider it as a portable console, with a docking station for TV-out. And considering it like this makes a lot of things people would find unnaceptable in a home console, forgivable.
Think about it. A portable console that can run similar games than those you can find on other home consoles. With compromises of course, but still... it's PORTABLE! I remember a time when anything portable was an obvious low-tech port of a better game, sometimes a completely different game. Just thinking that I can now play the same thing on the go kind of put everything in perspective. At least for me.
I've been playing Crash since its release on the Switch, and really, I can't help but think that these obsessive pixel-peepers are blowing everything out of proportions. 480p is not bad on such a small screen, especially with all the graphical filters in place. I'm not holding my Switch at two inches from my face. It's looking fine. If someone wouldn't have mentionnned it was 480p, I'd never know.
Personnaly, I'm not basing my game-purchasing decisions on game resolution, presence or absence of shadows, quantity of in-game foliage, reflections, level geometry, or if a character has simulated fur instead of simple textures.
Is it fun? That's what matters to me.
To me, I see this as playing Crash Bandicoot trilogy on the go, on a portable console. No other consoles can offer me this right now.
Now, I admit that if you use your Switch primarily as a home console, it's not the best version out there, graphically speaking. If you have another console, get it for that one instead. But still, the game, aside from these differences, is the same.
I played it on PC a year or two ago, when I got it in a sale for less than $15.... I would gladly rebuy and replay again on Switch if it wasn't 25 friggin' bucks where I live.... Oh well.... in my wishlist... will wait for a "sale" to get it at "normal" price.... (thanks to bad currency and the "Nintendo tax")...
It's funny that this sparked a discussion on physical vs. digital. I personnaly like both for different reasons, but for a platform like the Switch, I still prefer physical. I sometimes buy digital if a game isn't available in physical format, or if they're way cheaper than physical, but this practically NEVER happens on Nintendo platforms.
On PC, it's different. While I agree that's it's almost impossible to get physical releases on PC, most that do are simply keys to unlock the digital version anyways. But on PC, prices are much, much lower than on consoles, and I really don't mind as many games eventually end up in the "impulse buy" category when they get on sale. On Switch, even on sale, most games still aren't impulse buy, as they're still pricey.
But nevertheless, even if I'm more from the "less is more" school of design, this packaging for Crash trilogy is simply pathetic.
Ok. As someone already having Mario Kart 8, and still getting the occasional fun session from it, is there something that makes this new kart racer something special enough to warrant a purchase? I mean, kart racers have been around since a long while already, in many forms on many consoles, so unless it brings something truly new and interesting to the table, I don'T see what's special about it. I admit I haven't done my research on this title. Name and screenshots I've seen so far weren't really appealing to me, so maybe I missed something?
Octopath looks great, but living in Canada, at $80+ tax, it ends up bordering on $100, and it's very hard for me to justify such a price. Even in exchange of many hours of gameplay.
Might get tempted to get Captain Toad though. Or Mega Man X Legacy collection.
So... basically, the gaming world of the future would be a "rental-like" experience with people paying to "rent games" for a period of time, up until the provider removes the game from the service (to allocate resources to more recent, more profitable, titles).
Seriously, if gaming go down this road, I can predict a HUGE movement towards retro-gaming, much, much bigger than what we're seeing now.
The ONLY way I would see something like that work, is with a "Netflix-like" model, where you can access a BIG library of games for a monthly flat fee so low that it's a non-issue for most. Meaning, around $15 without any engagement.
Otherwise... my only reaction is... "LOL, good luck with that!". While basic access to the net is growing worldwide, ISPs are more and more putting caps, and pushing a lot against net neutrality. I mean, $60 a month for 15mbps with a 50G cap isn't going to cut it, you know...
I think those predicting a streaming future aren't realizing that things are not going to improve much, if at all, in the upcoming years.
I play mostly portable. Like maybe 90% and 10% docked. Docked play happens mostly on the weekends. I use my Switch mostly in the train everyday on the ride to/from work.
As much as I want to play this game, I can't see myself spending $80 + sales tax (so $91 where I live) for this. Especially when I can buy it on PC right now for 32$ no taxes. And here lies my main problem with the Switch (a console I love very much, BTW): it's the most expensive console out there, all things considered. Not only it's the most expensive console at $400 in Canada (compared to regular XBO anb PS4) but it's also a console asking us to pay more for mostly all our games compared to those same games on other platforms.
Wolfenstein is another example of this. I'll probably get it eventually, but I'm waiting for a price drop, if it ever happens (Doom is still $80 up here - can get for $20 on Steam right now).
And... Inside for $25, really? I paid about 10 for it about a year ago....
I love my Switch, but God, these game prices makes it a real challenge.
@Kimyonaakuma The possibilities he probably alludes to, are all about finding how much each decision will affect their profits down the line.
All purchases done through Fortnite on the PS4 gets Sony a % of the sale, as with anything else on PSN. This means BIG MONEY for them, and they don't want people using in-game purchases made on other consoles to benefit from those on PS4. This is about money, nothing else.
If Sony feel that all the bad press might affect their image enough, and make a lot of people move away to other platforms in the future (thus affecting their bottom line), they'll probably flip the software switch allowing cross-platform play.
They're only evaluating what's more profitable for THEM. They don't care about the players.
@sword_9mm Well, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it on the Switch, but it's just, in my opinion, not a good move spending time, money and energy bringing these type of games to the Switch, as it doesn't add any value to the console, since practically everyone has a mobile phone they can play these type of games on. It's like spending money on something that doesn't really help sell your console. Why spend money to play something I can already play?
Granted, some who don't have access to a mobile phone or tablet (young kids???) would then be able to play this game, but given this a freemium title made in the hopes of making people spend real-world money on digital resources, I think this is aimed more at people having disposable income, which is roughly the same market as those already having a mobile phone anyways... so, I still fail to see the relevancy.
Like I said, no harm in getting it on the Switch. But I'd prefer to see the resources put into such a game on Switch to be allocated somewhere else where it will make the platform shine, and be more attractive. Not like it isn't, but you know what I mean.
... where it belongs. Sorry folks, but the reason I bought a switch was exactly to play other things on the go than the usual mobile-type freemium games.
To me, this is the same as any other mobile port. The reason a lot of people criticize these, is because these titles are mostly all designed with a specific earning model that forces the insertion of artificial play mechanics and game aspects that have the sole consideration of making you spend money again and again and again. While you can, technically not pay anything, these games are usually designed to slow your progress for the sole purpose of selling you stuff that'll accelerate it. And this being built directly in the game mechanics, it always feel, to me anyways, like bad game design that completely disconnects me from the game's universe.
I know many people play these, especially on mobile platforms, but like I said, one of the main reason the Switch is appealing, is that it's a dedicated console that should host a plethora of more traditionnal gaming options. It's for those wanting to play "real games" and not "time wasters good for when you have a 5-minute wait before your appointment".
