I didn't predict it. I expected it. "2022" is a very broad range, what's a few months more? Nintendo gave themselves a lot of wiggle room with their original "release date."
So far from memory I've got: Arcade Classics, Console Classics, Nintendo, SEGA, Mario & Donkey King, Zelda & Fire Emblem, Pokemon, First Person Shooters, Third Person Action, Role Playing Games, Racing, Multiplayer. Work in progress, but so far it's already making narrowing down and finding the handful of my games that I really want out of countless hundreds unbelievably easier and much, much faster.
The main reason for separate groups for Pokemon, Mario & DK, etc. is because the Nintendo group itself, with all its games spanning lots of franchises, can be a bit of a mess and difficult to navigate. Because by comparison, for example, the SEGA group has far fewer games, I didn't create a separate Sonic category (plus, there are not enough Sonic games on Switch to do so).
Arcade Classics is almost exclusively arcade games (like the ACA NeoGeo and Arcade Archives lines) and compilations (like Namco Museum) of arcade games, and maybe a few sequels to traditional arcade games (although they may not have released strictly in arcades--like the recent Ghosts and Goblins game, and some of the more recent Pac-Man games).
Console Classics is where the NSO emulators, other compilations (like the poorly named Blizzard Arcade Collection and the Mega Man collections), as well as individual re-released classic console games go. But this is also more of a catch-all type group, where so far I've put all kinds of games that may not truly be "classic" or even old, but that don't exactly fit the true arcade description, and are of classic/traditional styles (like 2D sidescrollers/platformers, RPGs, etc.)
It's a start, but I'll probably continue to tweak and add groups. I'm contemplating whether I want to split Console Classics, or keep it one group--because many games, although newer do seem to fit well in there, and in some cases like a glove (like Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon, Downwell, and many others that look and feel like they came right out from the 1980s or 90s and are not arcade games).
Some games span multiple groups. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, for example, is under Nintendo, Racing and Multiplayer (and I think also Mario & Donkey Kong); and the Arcade Archives: Donkey Kong games and VS. Super Mario Bros. live in both Nintendo and Arcade.
I'm thinking about possibly creating a dedicated group for top-down/vertical and horizontal shooters, but if I do there will be a fair amount of overlap with Arcade Classics, so I don't know if that will happen.
I can't wait to see RGT 85's hands-on review of Balan Wonderworld. It's gonna be a blast! We just need that confirmation of 3 million-plus sales. Go Metroid Dread!
I still don't like that it's all effectively written with disappearing ink. If for whatever reason Nintendo no longer wants to support the Switch, or decides to depreciate and abandon the service itself, there's nothing I can do and I won't be able to play any of them at all--because there is no way for us to "buy" to "own" any of these games on the Switch.
But I guess in terms of what is currently available... I still think it's overpriced, especially with how much they want for the special controllers. Also, I'd rather spend the $25 for the Animal Crossing and Mario Kart DLC and have a more permanent license/ownership of them (and I did), I don't think they do a damn thing to improve the value of the service.
The only "value" I see is in the classic games, and I see very little value in that considering Nintendo could just end it tomorrow if they wanted. Not that they will--but I have a distrust in having to rely on others to play nice, compared to just owning something and not having to deal with anyone else.
Bottom line: I still think $50/yr is way too much for something that, as good as its classic game collection may be, could be gone in five years. And the overpriced classic controllers and filler DLC do absolutely nothing in my mind to improve that. Nevermind that constant feeling in the back of my mind that it could all be abandoned with the next Nintendo system.
I don't feel good about any of it--just let me buy my damn games outright like I can the DLC and pay a small fee to use actual online services. I don't like the tying/bundling a bunch of crap--different unrelated things--as a service with an artificially inflated price.
Sad. Once again Nintendo is outdone by unofficial reverse-engineered versions of their software that runs laps around their own. I really wish Nintendo would put the attention and care into their own products that their fans do with their unofficial personal projects. While Nintendo gives us a buggy emulated version of Ocarina of Time that we don't even own because it's a part of an online service, true passionate Nintendo fans give us a truly enhanced version of the same game, in ways that Nintendo would never do.
Nintendo needs to get off their asses, quit with the legal threats and takedowns, and instead hire some of these people and have them work on a Switch-native version to publish and sell as an "official" version of the game.
Just look what Sega did with Sonic Mania, Nintendo. Come on, please... give us some truly amazing.
@Filth_Element That is a fair point, and for that reason I was pissed, reluctant to even bother playing a game effectively written in disappearing ink, and calling out Nintendo since their original announcement of the game and its artificially limited status.
@Edu23XWiiU While I don't see the deal on its own as being inherently anticompetitive or monopolistic... what you are describing, when and if the deal comes to pass, would certainly be an unfair abuse of power in a possible attempt to potentially gain a monopoly and would be very anticompetitive in my opinion. Although with the stiff competition from both Nintendo and Sony, I don't think they would actually be able to even achieve a monopoly in the console gaming market.
Good thing I don't think Microsoft is that stupid these days. At least under the current Xbox leadership, they see the value of cross-platform games where it makes sense. If anything, they would probably make single-player campaigns and spin-offs of the Call of Duty series Xbox/PC exclusives, while making their massive, online, free-to-play games in the series available practically everywhere, so all that $$$ from those microtransactions can keep coming in from every direction. They are not going to limit their profits to what may even be the least-selling console of the three, even if it is their own, and they have proven this. See: Minecraft.
As for their other franchises, my prediction is that they may come to other platforms at Microsoft's own discretion, based on how well the game would fit with a given console's user base. See: Ms. Splosion Man, Ori, Cuphead, New Super Lucky's Tale, etc.
And as for already-released games by Bethesda, Microsoft hasn't removed any of the Doom games from Nintendo or Sony's online stores, have they? Nope. In fact, if I remember right Doom 64 was released on pretty much all platforms while Bethesda was already a part of Microsoft. Same with Quake. Nothing was, or likely will be, retroactively removed. Another case in point? Look no further than the now Microsoft-owned Rare N64 classic Banjo-Kazooie, just released literally today on the Nintendo Switch Online service, and even playable with an official, authentic wireless replica Nintendo 64 controller. You can't even get that experience on the Xbox, although you can play the game on Microsoft's platform.
I don't think this is quite the same Microsoft as it was back in the mid 90s. I know, I was there. I still see their management and handling of the PC/operating system business as scummy yet toned down from the past and I have been a Linux user since about 2004-2006 with no intention to ever look back, but their Xbox division really seems to be handled even better than the main corporation and their traditional products. Which, again, by 1990s Microsoft standards is relatively tame... a shadow of its former self.
@Filth_Element I disagree. If anyone else did that, we'd all call them d*ckheads and a**holes. And in this case, that is exactly how I would describe Nintendo. :/ Sorry, but it's gotta go both ways. You can't slam Konami for taking down PT while giving Nintendo the pass for killing Super Mario 35.
Now that would be totally blocked. Nintendo has the distinction of not only being worth a ton of money and having tons of major properties... but they are also a hardware company, competing in both the handheld and home console businesses.
These two things alone would stop such a deal dead in its tracks. Although, knowing Nintendo's pride, I would love to hear how they laugh their asses off and joke and mock Microsoft out of their offices for even trying to buy them... just like they already did once in the past.
But I think Microsoft learned from their mistake leading to total humiliation. Phil Spencer has since gone on record commending Nintendo with high praise, and they have worked together many times over the last several years. In other words, both companies can--and should--coexist on their own, and they seem to be friendly enough to each other to cooperate, while still technically being competitors.
I like it. It's totally different from the Nintendo vs. SEGA days, where Sega was always trying to get straight to Nintendo's neck or start a massive bloodbath.
@Strictlystyles You obviously do not know what a monopoly is if you think that this move will bring Microsoft any closer to being one in the gaming industry. They are about as far as they can get from having a monopoly in the gaming market. There is no risk now, and there will be no risk after this deal is finalized.
Hint: Microsoft got absolutely annihilated last generation in terms of hardware sales by Sony with the PS4, and even the Switch has sold many more units than the Xbox One. Past generations weren't all that different. That is kind of the exact opposite of a monopoly.
@SakuraHaruka Microsoft has nowhere near a monopoly on the gaming industry, and this acqusition--as big and expensive as it is--will put them no closer to having a monopoly in gaming.
@Specter_of-the_OLED It will be interesting to see what direction Microsoft will go in terms of cloud gaming, but I don't think the Xbox Series S|X will be their last duo of traditional home consoles. I think they've got plenty of room for growth even in the "traditional" (aka. non-cloud) gaming space. I think Microsoft will undoubtedly put some focus on cloud gaming, but I just don't know how much. I know they'd love to make Game Pass available as a part of their competitors' consoles and maybe build it into an app for smart TVs that requires nothing more than an Internet connection, a Game Pass subscription and an Xbox controller, but that's going to be a long uphill battle with both Nintendo and Sony.
I don't think cloud gaming can ever truly replace traditional gaming, because while traditional gaming only requires one absolutely essential, basic service that literally everyone has access to (electricity), cloud gaming adds the requirement of a very fast, stable Internet connection on top of that--which not everyone has access to or even cares about. And even with a good connection, cloud gaming has its flaws, compared to just running your software/games on your own hardware.
@UltimateOtaku91 Size, again, doesn't matter. Microsoft has every right to buy whatever company they want as long as the government does not flag them for anticompetitive reasons, and the same is true for Sony, although Sony's history of acquisitions shows a very different strategy.
But I will say that there is one very, very big difference between Microsoft buying a company, and Sony or Nintendo buying a company. Although Nintendo doesn't tend to buy too many companies and tends to use their own internal resources, they are similar to Sony in that you will never find their games on a competitor's system. The only exception is an occasional game Nintendo releases for phones just to try to tap into a massive market, or some Sony games going to PC just because Sony doesn't see the PC as a threat to the home console market.
In comparison, over the last few years Microsoft has proven to be very friendly to their competitors, and is no stranger to releasing their games not only on PC (even Steam) and Xbox, but Switch as well. And in the case of Minecraft, well, that game's everywhere--you can even play that one on PlayStation if you want. For this reason alone, of the three companies, Microsoft is the one that I would rather see buying these companies.
Like it or not, Microsoft does not have anywhere near a monopoly in the gaming industry, and this is a good business decision. As a Nintendo fan for life and an owner of a Switch, PS4 Pro, Xbox One X and Xbox Series S, I'm personally happy to see it happen. Based on Microsoft's recent behavior, I feel like Activision is in good hands and will have a promising future.
@UltimateOtaku91 No. Microsoft has every right to buy whatever company they want, as long as both parties agree and the government doesn't have to step in for anticompetitive or other reasons to stop the deal. That's business, not bullying.
And I'm actually not necessarily against either the Bethesda or Activision deal personally. In fact, ever since the Bethesda announcement, I honestly predicted that Activision would be next, and I thought that they may be a good fit. Although in a way this seems weird and hard to believe now after all the notoriety the company has gained due to their legal issues over in California.
Look at all the companies Sony has bought over the years. I never heard any complaints of "bullying" directed at them. The only difference is, Sony has bought a lot of companies over a very long period of time (think decades), while Microsoft has made two absolutely massive aquisitions over the last few years. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that.
I am not surprised that Konami is still trying to find ways to cash in on their classic franchises while putting the least amount of work, and essentially giving nothing of use back in return.
I have an honest question about Balan Wonderworld. I want to complely ignore actual gameplay faults that will obviously never be fixed; if the core is broken upon release, it is just broken, and will remain so, permanently--and this includes the entire mask/limited "power-up" system.
My real question is, since its release, how does the Nintendo Switch version of the game hold up? At launch, it was a disaster... even demonstrably worse than the other consoles, and that alone was at the time no high bar.
But what about now? Technologically speaking--again, ignoring all the gazillion actual design flaws of the game itself, how does the the game run... how does it actually perform on Switch, as of December 2021?
@Bolt_Strike I really, truly don't have much faith in Sega doing this right.
Honestly, Sega... partner up with some true professionals of the genre--Nintendo--to guarantee that it's actually done right. :/ I want to see something great as a lifelong Sonic fan... but I seriously don't think Sega has what it takes for... well, almost any type of 3D Sonic undertaking. They have literally proven it time and time again... one miserable failure after another.
I want a great 3D Sonic game, but I can honstly say that Sega themselves can't give us that. Hell, they couldn't even give us a decent 2D Sonic game; it took Sonic fans initially unaffiliated with Sega to create the first truly good 2D Sonic game in decades--Sonic Mania!