The Switch, for me, is more or less an evolution of what the Vita was, and like it, it needs to differentiates itself from the mobile platforms, otherwise, there's not much reasons to spend $450 to get one for me.
If anyone wants to port mobile games to the Switch, at least, make them "deluxe" editions with additionnal content, and actually sell them at a fixed price. To me, there's no point otherwise.
@Tokiwa The difference with the PC platform, is that it's an open system, and most distributing platforms give at least a way for users to actually back up their games if they wish, and some platforms like GOG even sell DRM-free games, meaning there is no fear of them not working anymore in the future if the store goes under. I don't have a problem with digital-only on PC, provided I can get decently priced titles (and I can).
The problem with a digital-only console platform, is that it is 100% closed, and you're 100% at the mercy of the platform owner regarding your game library. If they shut down their store infrastructure in the future to "force you" to move on to their newest console, then all the games not stored locally will just vanish from your library. And even those stored locally won't have any guarantee of working for an indefinite amount of time.
Anyone interested in preserving gaming history in some way must fear the advent of a digital-only world, as this will render some game preservation completely impossible.
Sure, digital is convenient, but in the end, on closed platforms, most advantages are for game companies, not the end user.
I don't see that happenning so soon for a lot of various reasons.
First, this would mean alienating a LARGE user base. Many people out there still don't have a quality internet connection (or an affordable one). Also, Internet Service Providers are getting back with implementing data caps nowadays, and with the death of net neutrality in the U.S., this could also mean paying more for getting your gaming services and downloads running decently.
In Canada, most large ISP starting plans are expensive, and come with ridiculously limited data caps (like 30GB per month). Now, given that AAA games are getting very large in size nowadays, and are priced at $80, I don't see a lot of people up here paying that much AND having to spend most of their monthly bandwidth on ONE game.
I think those saying it'll happen in 4 years are smoking really, really good stuff. Or living on another planet. Most console platforms won't go down that road because that'll mean preventing a lot of customers from buying their games.
We're really not there yet. Although I see that in the future. But we're still way, way off. For that to happen, a good Internet connection will need to be seen as commonplace as getting electricity to your house. There are tons of place in the world where internet connections are still bad, or sometimes not even available. I know places less than 30min from big cities that have to rely on slow satellite connections because no ISP want to service these areas.
I find that this whole story only show how full of BS some pirates are. While I can understand the idea of being able to do what you want with the electronics you bought, and I can, in a way, be ok with homebrew software, most people hack their consoles to run piated games on them, and that's not ok.
And the fact that a tool to enable piracy on a console contains anti-piracy measures is irony to the Nth degree... Feeling the need to protect work made to circumvent the protection to other's work.... I mean... Wow.
Putting anti-piracy measures to protect your work.... because you feel you've put hard wort into it, is right. But when said work as only one purpose: to circumvent protection put in place by others for the same reasons.... I mean.... wow... That's what I call being, profoundly, and stunningly, full of feces.
Mostly buying all my games new, this isn't an issue for me, and given how most stores selling second-hand games do so for almost the same price as a new one anyways , well, I won't shed a tear for them..
I agree though, that this could prove slightly problematic for person-to-person sales on auction sites. Sure, you can complain and ask for refund of a non-working item, but still... it only adds more risks to these transactions.
But learning this made me curious. If Nintendo can actually track down individual carts (as long as the console is online), could this mean they can detect on how many consoles a single cart has been played? This kind of opens up all sort of various analytic tools for them. Knowing how many consoles some carts are played on might give some insight on how second had sales are really affecting some titles. Probably far from being 100% accurate data (because there are other scenarios to explain multiple plays on different consoles), but at least, that would be a general indication.
@Ogbert I completely understand that. I'm personnaly a bit fed up with all that "lazy devs" or "devs spewing out bs again" type of comments. Many people don't know all the intricacies involved in developping a game, let alone running a profitable company. It may have been possible that the engine the guy speaks about, while now available on Switch, wasn't available during the planning stages of development. Also, people think that if an engine is available on a platform, it means "instant port", which is far (very far) from the truth. A lot of work still need to be done. And work means employees to pay, and all the costs associated with running a business.
I fail to see what is surprising about this. Sony's currently leading the gaming game this generation, and whoever takes the lead by a lage margin in any field whatsoever usually end up being a big bully. When you're the top dog, you're already on top, so being nice is not going to win a lot more people over.
Those who usually have the best promos and fight for "the players" are usually the underdogs. Because THEY are the ones trying to win people over.
Just look at Microsoft. It was in a much better shape over the last generation. But then again, they got arrogant towards the players when they unveilled their XB1 (pitching it more as a TV add-on, and with all those sharing restrictions), that it backfired in its face, and Sony took the opportunity to scoop all the gamers Microsoft abandonned at the gate.
Granted, this cross-platform issue alone may not be big enough to change the balance of power for this generation, but if Sony continue to act like this, and be this big arrogant bully, the console market might be in a different place when the next generation comes.
I bought Limbo multiple times on various consoles and PC, and got Inside on PC last year, and both are awesome games. I might be tempted to buy them both again on the Switch, provided the price is right, but I'm not setting myself any expectations regarding price, as most ports of older games to the Switch end up getting priced like a new release, despite the games being already old, and usually discounted on other platforms... which make a purchase frustating. Unless it's a special edition with more content.
Most f2p games are usually built with mechanics to incite players to spend money. Of course, you're not forced to do so. But while some went the "cosmetic items only" route, many are still designing their game around an artificially imposed limitation that requires either the player to wait, or pay. Which in the end, make players addicted to a game pay much, much more than what a full game with a one-time purchase would cost.
Also, reviews. Videos. Twitch. YouTube. All of these can give you a pretty good idea if a game is for you or not. It practically never happenned in the last 20 years or so that I paid for a game and felt I wasted my money. If people aren't using all these resources, well, that's their problem. Demos and "trying for free before you pay something" isn't as strong an argument as it once was.
Also, for many, like me, even if paying is entirely optional, putting the options in your face while playing a game creates a disconnect with the game world you're immersed in. It brings the economics of the real world into a game you're playing to escape said real world. To me, this affects how I perceive a game, and my enjoyment of it. It feels like ads on TVs, when they interupt a tense scene in a movie or series. We understand they need to make money, but it also, at the same time, affect the experience.
I'd prefer they release a new, proper, Shadowgun game with a single-player campaign, instead of another "me-too" multiplayer fragfest. One you can also buy for a flat fee. I'd pay for that.
I tried the game, but it only reinforced my feeling towards "freemium" games or "free to start" as Nintendo like to call them. Whatever.
One of the reason a person like me invested in a Nintendo Switch, is to have a portable device that can play more "traditionnal", console-grade games on the go. If I wanted to play those freemium titles, I'd be already playing them on the devices I already own, no need to buy another device.
I play games to escape the mundane reality, I don't want games to have gimmicks reminding me all too often that I can pay with real-world money to sidestep artificial barriers put in place for no other reason than to get my money.