@K1LLEGAL That still doesn't explain why I can't just pop my original discs into a modern console, allow Microsoft's emulation/BC software to work its magic, and run the software that already physically exists etched in plastic. Even if licensing cars is an issue, it's not like they can't update the license/relicense it and start selling digital copies on Xbox.com. I would instantly buy them.
I feel like the licensing of a non-existent developer, like Bizarre Creations of the Project Gotham series, would be far more difficult than a bunch of car manufacturers that still exist.
I like and agree with what he's saying, but I'm not so sure that he really 100% means it. If he really does, then why are the older Forza Motorsport games--especially the ones on Xbox 360, 2/3/4--not a part of the "final" update? After all, Microsoft owns them so licensing them is not an excuse. He can say that all he wants, but in the end, Microsoft's desire to sell the current Forza games that are on the market is enough for them to do the exact opposite of what he says he would like to see.
Still, I absolutely agree 100% with the thought, and I love what they are doing. Microsoft really is putting both Nintendo and Sony to shame on supporting old games, and we absolutely need that. And from everyone, not just one company.
They have had some cool things, but unfortunately most of the time the high shipping costs made these "free" products just not worth it in my opinion. Six or seven bucks to ship out a plastic Mario coin or something that's supposed to be free? Or a few rubber Super Mario Bros. series keychains? There were multiple occasions where I was entitled to something free, but the shipping cost was far more expensive than I thought the entire product itself was even worth. Sad to see it go, but I rarely even bothered to get any physical products from the service to begin with. Oh well.
It's all about the fun, not the length. Most of the games I used to play were extremely short by today's standards and from the 16-bit era, but they were either highly replayable, or so difficult that hours kept racking up just trying to make it to the next level. I still prefer that style of gameplay over a lot of the "modern style" crap we have today, which is loaded with pointless, boring, annoying, and in some cases even excruciatingly painful filler just to add tens of hours to your save file's time counter.
I'd rather play a game that people refer to as "short" these days than an 80-hour monster that is boring me to quit not even ten hours in. Also, it is very difficult these days to even not only get into a game for a long period of time, but to be able to consistently do so.
In the end, you can play an eight-hour game that is so fun and exciting that every hour almost feels like two or three; or you can play a 200-hour game that is so boring you barely even want to play eight hours of in the first place. Personally, I have always felt that reaching the 100-hour mark is getting on the ridiculous side, even when I could spend practically all day, every day playing.I recall a few RPGs taking sixty or eighty hours (Skies of Arcadia Legends, Tales of the Abyss, etc.). I recall 100-percenting Tales of Symphonia was by far the longest at about 120 hours if I remember right, although I could have probably stopped after 80 or 100. But even back then, those were standouts, and I always preferred shorter games with better replay value.
I work full-time, I have to to pay the bills, and I can't just stay up all night, slack off and sleep all day at work like I could do in school. There are actual consequences in later life... like being able to actually buy those games you want to play, and to actually afford to avoid being thrown out on the streets and basically losing everything you've got--possibly permanently. What a fun world us adults live in, eh?
I just find "game length" to be the least of my worries, I just play the damn things. And the ridiculously long ones don't gain my interest (honestly, they never did really; never was a big RPG fan), because my awake time can no longer be up to 95% video games. I can no longer put up to eight-plus hours a day into a game. And even if I could... I wouldn't want to play the same damn game all the time. I want to try something new and exciting every once in a while.
I guess based on my thoughts a game less than two or three hours would be "short," and eight to ten hours would be a nearly perfect time range for a more modern game in my tastes. But I will still certainly play an hour or two (or less) game and, if it's good, be perfectly happy with it. Let's not forget, many of the all-time 8- and 16-bit classics were easily around one or two hours, and could even be beaten in less than that if you know a few secrets. But again--it all depends on the type of game. What may work for a 2D platformer like Metroid Dread will obviously not work the same for something like Breath of the Wild or Tales of Arise.
Definitely night owl for me. I wonder if it will change any shop hours. It would be cool if it would make each shop's opening and closing hours, say, two hours later. I clock out of work in real life at 10:00 PM, and that very second Nook's Cranny is already closed, so attempting to buy/sell things is just not possible without visiting another island or changing the system clock constantly (which is annoying). It'd be nice if I had until midnight to do my shopping/selling, without having to resort to the drop box and be charged a service fee.
@EriXz Yep. It seems that with the end of "free major updates" to Animal Crossing, Nintendo has its sights not only on "paid" DLC, but possibly even worse: "DLC as a service." cringe
Nintendo doesn't seem to care to fix their actual lagging online service... instead just fluff it up with rental DLC. I seriously hope this fails, because I do not like the way Nintendo is heading with their so-called "online service." They have literally moved from not only renting old games... but now renting DLC for new games.
Hey Nintendo, where's your actual... you know... online gaming service improvements? You know, improvements to actually playing games online? As in, not software as a service, but instead just playing the games that you own online?
It sounds plausible, but I don't think it's true. For one thing, that included Animal Crossing DLC that costs 25 bucks on its own for a "permanent" (whatever that even means these days...) license to use was, for whatever reason, made a part of the service.
I can only guess they did this for one or both of two possible reasons: one, to hide the fact it is the game's first paid DLC; and second, because otherwise $50 would seem like a blatantly obvious rip-off to everyone--not just us Nintendo fans and others whole actually see the whole picture.
They wanted to foist some more garbage upon all of us, and sneakily sell it like it's such a great deal. Personally I have little interest in the DLC and I'd rather buy it for $25 outright if I did--you know, to be able to play it indefinitely, as it should be, with or without NSO service--instead of being forced to pay $30 more for a service that effectively includes a monthly or yearly RENTAL of that DLC, which on its own should realistically only cost $10-15 more per year. Bottom line, I should not need a consistent Internet connection and weekly calling home to Nintendo to ask if I can use DLC in a game. This is just a disgusting, anti-consumer move on Nintendo's part... I can't put it any more nicely than that.
Also, look at the complimentary hardware. The N64 and Genesis controllers. Compared to their NES and Super NES predecessors, they both cost $20 more per unit, and in the case of the Sega Genesis controller, you are getting even fewer buttons than the previous Super NES controller! Now, you could argue from that that Sega may be getting paid more for the controller too, which would fit into the original claim, but...