Game seemed ok for that type of experience though. But I played maybe about an hour of it, and it was sufficient for me to lose interest and wish for a more traditionnal Pokémon game like the old ones.
@Euler , you're very generous with $500. I bought a Switch + Zelda last holidays, and with sales taxes, it was $550. And that is without a good case for it, which I got for an additionnal $23, bringing the total to $573.
So paying that amount of money for a system that does nothing but play games, compared to the WiiU which, at $350 had a game included and had, like you said, YouTube, Netflix and all, is asking quite a lot of non-gamers. And then add to that the $100 they're asking for the Labo variety kit...
I think it's more like a project someone REALLY wanted to do for the Switch, or something that was done to show the shareholders that they're doing something to attract the non-gaming crowd to the platform... Because I can't logically think that someone at Nintendo thought of this as something that would sell systems. And even less that someone at Nintendo's marketing never raised a red flag over this.
But then again, the sales pitch is easy. "Look at it this way. We're selling cardboard kits... for around $100 a piece!!!" It probably was very profitable, even with the not so high sales.
Comments 466
Re: Fishing Game From Wii Generation Resurfaces On The Nintendo Switch
@OorWullie
I don't like this either. I mean, I'm not saying these games shouldn't exist. I know some people who love these type fishing games. But I'm kind of worried about third party support. I would understand a rationale based on hardware and costs of porting as the Switch is closer in performance to consoles from the previous generation than the PS4 and XB1, but so far, what thrid parties are saying is that they base their decision purely on what they think Switch gamers want. And all they think they want, is the same thing they somehow wanted on the old Wii. Mario, Zelda, with tons of casual distractions and shovelware.
Nope. Switch owners don't want what sells milliopns on the other systems. They are very different gamers. Fishing, party minigames, casual stuff, catz, dogz, horse stables, and cheap kart racers wannabe. Yep, that's all these gamers want.
Re: THQ Nordic Acquires TimeSplitters Series, Suggests A New Game Is On The Way
I'd be very pleased to see a new iteration of the franchise, but if they really want to start capitalizing on their acquisition, they could simply release a compilation of the first three games (on all platforms), and this would be one of the very few game out there I'd be willing to buy on day one (provided they price it right, of course).
Re: Ball-Juggling Platformer HackyZack Bounces Onto Switch Next Week
Looks interesting, although I feel like it lacks a slight coat of polish. And as someone who love reto-style games, I'd never thought I'd say this but I'm kind of a bit fed up with the 8-bit retro aesthetic. I mean, it's nice and all, but now that everyone and their dog are doing it, the art direction seems a lot more important to me now. Art style need to ne "more" than just 8-bit type graphics. It needs... I don't know. Maybe more "personnality" for lack of a better term.
And I hope things aren't going to be that small when playing in portable mode, otherwise, I have bad news for my eyesight (yes, I'm getting old. lol!)
Re: Super Monkey Ball Was A Budget Project Transformed Into A Quality Game
This is a perfect example of a game being appealing to both casual players and more traditionnal gamers. Simple game mechanics, cheerful atmosphere, some game modes can be played party-style, main campaign with ramping difficulty, etc...
This is indeed a proof that simple ideas can lead to awesome games, and be comparable to big budget releases.
Come on SEGA. Even the Vita got a new Monkeyball game... I'd even settle for a compilation of the first two games... provided you don't tackle in forced motion controls... (just make them optional if you absolutely want to push them in).
Re: My Little Riding Champion Is Galloping Towards A Release On Nintendo Switch
While I understand that some people may want this type of game, I kind of also agree that this isn't what the Switch needs right now. Let me explain.
The problem with this, is that there isn't, right now, a lot of big productions (aside from the usual Zelda, MK and al.) to draw and keep traditionnal gamers on the Switch platform. And Nintendo still has that image attached to them since the Wii days, of a platform filled with shovelware that, apparently, somehow, manage to sell (otherwise, no one would make such shovelware).
A game like this, I wouldn't have a problem with on an already well-established platform. I'm not speaking about units solds. I'm speaking about platforms that are already established as providing a good library od big productions aimed at traditionnal gamers.
A game like this, on the Swtich, right now, might simply continue to propagate the idea that the Switch is a more "casual" platform (like its predecessors), and bring more water to the mill feeding the bad arguments of many developpers everywhere. How many times have you heard a developper say that their game wouldn't be a right "fit" for the Switch, but good for evey other platform out there? We're not talking about hardware here. We're talking about developpers still thinking that all Nintendo Switch owners care about is Mario, Zelda, and stupid Carnival Games compilations.
Like I said, I'm not dimissing the fact that some people might enjoy this game. But these type of games are, right now, sending a wrong signal to all other developpers out there by supporting the rationale that these are the type of games that Switch owners actually want.
I can clearly see my daughter wanting such a game. I don't have anything against said game.
But the more I see what publishers and developpers are putting out on the Switch, the more I estimate that we're really close to Ubisoft resurecting Dogz and Catz games and seeing the system being flooded with Hot Wheels and My Little Pony cheap cash-ins and generic party games compilations and cheap kart racers by the dozens.... You know, the Wii days...
I hope the future proves me wrong.
Re: Nintendo Didn’t Want Yakuza Series, According To Sega’s Toshihiro Nagoshi
"Maybe the public is not expecting that kind of game on Switch."
Of course it doesn't expect that kind of games. They only expect, Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, and tons of shovelware.
God I'm sick of those stupid rationales...
Re: Review: State of Mind (Switch)
Again, another game on the Switch that gives you the nice feeling of being ripped off because it's, again, cheaper practically everywhere else. This feeling prevents me from buying so many games on the Switch because I always feel like I'm getting a very bad deal buying it on that platform. Sometimes even when on sale, it's still pricier than on competing platforms.
Anyways...
The game looks fabulous, I love the art style, but given it seems pretty average otherwise, this has been moved to my "when under $10" bin.
Re: HyperX Announces First Gaming microSD Cards For North America, Designed For Switch
This is the classic story of a company exploiting the masses that don't know any better. Just rebrand something you already produce, implying that it's "better" because it's made expressly for a certain use (it's not), jack up the price because of that "perceived" betterness, and then grab the profits....
If you actually pay more for such a thing, then you know, maybe you deserve to pay more....
Re: Ubisoft Has Halted Development Of Steep On Nintendo Switch
@electrolite77
Maybe you're right. Maybe Nintendo itself doesn't want to get rid of that image. But I still feel that it's a mistake. It wouldn't be if the Switch was a pure home-based system, but it being a portable as well, and pretty much the only one seriously considered for gamers right now (3DS is on its last legs and Vita is dead since awhile), it can't survive on its usual exclusives alone. Well, it can, but there comes a point where people want to play other AAA productions, and the fact is that launhing one every 4 to 6 months isn't going to cut it for many. Some indies are great too (and thank god for them otherwise the system would be a wasteland), but you can't live on these alone (ask the Vita about it).