...the Nintendo 64 controller is ALSO 50 bucks! Yes, a controller featuring a d-pad, a thumbstick, A, B, L, R, Z, Start, and four C buttons plus rumble support... costs the same as a Genesis controller with only a d-pad, a Start button, and three action buttons.
Considering both controllers are the same price, I doubt that Sega had any real advantage in the price of the hardware. It seems to me like it's just Nintendo as usual, charging the absolute MOST that they think they can get away with... and yeah, Sega probably also benefits in the end. But I think this is a thing of Nintendo's doing.
The $650 one by Valve. Yeah, I had already put in my dedication by reserving a Steam Deck by the time the Switch OLED was announced, so by that time it was too late. At the same time, the versatility of the Steam Deck (ability to play PC games handheld, dock to a monitor and mouse/keyboard to use as a traditional desktop PC and play the games as they were meant to be played, or docked to a TV using a standard game controller just like a regular console) sold me on it.
On the other hand the Switch OLED's standout features and "improvements" did not impress me, and came off as more of a pathetic joke. This is made even worse by the fact that I use my Switch practically 100% of the time docked like a traditional home console with a pro controller, and there are literally no real upgrades in that circumstance.
If I did get one though, it would be the white model--I normally don't like white electronics, but I do like the black/white contrast of that model.
How is "free" not a fair price given the fact that Nintendo is drastically over-charging for their N64 and Genesis controllers, at $50 per controller, vs. $30 each for the NES/SNES controllers? After charging $50 for effectively a three button controller, it makes me question their pricing for the entire thing...
But seriously, $10 for this "Expansion Pack" would be alright with me. No more, unless they want to make their "classic" controllers (especially the Genesis one) more reasonably priced. The N64 controller I can almost understand (although I still feel they are overcharging a bit, but that Genesis controller... that's a whole new level of screwing the customer.
But then, with a base service of only $20/yr, Nintendo probably feels that they are the ones getting screwed at this point, with all the NES and Super NES games they have available for only $20 a year. I don't know, I think maybe they just screwed up right from the beginning with their pricing of NSO... but to be fair at the beginning it was barely even worth $20/yr, and now they find themselves with the opposite problem.
It's better than the current one, but not as good as the old Namco logo. You know, before Bandai had anything to do with it and did not exist in the name.
@Nin10dood You can play three of those four games/series on Xbox, since Rare is fully owned by Microsoft and only one of those (Goldeneye) is shackled and bound by licenses. Yeah, they're not on Switch, and aside from cameos in Smash Bros. they probably never will be--but it's been decades, I've moved on, Xbox is actually a good platform on its own, and at least these games are officially supported in some way on a modern console.
Hell yeah, pre-ordered the game on the e-Shop. I wnt to see Cruis'n USA, World and Exotica at some point... I loved USA, had some good fun with World, and don't recall ever having a chance to play Exotic. Mostly played the N64 versions of the games.
I'm going to keep playing (I seemed to have got pretty far yesterday before my controller died and I went to sleep), I hope the game can grow on me. One extra layer of confusion that was dragging me down was all the unique characters... which is cool, but when you already are taking three out of five seconds just to figure out what to do, that extra couple seconds to figure out your character's specific quirks is enough to lose.
I got it and just got done playing it a little bit for the first time. I feel like I should have just held of on getting it, or just not bother. I dunno... maybe I was just too tired. Maybe I'm just not as capable of thinking and reacting as fast as I once was. Whatever it is, I just didn't really have fun. Confused most of the time not knowing what to do, and not figuring it out till two seconds before the microgame ends, too late to actually win it.
I don't know... I feel like this game might not be for me. But it's too late now.
I would get both, but since I already decided to try to get, and have in fact already reserved a Steam Deck, I'm gonna have to pass on these consoles for now. Hopefully Analogue can get their stock replenished and not be consistently out of stock next year. I would likely already own both of their consoles if they were actually in stock at the time I had the money to actually buy them, and before the Steam Deck and Switch OLED were announced.
I love the Cruis'n series and I'll be pre-ordering Blast the second I learn that Nintendo starts taking pre-orders. I have a lot of good memories of Cruis'n USA and that's one game I'd like really like to see come back in some form... Switch Online N64, Nintendo? Didn't play as much Cruis'n World and never got the chance to play Exotica, but I'd like to go back to all of them some day...
That is unfortunate, but not at all surprising. They already announced that the new system uses the exact same Joy-Con controllers; why would they somehow, magically, be any different? Oh yeah... they wouldn't. I am not too concerned because I almost exclusively use Pro controllers, and to this day I have never experienced drift on any of my own Joy-Cons.
Comments 237
Re: Nintendo Switch System Update 14.1.0 Is Now Live, Here Are The Full Patch Notes
Removed
Re: Is 'Capcom Arcade 2nd Stadium' On The Way To Switch?
April fools? God damn I hate that day... :/
Re: Poll: C'mon Then, Did You Predict The Zelda: Breath Of The Wild 2 Delay?
I didn't predict it. I expected it. "2022" is a very broad range, what's a few months more? Nintendo gave themselves a lot of wiggle room with their original "release date."
Re: Nintendo Wants To Know What Switch "Groups" You've Created Since The Latest Firmware Update
So far from memory I've got: Arcade Classics, Console Classics, Nintendo, SEGA, Mario & Donkey King, Zelda & Fire Emblem, Pokemon, First Person Shooters, Third Person Action, Role Playing Games, Racing, Multiplayer. Work in progress, but so far it's already making narrowing down and finding the handful of my games that I really want out of countless hundreds unbelievably easier and much, much faster.
The main reason for separate groups for Pokemon, Mario & DK, etc. is because the Nintendo group itself, with all its games spanning lots of franchises, can be a bit of a mess and difficult to navigate. Because by comparison, for example, the SEGA group has far fewer games, I didn't create a separate Sonic category (plus, there are not enough Sonic games on Switch to do so).
Arcade Classics is almost exclusively arcade games (like the ACA NeoGeo and Arcade Archives lines) and compilations (like Namco Museum) of arcade games, and maybe a few sequels to traditional arcade games (although they may not have released strictly in arcades--like the recent Ghosts and Goblins game, and some of the more recent Pac-Man games).
Console Classics is where the NSO emulators, other compilations (like the poorly named Blizzard Arcade Collection and the Mega Man collections), as well as individual re-released classic console games go. But this is also more of a catch-all type group, where so far I've put all kinds of games that may not truly be "classic" or even old, but that don't exactly fit the true arcade description, and are of classic/traditional styles (like 2D sidescrollers/platformers, RPGs, etc.)
It's a start, but I'll probably continue to tweak and add groups. I'm contemplating whether I want to split Console Classics, or keep it one group--because many games, although newer do seem to fit well in there, and in some cases like a glove (like Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon, Downwell, and many others that look and feel like they came right out from the 1980s or 90s and are not arcade games).
Some games span multiple groups. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, for example, is under Nintendo, Racing and Multiplayer (and I think also Mario & Donkey Kong); and the Arcade Archives: Donkey Kong games and VS. Super Mario Bros. live in both Nintendo and Arcade.
I'm thinking about possibly creating a dedicated group for top-down/vertical and horizontal shooters, but if I do there will be a fair amount of overlap with Arcade Classics, so I don't know if that will happen.
Re: Metroid Dread Is The Best-Selling 2D Metroid Game Ever In The UK
I can't wait to see RGT 85's hands-on review of Balan Wonderworld. It's gonna be a blast! We just need that confirmation of 3 million-plus sales. Go Metroid Dread!
Re: Nintendo Highlights Upcoming N64 Releases In Latest 'Switch Online + Expansion Pack - Overview Trailer'
I still don't like that it's all effectively written with disappearing ink. If for whatever reason Nintendo no longer wants to support the Switch, or decides to depreciate and abandon the service itself, there's nothing I can do and I won't be able to play any of them at all--because there is no way for us to "buy" to "own" any of these games on the Switch.
But I guess in terms of what is currently available... I still think it's overpriced, especially with how much they want for the special controllers. Also, I'd rather spend the $25 for the Animal Crossing and Mario Kart DLC and have a more permanent license/ownership of them (and I did), I don't think they do a damn thing to improve the value of the service.
The only "value" I see is in the classic games, and I see very little value in that considering Nintendo could just end it tomorrow if they wanted. Not that they will--but I have a distrust in having to rely on others to play nice, compared to just owning something and not having to deal with anyone else.
Bottom line: I still think $50/yr is way too much for something that, as good as its classic game collection may be, could be gone in five years. And the overpriced classic controllers and filler DLC do absolutely nothing in my mind to improve that. Nevermind that constant feeling in the back of my mind that it could all be abandoned with the next Nintendo system.
I don't feel good about any of it--just let me buy my damn games outright like I can the DLC and pay a small fee to use actual online services. I don't like the tying/bundling a bunch of crap--different unrelated things--as a service with an artificially inflated price.
Re: Video: Here's A Look At Another Zelda 64 PC Port, And It's "Nearly Fully Playable"
Sad. Once again Nintendo is outdone by unofficial reverse-engineered versions of their software that runs laps around their own. I really wish Nintendo would put the attention and care into their own products that their fans do with their unofficial personal projects. While Nintendo gives us a buggy emulated version of Ocarina of Time that we don't even own because it's a part of an online service, true passionate Nintendo fans give us a truly enhanced version of the same game, in ways that Nintendo would never do.
Nintendo needs to get off their asses, quit with the legal threats and takedowns, and instead hire some of these people and have them work on a Switch-native version to publish and sell as an "official" version of the game.
Just look what Sega did with Sonic Mania, Nintendo. Come on, please... give us some truly amazing.
Re: Random: Nintendo Shows Switch Owners How To Delete Games, Uses Super Mario Bros. 35 As An Example
@Filth_Element That is a fair point, and for that reason I was pissed, reluctant to even bother playing a game effectively written in disappearing ink, and calling out Nintendo since their original announcement of the game and its artificially limited status.
Re: Talking Point: Don't Worry, Microsoft Probably Isn't Going To Buy Nintendo - Here's Why
@Edu23XWiiU While I don't see the deal on its own as being inherently anticompetitive or monopolistic... what you are describing, when and if the deal comes to pass, would certainly be an unfair abuse of power in a possible attempt to potentially gain a monopoly and would be very anticompetitive in my opinion. Although with the stiff competition from both Nintendo and Sony, I don't think they would actually be able to even achieve a monopoly in the console gaming market.
Good thing I don't think Microsoft is that stupid these days. At least under the current Xbox leadership, they see the value of cross-platform games where it makes sense. If anything, they would probably make single-player campaigns and spin-offs of the Call of Duty series Xbox/PC exclusives, while making their massive, online, free-to-play games in the series available practically everywhere, so all that $$$ from those microtransactions can keep coming in from every direction. They are not going to limit their profits to what may even be the least-selling console of the three, even if it is their own, and they have proven this. See: Minecraft.
As for their other franchises, my prediction is that they may come to other platforms at Microsoft's own discretion, based on how well the game would fit with a given console's user base. See: Ms. Splosion Man, Ori, Cuphead, New Super Lucky's Tale, etc.
And as for already-released games by Bethesda, Microsoft hasn't removed any of the Doom games from Nintendo or Sony's online stores, have they? Nope. In fact, if I remember right Doom 64 was released on pretty much all platforms while Bethesda was already a part of Microsoft. Same with Quake. Nothing was, or likely will be, retroactively removed. Another case in point? Look no further than the now Microsoft-owned Rare N64 classic Banjo-Kazooie, just released literally today on the Nintendo Switch Online service, and even playable with an official, authentic wireless replica Nintendo 64 controller. You can't even get that experience on the Xbox, although you can play the game on Microsoft's platform.
I don't think this is quite the same Microsoft as it was back in the mid 90s. I know, I was there. I still see their management and handling of the PC/operating system business as scummy yet toned down from the past and I have been a Linux user since about 2004-2006 with no intention to ever look back, but their Xbox division really seems to be handled even better than the main corporation and their traditional products. Which, again, by 1990s Microsoft standards is relatively tame... a shadow of its former self.
Re: Random: Nintendo Shows Switch Owners How To Delete Games, Uses Super Mario Bros. 35 As An Example
@Filth_Element I disagree. If anyone else did that, we'd all call them d*ckheads and a**holes. And in this case, that is exactly how I would describe Nintendo. :/ Sorry, but it's gotta go both ways. You can't slam Konami for taking down PT while giving Nintendo the pass for killing Super Mario 35.