And with the ton of shovelware about to hit the platform in the future, I'm truly wondering where the Switch is heading... really...
Re: Ubisoft Has Halted Development Of Steep On Nintendo Switch
@EightBitMan
I don't think the problem is that the hardware is inferior. I mean, it is, compared to PS4 and XB1, but while it is the least powerful current-gen home platform, it is, at the same time, the most powerful portable game platform.
I think that the problem is more related to Nintendo having cornered itself into a family-friendly type of market share since the Wii days, an image that it has a lot of troubles to get rid of. I mean, when companies like 2K Games think people are excited for games like "Carnival Games", the problem is CLEARLY not one of hardware specs, but of perception. Companies are still seeing the Switch as "the new product from those guys who made the Wii".
I''m not surprised that Steep got cancelled. I wanted to get it, thought it would be a nice game (not a stellar one, granted, but fun nonetheless), but it seems that Ubisoft still think that the Switch is only good for Rayman and smaller productions. Like what most other big publishers (EA, Activision, to name two) seem to think as well.
What the Switch needs, is a AAA production rated MA, that sells MILLIONS, to make companies notice. I can guarantee you that if Rockstar create a GTA collection of some sort, and that it sells by the truckload (which it would), then big companies will start noticing and MAYBE, you'll see a change of attitude.
But right now, I'm not seeing that happening.
Re: Nintendo's Recent Legal Action Against ROM-Sharing Sites Scares Major Player Into Removing Downloads
Thing is, a lot of ROM collectors (let's call them that for the purpose of this post), are not very different than many people who pride themselves on their large CD or Vinyl collection. Or movie collection.
But the main difference (problem) old games have is that contrary to all other mediums, their format is locked in time because games are mostly restricted to a single system, each one having their own format, and many (most) of them not being manufactured anymore.
You can buy a turntable from many different manufacturers nowadays, at various price points. Even cassette tape players are still made and can be bought. An album is often available on multiple type of support, from vinyl LPs to CDs. Someone collecting music can have a collection spanning DECADES, all playable, mostly, on their current device. And if it breaks in ten years, you'll be able to buy a NEW replacement easily. Or even upgrade to a better model.
The game industry, compared to other entertainment-based industries, is stupid. Its widespread business model forces the need for exclusive platforms, and discourage making anything backward compatible (you want people to buy new games, not keep playing their old ones).
Games need to start being like music, like movies. Especially since we're more and more reliant on digital downloads now. Digital downloads restricted to a single system that's going to be dated and not manufactured again in, let's say, 10 to 15 years, is bad. THIS, is what essentially pushes people to download ROMs of old games. The game industry is litterally asking people to keep all of their past consoles since forever to be able to play their old games. This is insane. You don't see Panasonic making Blu-Ray players that can't play DVDs and ask people to just keep their other player. You don't see Apple restricting acces to the music and movies you paid for to the device you bought them on, asking you to rebuy everything when you upgrade your phone or tablet.
It's time the game industry grow up, and start being content producers first and foremost, and find ways to make games like music and movies. Buying a VC game on the Wii shouldln't mean having to rebuy the same ROM to play it on a new "emulator" on the WiiU or any other platform. You bought the ROM, they should let you play it on the device you currently have. Brand restriction could still play a role (Nintendo stuff playable on Nintendo platforms), but at least, this would vastly reduce the number of people going to these ROM sites to enjoy games they usually already paid for in the past.
Re: Over 1,000 Developers Want To Bring Games To Switch Using GameMaker Studio 2 Engine
As someone who play myself with these type of creation tools on a regular basis, it's cool that this opens the gate to smaller talented developpers, but like others mentionned before, this may mean a LOT of shovelware and other bad games done quickly by people who think they can create the new retro sensation or casual hit. Not everyone is able to create a Shovel Knight.
People who aren't able to critic themselves seriously (it's hard to be truly objective about your own work, it usually takes a lot of experience to be able to do so), should be cautious. You need the basic decency to know if your game is actually quality material, and if you're unable to do that, ask others before publishing, and require they be honest about it. No, your mother's or very good friend's opinion doesn't matter.
You know, there's a reason why I haven't published anything yet. lol!
Re: Bandai Namco Wants To Release More Of Its Games On The Nintendo Switch
Riiiiiiiiiiidge Racer....
and Tekken.
and Soul Calibur.
Either new games or ports of recent ones, or remasters of old ones... Collections of remastered early games in the series would be awesome.
Re: Feature: What Does Nintendo's Shutdown Of ROM-Sharing Sites Mean For Video Game Preservation?
I think most companies like Nintendo fail to understand a clear and very simple principle: Preventing people access to roms isn't going to solve anything. But making people not having to resort to these sites will.
There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why old games that aren't tied to a licence of some sort aren't available to play on modern devices. Just imagine a world where all movies and music bought on a device would need that specific model of device to be played and wouldn't play on anything else. This would be insane. And no one would support such a model. But somehow, gamers seem to STILL consider this as "normal" somehow.
There is no reason why PS1 games from Sony aren't playable (digital or disc) on modern consoles like the PS4. Same with all NES, SNES, N64 and GC games, at least on the digital front, on the Switch or other Nintendo platforms. And make these a PERMANENT PURCHASE as well. No one who bought a VC game on their Wii should have to buy it again on their Wii U or other console, if using the same account. I don't have to rebuy my music and movies again when I change my phone or tablet.
So, in a nutshell, make old games more like music and movies. Treat them like CONTENT, sold for a fair price, that people can keep and play again in the future, whatever the current device you're selling right now. THIS, right there, would kill A LOT of piracy, as people wouldn't have a need to resort to ROM sites in most cases.
Look at PC. While there is still piracy, many people, including myself, see no reason to pirate anything because most of what we want is readily available to buy for a fair price. If not on Steam, it's on GoG or other legal sites. There are games I bought many YEARS ago that I can still play today. Games from GoG I bought again for cheap, that were released DECADES ago. Playable today.
Cut the need for people to go to ROM sites, and you'll solve a good chunk of your piracy problem right there. Just shutting down sites and not offering any valid alternative won't do anything impactful, I'm afraid.
Re: Storm Boy: The Game Brings Single-Player Interactive Storytelling To Switch
Looks more like an interactive novel to me, although, I'm still slightly curious (barely) because I like the art style.
This trailer, right now, make it looks like some animations made from cut-scenes material with zero gameplay shown. Is it because the actual "game" part is still not in a state it can be shown? I understand this seems to be just a reveal, but still.... It lacks substance right now, and there's not a lot in there to create any actual kind of hype whatsoever for the game... I mean, just knowing a game is being made without any indication of what it'll be really like doesn't make me want it. Like I said, I find the art style interesting, but that's not near enough to warrant any serious interest from my part....