Re: Random: Nintendo Shows Switch Owners How To Delete Games, Uses Super Mario Bros. 35 As An Example
@Greatluigi In hope that somehow, someday, it is eventually resurrected and becomes available to play again? Just a thought...
Re: Back Page: After Spending $70B On Activision Blizzard... What If Microsoft Buys Nintendo Next?
Now that would be totally blocked. Nintendo has the distinction of not only being worth a ton of money and having tons of major properties... but they are also a hardware company, competing in both the handheld and home console businesses.
These two things alone would stop such a deal dead in its tracks. Although, knowing Nintendo's pride, I would love to hear how they laugh their asses off and joke and mock Microsoft out of their offices for even trying to buy them... just like they already did once in the past.
But I think Microsoft learned from their mistake leading to total humiliation. Phil Spencer has since gone on record commending Nintendo with high praise, and they have worked together many times over the last several years. In other words, both companies can--and should--coexist on their own, and they seem to be friendly enough to each other to cooperate, while still technically being competitors.
I like it. It's totally different from the Nintendo vs. SEGA days, where Sega was always trying to get straight to Nintendo's neck or start a massive bloodbath.
Re: Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, Now Owns Call Of Duty And Crash Bandicoot
@Strictlystyles You obviously do not know what a monopoly is if you think that this move will bring Microsoft any closer to being one in the gaming industry. They are about as far as they can get from having a monopoly in the gaming market. There is no risk now, and there will be no risk after this deal is finalized.
Hint: Microsoft got absolutely annihilated last generation in terms of hardware sales by Sony with the PS4, and even the Switch has sold many more units than the Xbox One. Past generations weren't all that different. That is kind of the exact opposite of a monopoly.
Re: Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, Now Owns Call Of Duty And Crash Bandicoot
@SakuraHaruka Microsoft has nowhere near a monopoly on the gaming industry, and this acqusition--as big and expensive as it is--will put them no closer to having a monopoly in gaming.
Re: Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, Now Owns Call Of Duty And Crash Bandicoot
@Specter_of-the_OLED It will be interesting to see what direction Microsoft will go in terms of cloud gaming, but I don't think the Xbox Series S|X will be their last duo of traditional home consoles. I think they've got plenty of room for growth even in the "traditional" (aka. non-cloud) gaming space. I think Microsoft will undoubtedly put some focus on cloud gaming, but I just don't know how much. I know they'd love to make Game Pass available as a part of their competitors' consoles and maybe build it into an app for smart TVs that requires nothing more than an Internet connection, a Game Pass subscription and an Xbox controller, but that's going to be a long uphill battle with both Nintendo and Sony.
I don't think cloud gaming can ever truly replace traditional gaming, because while traditional gaming only requires one absolutely essential, basic service that literally everyone has access to (electricity), cloud gaming adds the requirement of a very fast, stable Internet connection on top of that--which not everyone has access to or even cares about. And even with a good connection, cloud gaming has its flaws, compared to just running your software/games on your own hardware.
Re: Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, Now Owns Call Of Duty And Crash Bandicoot
@UltimateOtaku91 Size, again, doesn't matter. Microsoft has every right to buy whatever company they want as long as the government does not flag them for anticompetitive reasons, and the same is true for Sony, although Sony's history of acquisitions shows a very different strategy.
But I will say that there is one very, very big difference between Microsoft buying a company, and Sony or Nintendo buying a company. Although Nintendo doesn't tend to buy too many companies and tends to use their own internal resources, they are similar to Sony in that you will never find their games on a competitor's system. The only exception is an occasional game Nintendo releases for phones just to try to tap into a massive market, or some Sony games going to PC just because Sony doesn't see the PC as a threat to the home console market.
In comparison, over the last few years Microsoft has proven to be very friendly to their competitors, and is no stranger to releasing their games not only on PC (even Steam) and Xbox, but Switch as well. And in the case of Minecraft, well, that game's everywhere--you can even play that one on PlayStation if you want. For this reason alone, of the three companies, Microsoft is the one that I would rather see buying these companies.
Like it or not, Microsoft does not have anywhere near a monopoly in the gaming industry, and this is a good business decision. As a Nintendo fan for life and an owner of a Switch, PS4 Pro, Xbox One X and Xbox Series S, I'm personally happy to see it happen. Based on Microsoft's recent behavior, I feel like Activision is in good hands and will have a promising future.
Re: Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard, Now Owns Call Of Duty And Crash Bandicoot
@UltimateOtaku91 No. Microsoft has every right to buy whatever company they want, as long as both parties agree and the government doesn't have to step in for anticompetitive or other reasons to stop the deal. That's business, not bullying.
And I'm actually not necessarily against either the Bethesda or Activision deal personally. In fact, ever since the Bethesda announcement, I honestly predicted that Activision would be next, and I thought that they may be a good fit. Although in a way this seems weird and hard to believe now after all the notoriety the company has gained due to their legal issues over in California.
Look at all the companies Sony has bought over the years. I never heard any complaints of "bullying" directed at them. The only difference is, Sony has bought a lot of companies over a very long period of time (think decades), while Microsoft has made two absolutely massive aquisitions over the last few years. There's nothing inherently wrong with any of that.
Re: Konami Is 'Celebrating' Castlevania's 35th With An NFT Auction
What is a NFT? A miserable little pile of s***.
I am not surprised that Konami is still trying to find ways to cash in on their classic franchises while putting the least amount of work, and essentially giving nothing of use back in return.
Boycott NFTs. Do not waste money on them.
Re: Balan Wonderworld Is Officially The Worst Switch Game Of 2021, According To Metacritic
I have an honest question about Balan Wonderworld. I want to complely ignore actual gameplay faults that will obviously never be fixed; if the core is broken upon release, it is just broken, and will remain so, permanently--and this includes the entire mask/limited "power-up" system.
My real question is, since its release, how does the Nintendo Switch version of the game hold up? At launch, it was a disaster... even demonstrably worse than the other consoles, and that alone was at the time no high bar.
But what about now? Technologically speaking--again, ignoring all the gazillion actual design flaws of the game itself, how does the the game run... how does it actually perform on Switch, as of December 2021?
Re: Introducing Sonic Frontiers, Arriving On Nintendo Switch Holiday 2022
@Bolt_Strike I really, truly don't have much faith in Sega doing this right.
Honestly, Sega... partner up with some true professionals of the genre--Nintendo--to guarantee that it's actually done right. :/ I want to see something great as a lifelong Sonic fan... but I seriously don't think Sega has what it takes for... well, almost any type of 3D Sonic undertaking. They have literally proven it time and time again... one miserable failure after another.
I want a great 3D Sonic game, but I can honstly say that Sega themselves can't give us that. Hell, they couldn't even give us a decent 2D Sonic game; it took Sonic fans initially unaffiliated with Sega to create the first truly good 2D Sonic game in decades--Sonic Mania!
Re: Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Calls For Industry-Wide Support Of Game Preservation Via Emulation
@K1LLEGAL That still doesn't explain why I can't just pop my original discs into a modern console, allow Microsoft's emulation/BC software to work its magic, and run the software that already physically exists etched in plastic. Even if licensing cars is an issue, it's not like they can't update the license/relicense it and start selling digital copies on Xbox.com. I would instantly buy them.
I feel like the licensing of a non-existent developer, like Bizarre Creations of the Project Gotham series, would be far more difficult than a bunch of car manufacturers that still exist.
Re: Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Calls For Industry-Wide Support Of Game Preservation Via Emulation
I like and agree with what he's saying, but I'm not so sure that he really 100% means it. If he really does, then why are the older Forza Motorsport games--especially the ones on Xbox 360, 2/3/4--not a part of the "final" update? After all, Microsoft owns them so licensing them is not an excuse. He can say that all he wants, but in the end, Microsoft's desire to sell the current Forza games that are on the market is enough for them to do the exact opposite of what he says he would like to see.
Still, I absolutely agree 100% with the thought, and I love what they are doing. Microsoft really is putting both Nintendo and Sony to shame on supporting old games, and we absolutely need that. And from everyone, not just one company.
Re: My Nintendo Physical Rewards Have Disappeared In North America
They have had some cool things, but unfortunately most of the time the high shipping costs made these "free" products just not worth it in my opinion. Six or seven bucks to ship out a plastic Mario coin or something that's supposed to be free? Or a few rubber Super Mario Bros. series keychains? There were multiple occasions where I was entitled to something free, but the shipping cost was far more expensive than I thought the entire product itself was even worth. Sad to see it go, but I rarely even bothered to get any physical products from the service to begin with. Oh well.
Re: Talking Point: How Many Hours Is A 'Short' Game For You?
It's all about the fun, not the length. Most of the games I used to play were extremely short by today's standards and from the 16-bit era, but they were either highly replayable, or so difficult that hours kept racking up just trying to make it to the next level. I still prefer that style of gameplay over a lot of the "modern style" crap we have today, which is loaded with pointless, boring, annoying, and in some cases even excruciatingly painful filler just to add tens of hours to your save file's time counter.
I'd rather play a game that people refer to as "short" these days than an 80-hour monster that is boring me to quit not even ten hours in. Also, it is very difficult these days to even not only get into a game for a long period of time, but to be able to consistently do so.
In the end, you can play an eight-hour game that is so fun and exciting that every hour almost feels like two or three; or you can play a 200-hour game that is so boring you barely even want to play eight hours of in the first place. Personally, I have always felt that reaching the 100-hour mark is getting on the ridiculous side, even when I could spend practically all day, every day playing.I recall a few RPGs taking sixty or eighty hours (Skies of Arcadia Legends, Tales of the Abyss, etc.). I recall 100-percenting Tales of Symphonia was by far the longest at about 120 hours if I remember right, although I could have probably stopped after 80 or 100. But even back then, those were standouts, and I always preferred shorter games with better replay value.
I work full-time, I have to to pay the bills, and I can't just stay up all night, slack off and sleep all day at work like I could do in school. There are actual consequences in later life... like being able to actually buy those games you want to play, and to actually afford to avoid being thrown out on the streets and basically losing everything you've got--possibly permanently. What a fun world us adults live in, eh?
I just find "game length" to be the least of my worries, I just play the damn things. And the ridiculously long ones don't gain my interest (honestly, they never did really; never was a big RPG fan), because my awake time can no longer be up to 95% video games. I can no longer put up to eight-plus hours a day into a game. And even if I could... I wouldn't want to play the same damn game all the time. I want to try something new and exciting every once in a while.
I guess based on my thoughts a game less than two or three hours would be "short," and eight to ten hours would be a nearly perfect time range for a more modern game in my tastes. But I will still certainly play an hour or two (or less) game and, if it's good, be perfectly happy with it. Let's not forget, many of the all-time 8- and 16-bit classics were easily around one or two hours, and could even be beaten in less than that if you know a few secrets. But again--it all depends on the type of game. What may work for a 2D platformer like Metroid Dread will obviously not work the same for something like Breath of the Wild or Tales of Arise.
Re: Yay! Town Ordinances Are Finally Making A Return To Animal Crossing
Definitely night owl for me. I wonder if it will change any shop hours. It would be cool if it would make each shop's opening and closing hours, say, two hours later. I clock out of work in real life at 10:00 PM, and that very second Nook's Cranny is already closed, so attempting to buy/sell things is just not possible without visiting another island or changing the system clock constantly (which is annoying). It'd be nice if I had until midnight to do my shopping/selling, without having to resort to the drop box and be charged a service fee.
Re: Nintendo Leaker Suggests Pricing Of Switch Online's Expansion Pack Could Be Tied To "Licensing Costs"
@EriXz Yep. It seems that with the end of "free major updates" to Animal Crossing, Nintendo has its sights not only on "paid" DLC, but possibly even worse: "DLC as a service." cringe
Nintendo doesn't seem to care to fix their actual lagging online service... instead just fluff it up with rental DLC. I seriously hope this fails, because I do not like the way Nintendo is heading with their so-called "online service." They have literally moved from not only renting old games... but now renting DLC for new games.
Hey Nintendo, where's your actual... you know... online gaming service improvements? You know, improvements to actually playing games online? As in, not software as a service, but instead just playing the games that you own online?