Re: Zelda-Inspired Action Adventure Sikanda Is Making Its Way To The Switch
Looks interesting, but more as in "maybe when I'll have nothing else to play" kind of "interesting". I usually love these kind of games, and I really liked Oceanhorn for what it was, but this looks a bit generic to me. I get the fact that the dev team was more than probably inspired by the Zelda series (as it was the case with Oceanhorn), but it kind of lacks some soul, as some others said before. Although, we might be mistaken, as a trailer is sometimes not a proper thing to base our judgment on.
Although, usually, the job of a trailer is to create some hype for a product (game, movie), and so, you try to put your best into it. So either the game might not be that special, or those who made the trailer did a poor job of selling the game.
I'll put it on my wishlist so I don't forget about it, but this is definitely something I'd like to see a review of before committing in any way.
Re: Nintendo Applies For Endless Ocean Trademark In Japan, Could This Wii Title Resurface From The Deep?
I had a lot of fun with the original on the Wii back then. If a new game would be released for the Switch, or even a remake of the original or its sequel, I'd be very happy.
Re: Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse Sets Course For Switch This September
Played it on a portable console some tima ago already. Very good game, but since this is story-based, there's not that much reason for me to play it again right now, I don't see a lot of replay value for these type of games (even if they're great). So no double dipping for me either on that one.
But I'll recommend it to anyone who haven't played it. Provided the price is right (and not, like mostly all other Switch non-exclusive titles, a lot cheaper elsewhere, feeling you're getting a bad deal by buying it on the Switch).
Re: Rumour: LEGO Harry Potter Collection Could Magically Appear On Nintendo Switch This November
This looks like it's going to be around $50 in Canada (+ sales tax), which is a bit high for this, especially since it'll more than probably require a download, thus some sd card space. These are very fun games though, but I still have trouble paying near what used to be the full retail price for most games a couple of years ago. Our dollar went down, so everything went up in price, but no one's earning more money... :/
Re: Bud Spencer & Terence Hill Arrive On Switch With Slaps And Beans In Tow
Looks like fun. But not $25 fun (like it is now in Canada). It's $22 on Steam. Again, this make it look like you're not getting a good deal by buying it on Switch. Granted, it's only a $3 difference, but still, having both a PC and a Switch, this, AGAIN, makes it hard for me to justify spending money on Switch games.
Although, for a change, it is friggin' $27 on the PS4, which makes the Switch not the worst platform out there in terms of game pricing.
Re: Review: Hungry Shark World (Switch eShop)
The crashes and the extremely long loading times moved this game into the "wait for a patch/sale" bin for me. Sad, because I wanted to spend my money on this to show that charging a flat fee instead of continuous microtransactions is the right thing to do on a console (leave the f2p or freemium cr4p on mobiles please, I didn't bought a Switch for that).
Re: Nintendo Shuts Down JavaScript GBA Emulator Hosted On Development Platform
The problem with the videogame industry since its inception, is that contrary to books, movies and music, games were designed as products to make money out of, first and foremost. Books, movies and music are essentially created by a creator who wants to express its creativity. I won't dispute that there were game creators out there falling into this category as well, but most of what was available to consumers in the early days came from programmers hired by a company to create games, sometimes not even being credited for them. Games were considered a simple product, a toy, like any other. They weren't designed as something that needed to be "preserved". Technology was, and is still, proprietary, despite gaming having grown up to be now a medium almost as important (if not as important) as movies, music and books.
Music, books and movies always were about the content in itself, mostly irrelevant of the medium it was put on. If music was created as a product, like games were (and still are), we wouldn't be able to play or music on devices it was not licensed to be played on. Imagine! You buy an LP that was made to play only on Pioneer turntables and not anything else. And even if some services tried to sell music with DRM at some point (cough cough Apple cough cough), many if not most modern platforms have reverted to files you can share across devices without any problem.
I'm not going to argue for or against emulation. But while piracy IS a problem, and preserving gaming history is another, the MAIN problem with gaming is that it is still viewed as a proprietary product that should be locked to specific devices that are themselves relevant only for a short period of time. The old argument of "go buy an old console and play your old game on it" is completely bonkers. This argument would be laughed at everywhere EXCEPT in the gaming world, where most gamers seem to find this completely normal. IT IS NOT. Imagine if whatever music you buy on your iPhone (or any other mobile) would be eternally stuck to that particular model of mobile. How "just keep your old mobile to play that piece of music, you stupid you" sounds? Is having to keep your old mobiles forever to play the music you bought on them sounds "normal"?
Gaming need, at some point, to free itself from being "just another product sold for money". There is NO reason why I cannot play old games without an old console gathering dust in the house. This is backwards. I didn't bought the game for its cart or disc. I bought it for what these contained. Game code. The same I didn't bought CDs for the medium, I bought it for their contents. I'm not buying a Switch game because of Nintendo. I'm buying it because of the game itself. The platform is a vessel. It's a turntable. It's a disc-based movie player.
For gaming to evolve, it doesn't need better hardware. It actually NEEDS to be separated from hardware. I understand this would require console makers to completely change their business model. But if we want to get rid of illegal emulation and rom websites, that's the ONLY way to do it. Eliminate the need for people to resort to them, and you'll eliminate them.
And right now, that's not what most console makers are doing.
Re: Out Of The Blue, Ubisoft Has Released Hungry Shark World On Switch eShop
Will buy this. I don't want f2p shenanigans on Switch, I prefer supporting a "pay once, play forever" scheme. Otherwise, to me, that defeats the purpose of buying a Switch if I could play the same thing on another device I have. Buying a dedicated game console, to me, is NOT to get the same f2p nag screens and constant "buy this" icons and stupid artificial "waiting times" made to sell you stufg constantly... I'm all ok to charge a flat fee for a full complete version on the Switch. Will buy.
Re: No Joke, South Park: The Stick Of Truth Is Heading To The Switch eShop This Year
Come on, people. Get real. This is the Switch we're talking about. This is the platform publishers see as a way to port old games and sell them for full retail price, compared to half of that everywhere else. I'm pretty sure this will get released at $80 over here in Canada, or at least $50 minimum. Doom is still selling full retail price even if sold for half everywhere else. Same for Skyrim. Most older games are re-released on Switch at their original retail price, or close enough.
I do love my Switch, but it's the current console on which it cost the most to play games right now. Everything is priced higher than on competing platforms. And when sales happen, we only gets prices about on par with the REGULAR price on other platforms.
Don't hope for this to be released for $20 or $30. It's not going to be under $40us/$50cdn... we all know that.
Re: Panic Button Says It Has "Tons" Of Switch Projects Coming Up
A Metal Gear Solid collection would be interesting. Like, 1 to 5. Maybe split into two collections because, duh, may be too much for a single one.
Or A Borderlands collections. Like, not just the handsome collection that was released some time ago, but a full collection comprised of 1, 2 and pre-sequel, in time before Borderlands 3 comes out....
There are litterally TONS of game properties that could be awesome on the Switch.
Re: GALAK-Z: Variant S Ditches Its $9.99 Price Tag And Launches On Switch For Free
Regarding the whole F2P issue... Yes, people are in control of their spending, but I think many fail to understand why people are complaining. It's not about the money it itself, as most people interested in the game would be ok with paying $10 to get the game.
The problem is that most F2P game mechanics are usually tweaked to hamper game progress at some point to incite players to spend money. Sure, a game can be "fair" up to a point by giving you some in-game currency on a regular basis, but at some point, you'll feel like your progress is slowed down not because you're not good enough at the game, but simply because you're not paying. Games then become an artificially imposed grind-fest that has no other reason to exist than to incite you to pay. The financial logic behind it is fine, as in, how could developpers get money otherwise, right? But then, this model IMPLIES putting artificial limitations in the game to steer you towards paying transactions.
So, a traditionnal, pay-once-play-forever game doesn't have to include slowing-down gimmicks, or other aspects to nake you pay again and again and again to "fix" artificially bad game mechanics that would otherwise be absent from the game.
If that was "free to start" with a simple "unlock the full game for 10$", or if microtransactions would only be for cosmetic items not affecting the gameplay, then I guess I would be totally fine with it.
But to me, being constantly reminded by a game that I should pay real-world money for progressing in a manner I would describe as "normal", is a complete turn off. I play games to escape reality. Not to be reminded at ever turn that I should part with my cash. To me, this sounds like getting a music album for free, but only having access to a low-quality recording, with a notification asking that I pay to get access to the "normal" quality playback. Every time I play the tracks. I know, that example may be exagerrated, but it is still what F2P in general feels like to me.
I would have probably bought it at some point. Looks like a cool game. And at around 10$, it would've been good value, I think. But making it F2P kind of make me loose interest in this instantly.
Oh well...
Re: Here's Your First Look At Yooka-Laylee's Demastered Nintendo 64 Mode
I really want to get this game on Switch. But even on sale, it's like $40 in Canada. I could've bought it on Steam recently for about $20. The eShop "sale" price is almost like the full price of the PC version. lol!
I understand the Switch release of the game is more recent than on PC, but really, these type of things are whats preventing me from buying more games on Switch, as I ALWAYS feel like that, even when on sale, I'm not getting a good deal. I wouldn't mind paying a bit more (as the portable aspect is a plus to me), but not that much.
The Switch, to me, is right now the current platform where the value for your dollar (what you get per dollar) is the lowest of all, when comparing the same games on all other platforms.
I still love my Switch. But man, this "Nintendo tax" makes it hard to love it as much as I'd like to.
Re: Switch Isn't The Right Platform For Yakuza, Says Series Producer
Quite frankly, I'm a bit sick of all the industry mentality about Switch owners not being interested in games that are larger in scope than small & colourful indie productions, cartoon platformers and kart racers. SEGA's not alone in there. Practically all the big publishers, except maybe 2K and Nintendo themselves, seem to view the Switch as a console only good for small productions. EA isn't publishing anything serious on the Switch, Ubisoft isn't either...
It's like they all consider the PS4 and XB1 as "adult" consoles, and the Switch a console for kids.
The Switch, when talking about third parties, is almost like what the Vita was. They're not considering it anything else than a portable console with low capabilities compared to other platforms. They feel it's not a "legitimate" channel for their full-fledge mature games. So either they just don't care, or they appoint inexperienced branches of their studios to work on those, like it's an aftertought.
At least, there are good indies on it, but major, AAA releases (that interest me) are few and far between.... What the hell SEGA? Ubisoft? EA? Activision? (And no, Crash Bandicoot isn't a major AAA release). Anyone?
Re: Video: Digital Foundry Takes A Look At Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy On Switch
The problem I see here, might largely depends on what you consider your Nintendo Switch to be. This console is essentially, an ARM-based tablet with a tegra chipset from Nvidia, not dissimilar to those Nvidia Shield devices. I personnaly consider it as a portable console, with a docking station for TV-out. And considering it like this makes a lot of things people would find unnaceptable in a home console, forgivable.
Think about it. A portable console that can run similar games than those you can find on other home consoles. With compromises of course, but still... it's PORTABLE! I remember a time when anything portable was an obvious low-tech port of a better game, sometimes a completely different game. Just thinking that I can now play the same thing on the go kind of put everything in perspective. At least for me.
I've been playing Crash since its release on the Switch, and really, I can't help but think that these obsessive pixel-peepers are blowing everything out of proportions. 480p is not bad on such a small screen, especially with all the graphical filters in place. I'm not holding my Switch at two inches from my face. It's looking fine. If someone wouldn't have mentionnned it was 480p, I'd never know.
Personnaly, I'm not basing my game-purchasing decisions on game resolution, presence or absence of shadows, quantity of in-game foliage, reflections, level geometry, or if a character has simulated fur instead of simple textures.
Is it fun? That's what matters to me.
To me, I see this as playing Crash Bandicoot trilogy on the go, on a portable console. No other consoles can offer me this right now.
Now, I admit that if you use your Switch primarily as a home console, it's not the best version out there, graphically speaking. If you have another console, get it for that one instead. But still, the game, aside from these differences, is the same.
Re: Review: Inside (Switch eShop)
I played it on PC a year or two ago, when I got it in a sale for less than $15.... I would gladly rebuy and replay again on Switch if it wasn't 25 friggin' bucks where I live.... Oh well.... in my wishlist... will wait for a "sale" to get it at "normal" price.... (thanks to bad currency and the "Nintendo tax")...
Re: Random: Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy Gets Praise For Its Minimalist Interior Box Artwork
It's funny that this sparked a discussion on physical vs. digital. I personnaly like both for different reasons, but for a platform like the Switch, I still prefer physical. I sometimes buy digital if a game isn't available in physical format, or if they're way cheaper than physical, but this practically NEVER happens on Nintendo platforms.
On PC, it's different. While I agree that's it's almost impossible to get physical releases on PC, most that do are simply keys to unlock the digital version anyways. But on PC, prices are much, much lower than on consoles, and I really don't mind as many games eventually end up in the "impulse buy" category when they get on sale. On Switch, even on sale, most games still aren't impulse buy, as they're still pricey.
But nevertheless, even if I'm more from the "less is more" school of design, this packaging for Crash trilogy is simply pathetic.
Re: All-Star Fruit Racing Will Support Online Play On Nintendo Switch
Ok. As someone already having Mario Kart 8, and still getting the occasional fun session from it, is there something that makes this new kart racer something special enough to warrant a purchase? I mean, kart racers have been around since a long while already, in many forms on many consoles, so unless it brings something truly new and interesting to the table, I don'T see what's special about it.
I admit I haven't done my research on this title. Name and screenshots I've seen so far weren't really appealing to me, so maybe I missed something?
Re: Video: Take a Peek at Some of the Best Switch Games Coming in July
Octopath looks great, but living in Canada, at $80+ tax, it ends up bordering on $100, and it's very hard for me to justify such a price. Even in exchange of many hours of gameplay.
Might get tempted to get Captain Toad though. Or Mega Man X Legacy collection.
Re: Ubisoft CEO Believes Future Of Games Industry Is Streaming, With Potential To Reach 5 Billion Players In Ten Years
So... basically, the gaming world of the future would be a "rental-like" experience with people paying to "rent games" for a period of time, up until the provider removes the game from the service (to allocate resources to more recent, more profitable, titles).
Seriously, if gaming go down this road, I can predict a HUGE movement towards retro-gaming, much, much bigger than what we're seeing now.
The ONLY way I would see something like that work, is with a "Netflix-like" model, where you can access a BIG library of games for a monthly flat fee so low that it's a non-issue for most. Meaning, around $15 without any engagement.
Otherwise... my only reaction is... "LOL, good luck with that!". While basic access to the net is growing worldwide, ISPs are more and more putting caps, and pushing a lot against net neutrality. I mean, $60 a month for 15mbps with a 50G cap isn't going to cut it, you know...
I think those predicting a streaming future aren't realizing that things are not going to improve much, if at all, in the upcoming years.
Re: Nintendo Says Switch User Playtime Is Split 50-50 Between Docked And Handheld
I play mostly portable. Like maybe 90% and 10% docked. Docked play happens mostly on the weekends. I use my Switch mostly in the train everyday on the ride to/from work.
Re: Review: Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Switch)
As much as I want to play this game, I can't see myself spending $80 + sales tax (so $91 where I live) for this. Especially when I can buy it on PC right now for 32$ no taxes. And here lies my main problem with the Switch (a console I love very much, BTW): it's the most expensive console out there, all things considered. Not only it's the most expensive console at $400 in Canada (compared to regular XBO anb PS4) but it's also a console asking us to pay more for mostly all our games compared to those same games on other platforms.
Wolfenstein is another example of this. I'll probably get it eventually, but I'm waiting for a price drop, if it ever happens (Doom is still $80 up here - can get for $20 on Steam right now).
And... Inside for $25, really? I paid about 10 for it about a year ago....
I love my Switch, but God, these game prices makes it a real challenge.
Re: Sony "Looking At A Lot Of The Possibilities" When It Comes To Fortnite Cross-Play Support
@Kimyonaakuma
The possibilities he probably alludes to, are all about finding how much each decision will affect their profits down the line.
All purchases done through Fortnite on the PS4 gets Sony a % of the sale, as with anything else on PSN. This means BIG MONEY for them, and they don't want people using in-game purchases made on other consoles to benefit from those on PS4. This is about money, nothing else.
If Sony feel that all the bad press might affect their image enough, and make a lot of people move away to other platforms in the future (thus affecting their bottom line), they'll probably flip the software switch allowing cross-platform play.
They're only evaluating what's more profitable for THEM. They don't care about the players.
Re: Reminder: Pokémon Quest Launches On Mobile Devices Today
@sword_9mm
Well, it doesn't hurt anyone to have it on the Switch, but it's just, in my opinion, not a good move spending time, money and energy bringing these type of games to the Switch, as it doesn't add any value to the console, since practically everyone has a mobile phone they can play these type of games on. It's like spending money on something that doesn't really help sell your console. Why spend money to play something I can already play?
Granted, some who don't have access to a mobile phone or tablet (young kids???) would then be able to play this game, but given this a freemium title made in the hopes of making people spend real-world money on digital resources, I think this is aimed more at people having disposable income, which is roughly the same market as those already having a mobile phone anyways... so, I still fail to see the relevancy.
Like I said, no harm in getting it on the Switch. But I'd prefer to see the resources put into such a game on Switch to be allocated somewhere else where it will make the platform shine, and be more attractive. Not like it isn't, but you know what I mean.
Re: Reminder: Pokémon Quest Launches On Mobile Devices Today
... where it belongs. Sorry folks, but the reason I bought a switch was exactly to play other things on the go than the usual mobile-type freemium games.
To me, this is the same as any other mobile port. The reason a lot of people criticize these, is because these titles are mostly all designed with a specific earning model that forces the insertion of artificial play mechanics and game aspects that have the sole consideration of making you spend money again and again and again. While you can, technically not pay anything, these games are usually designed to slow your progress for the sole purpose of selling you stuff that'll accelerate it. And this being built directly in the game mechanics, it always feel, to me anyways, like bad game design that completely disconnects me from the game's universe.
I know many people play these, especially on mobile platforms, but like I said, one of the main reason the Switch is appealing, is that it's a dedicated console that should host a plethora of more traditionnal gaming options. It's for those wanting to play "real games" and not "time wasters good for when you have a 5-minute wait before your appointment".
The Switch, for me, is more or less an evolution of what the Vita was, and like it, it needs to differentiates itself from the mobile platforms, otherwise, there's not much reasons to spend $450 to get one for me.
If anyone wants to port mobile games to the Switch, at least, make them "deluxe" editions with additionnal content, and actually sell them at a fixed price. To me, there's no point otherwise.
Re: US Research Analyst Believes Gaming Could Become 100% Digital By 2022
@Tokiwa
The difference with the PC platform, is that it's an open system, and most distributing platforms give at least a way for users to actually back up their games if they wish, and some platforms like GOG even sell DRM-free games, meaning there is no fear of them not working anymore in the future if the store goes under. I don't have a problem with digital-only on PC, provided I can get decently priced titles (and I can).
The problem with a digital-only console platform, is that it is 100% closed, and you're 100% at the mercy of the platform owner regarding your game library. If they shut down their store infrastructure in the future to "force you" to move on to their newest console, then all the games not stored locally will just vanish from your library. And even those stored locally won't have any guarantee of working for an indefinite amount of time.
Anyone interested in preserving gaming history in some way must fear the advent of a digital-only world, as this will render some game preservation completely impossible.
Sure, digital is convenient, but in the end, on closed platforms, most advantages are for game companies, not the end user.
Re: US Research Analyst Believes Gaming Could Become 100% Digital By 2022
I don't see that happenning so soon for a lot of various reasons.
First, this would mean alienating a LARGE user base. Many people out there still don't have a quality internet connection (or an affordable one). Also, Internet Service Providers are getting back with implementing data caps nowadays, and with the death of net neutrality in the U.S., this could also mean paying more for getting your gaming services and downloads running decently.
In Canada, most large ISP starting plans are expensive, and come with ridiculously limited data caps (like 30GB per month). Now, given that AAA games are getting very large in size nowadays, and are priced at $80, I don't see a lot of people up here paying that much AND having to spend most of their monthly bandwidth on ONE game.
I think those saying it'll happen in 4 years are smoking really, really good stuff. Or living on another planet. Most console platforms won't go down that road because that'll mean preventing a lot of customers from buying their games.
We're really not there yet. Although I see that in the future. But we're still way, way off. For that to happen, a good Internet connection will need to be seen as commonplace as getting electricity to your house. There are tons of place in the world where internet connections are still bad, or sometimes not even available. I know places less than 30min from big cities that have to rely on slow satellite connections because no ISP want to service these areas.
Re: Switch Piracy Tool Could Brick Your System Because It Contains (Wait For It) A Piracy Countermeasure
I find that this whole story only show how full of BS some pirates are. While I can understand the idea of being able to do what you want with the electronics you bought, and I can, in a way, be ok with homebrew software, most people hack their consoles to run piated games on them, and that's not ok.
And the fact that a tool to enable piracy on a console contains anti-piracy measures is irony to the Nth degree... Feeling the need to protect work made to circumvent the protection to other's work.... I mean... Wow.
Putting anti-piracy measures to protect your work.... because you feel you've put hard wort into it, is right. But when said work as only one purpose: to circumvent protection put in place by others for the same reasons.... I mean.... wow... That's what I call being, profoundly, and stunningly, full of feces.
Re: Random: New Study Finds That Super Mario Is Basically Super Human
Maybe we should let this guy on a little secret:
Mario isn't real.
As in : Doesn't exists in the real-world.
And now, let's end this news bulletin with more important things... here's a video of a squirrel surfing in a pool....
Re: Nintendo Is Banning Switch Game Cards To Combat Piracy, Potentially Killing The Second-Hand Market
Mostly buying all my games new, this isn't an issue for me, and given how most stores selling second-hand games do so for almost the same price as a new one anyways , well, I won't shed a tear for them..
I agree though, that this could prove slightly problematic for person-to-person sales on auction sites. Sure, you can complain and ask for refund of a non-working item, but still... it only adds more risks to these transactions.
But learning this made me curious. If Nintendo can actually track down individual carts (as long as the console is online), could this mean they can detect on how many consoles a single cart has been played? This kind of opens up all sort of various analytic tools for them. Knowing how many consoles some carts are played on might give some insight on how second had sales are really affecting some titles. Probably far from being 100% accurate data (because there are other scenarios to explain multiple plays on different consoles), but at least, that would be a general indication.
Re: Unravel Two Switch Port Would Have Delayed Its Reveal By "Half A Year Or So"
@Ogbert
I completely understand that. I'm personnaly a bit fed up with all that "lazy devs" or "devs spewing out bs again" type of comments. Many people don't know all the intricacies involved in developping a game, let alone running a profitable company. It may have been possible that the engine the guy speaks about, while now available on Switch, wasn't available during the planning stages of development. Also, people think that if an engine is available on a platform, it means "instant port", which is far (very far) from the truth. A lot of work still need to be done. And work means employees to pay, and all the costs associated with running a business.
Re: Exploring The Legalities Of Sony's Fortnite Restrictions On Nintendo Switch
I fail to see what is surprising about this. Sony's currently leading the gaming game this generation, and whoever takes the lead by a lage margin in any field whatsoever usually end up being a big bully. When you're the top dog, you're already on top, so being nice is not going to win a lot more people over.
Those who usually have the best promos and fight for "the players" are usually the underdogs. Because THEY are the ones trying to win people over.
Just look at Microsoft. It was in a much better shape over the last generation. But then again, they got arrogant towards the players when they unveilled their XB1 (pitching it more as a TV add-on, and with all those sharing restrictions), that it backfired in its face, and Sony took the opportunity to scoop all the gamers Microsoft abandonned at the gate.
Granted, this cross-platform issue alone may not be big enough to change the balance of power for this generation, but if Sony continue to act like this, and be this big arrogant bully, the console market might be in a different place when the next generation comes.
Re: Inside And Limbo Will Both Arrive On Nintendo Switch This Month
I bought Limbo multiple times on various consoles and PC, and got Inside on PC last year, and both are awesome games. I might be tempted to buy them both again on the Switch, provided the price is right, but I'm not setting myself any expectations regarding price, as most ports of older games to the Switch end up getting priced like a new release, despite the games being already old, and usually discounted on other platforms... which make a purchase frustating. Unless it's a special edition with more content.
Re: Shadowgun Legends Is Bringing Free To Play FPS Action To Switch
@OorWullie
Most f2p games are usually built with mechanics to incite players to spend money. Of course, you're not forced to do so. But while some went the "cosmetic items only" route, many are still designing their game around an artificially imposed limitation that requires either the player to wait, or pay. Which in the end, make players addicted to a game pay much, much more than what a full game with a one-time purchase would cost.
Also, reviews. Videos. Twitch. YouTube. All of these can give you a pretty good idea if a game is for you or not. It practically never happenned in the last 20 years or so that I paid for a game and felt I wasted my money. If people aren't using all these resources, well, that's their problem. Demos and "trying for free before you pay something" isn't as strong an argument as it once was.
Also, for many, like me, even if paying is entirely optional, putting the options in your face while playing a game creates a disconnect with the game world you're immersed in. It brings the economics of the real world into a game you're playing to escape said real world. To me, this affects how I perceive a game, and my enjoyment of it. It feels like ads on TVs, when they interupt a tense scene in a movie or series. We understand they need to make money, but it also, at the same time, affect the experience.
I'd prefer they release a new, proper, Shadowgun game with a single-player campaign, instead of another "me-too" multiplayer fragfest. One you can also buy for a flat fee. I'd pay for that.
Re: Pokémon Quest Will Launch On Mobile Devices Next Week
I tried the game, but it only reinforced my feeling towards "freemium" games or "free to start" as Nintendo like to call them. Whatever.
One of the reason a person like me invested in a Nintendo Switch, is to have a portable device that can play more "traditionnal", console-grade games on the go. If I wanted to play those freemium titles, I'd be already playing them on the devices I already own, no need to buy another device.
I play games to escape the mundane reality, I don't want games to have gimmicks reminding me all too often that I can pay with real-world money to sidestep artificial barriers put in place for no other reason than to get my money.
Game seemed ok for that type of experience though. But I played maybe about an hour of it, and it was sufficient for me to lose interest and wish for a more traditionnal Pokémon game like the old ones.
Re: Nintendo Says Labo Support Will Continue, Still Trying To Reach A Non-Gaming Audience
@Euler , you're very generous with $500. I bought a Switch + Zelda last holidays, and with sales taxes, it was $550. And that is without a good case for it, which I got for an additionnal $23, bringing the total to $573.
So paying that amount of money for a system that does nothing but play games, compared to the WiiU which, at $350 had a game included and had, like you said, YouTube, Netflix and all, is asking quite a lot of non-gamers. And then add to that the $100 they're asking for the Labo variety kit...
I think it's more like a project someone REALLY wanted to do for the Switch, or something that was done to show the shareholders that they're doing something to attract the non-gaming crowd to the platform... Because I can't logically think that someone at Nintendo thought of this as something that would sell systems. And even less that someone at Nintendo's marketing never raised a red flag over this.
But then again, the sales pitch is easy. "Look at it this way. We're selling cardboard kits... for around $100 a piece!!!" It probably was very profitable, even with the not so high sales.