Re: Nintendo Leaker Suggests Pricing Of Switch Online's Expansion Pack Could Be Tied To "Licensing Costs"
It sounds plausible, but I don't think it's true. For one thing, that included Animal Crossing DLC that costs 25 bucks on its own for a "permanent" (whatever that even means these days...) license to use was, for whatever reason, made a part of the service.
I can only guess they did this for one or both of two possible reasons: one, to hide the fact it is the game's first paid DLC; and second, because otherwise $50 would seem like a blatantly obvious rip-off to everyone--not just us Nintendo fans and others whole actually see the whole picture.
They wanted to foist some more garbage upon all of us, and sneakily sell it like it's such a great deal. Personally I have little interest in the DLC and I'd rather buy it for $25 outright if I did--you know, to be able to play it indefinitely, as it should be, with or without NSO service--instead of being forced to pay $30 more for a service that effectively includes a monthly or yearly RENTAL of that DLC, which on its own should realistically only cost $10-15 more per year. Bottom line, I should not need a consistent Internet connection and weekly calling home to Nintendo to ask if I can use DLC in a game. This is just a disgusting, anti-consumer move on Nintendo's part... I can't put it any more nicely than that.
Also, look at the complimentary hardware. The N64 and Genesis controllers. Compared to their NES and Super NES predecessors, they both cost $20 more per unit, and in the case of the Sega Genesis controller, you are getting even fewer buttons than the previous Super NES controller! Now, you could argue from that that Sega may be getting paid more for the controller too, which would fit into the original claim, but...
...the Nintendo 64 controller is ALSO 50 bucks! Yes, a controller featuring a d-pad, a thumbstick, A, B, L, R, Z, Start, and four C buttons plus rumble support... costs the same as a Genesis controller with only a d-pad, a Start button, and three action buttons.
Considering both controllers are the same price, I doubt that Sega had any real advantage in the price of the hardware. It seems to me like it's just Nintendo as usual, charging the absolute MOST that they think they can get away with... and yeah, Sega probably also benefits in the end. But I think this is a thing of Nintendo's doing.
Re: Poll: So, Which Switch OLED Did You Buy?
The $650 one by Valve. Yeah, I had already put in my dedication by reserving a Steam Deck by the time the Switch OLED was announced, so by that time it was too late. At the same time, the versatility of the Steam Deck (ability to play PC games handheld, dock to a monitor and mouse/keyboard to use as a traditional desktop PC and play the games as they were meant to be played, or docked to a TV using a standard game controller just like a regular console) sold me on it.
On the other hand the Switch OLED's standout features and "improvements" did not impress me, and came off as more of a pathetic joke. This is made even worse by the fact that I use my Switch practically 100% of the time docked like a traditional home console with a pro controller, and there are literally no real upgrades in that circumstance.
If I did get one though, it would be the white model--I normally don't like white electronics, but I do like the black/white contrast of that model.
Re: Poll: What's A Fair Price For The Nintendo Switch Online Expansion Pack?
How is "free" not a fair price given the fact that Nintendo is drastically over-charging for their N64 and Genesis controllers, at $50 per controller, vs. $30 each for the NES/SNES controllers? After charging $50 for effectively a three button controller, it makes me question their pricing for the entire thing...
But seriously, $10 for this "Expansion Pack" would be alright with me. No more, unless they want to make their "classic" controllers (especially the Genesis one) more reasonably priced. The N64 controller I can almost understand (although I still feel they are overcharging a bit, but that Genesis controller... that's a whole new level of screwing the customer.
But then, with a base service of only $20/yr, Nintendo probably feels that they are the ones getting screwed at this point, with all the NES and Super NES games they have available for only $20 a year. I don't know, I think maybe they just screwed up right from the beginning with their pricing of NSO... but to be fair at the beginning it was barely even worth $20/yr, and now they find themselves with the opposite problem.
Re: Bandai Namco Is Changing Its Logo In 2022
It's better than the current one, but not as good as the old Namco logo. You know, before Bandai had anything to do with it and did not exist in the name.
Re: Rumour: Insider Says N64 Is Coming To Switch Online, Believes It Will Introduce A "Higher-Priced" Subscription Tier
@Nin10dood You can play three of those four games/series on Xbox, since Rare is fully owned by Microsoft and only one of those (Goldeneye) is shackled and bound by licenses. Yeah, they're not on Switch, and aside from cameos in Smash Bros. they probably never will be--but it's been decades, I've moved on, Xbox is actually a good platform on its own, and at least these games are officially supported in some way on a modern console.
Re: Poll: Cruis'n Blast Is Out Today On Switch, Are You Getting It?
Hell yeah, pre-ordered the game on the e-Shop. I wnt to see Cruis'n USA, World and Exotica at some point... I loved USA, had some good fun with World, and don't recall ever having a chance to play Exotic. Mostly played the N64 versions of the games.
Re: Poll: WarioWare: Get It Together! Is Out Today On Switch, Are You Getting It?
I'm going to keep playing (I seemed to have got pretty far yesterday before my controller died and I went to sleep), I hope the game can grow on me. One extra layer of confusion that was dragging me down was all the unique characters... which is cool, but when you already are taking three out of five seconds just to figure out what to do, that extra couple seconds to figure out your character's specific quirks is enough to lose.
Re: Poll: WarioWare: Get It Together! Is Out Today On Switch, Are You Getting It?
I got it and just got done playing it a little bit for the first time. I feel like I should have just held of on getting it, or just not bother. I dunno... maybe I was just too tired. Maybe I'm just not as capable of thinking and reacting as fast as I once was. Whatever it is, I just didn't really have fun. Confused most of the time not knowing what to do, and not figuring it out till two seconds before the microgame ends, too late to actually win it.
I don't know... I feel like this game might not be for me. But it's too late now.
Re: Analogue Is Restocking The Super NT And Mega SG Later Today
I would get both, but since I already decided to try to get, and have in fact already reserved a Steam Deck, I'm gonna have to pass on these consoles for now. Hopefully Analogue can get their stock replenished and not be consistently out of stock next year. I would likely already own both of their consoles if they were actually in stock at the time I had the money to actually buy them, and before the Steam Deck and Switch OLED were announced.
Re: Cruis'n Blast Brings Classic Arcade Racing To Switch This September
I love the Cruis'n series and I'll be pre-ordering Blast the second I learn that Nintendo starts taking pre-orders. I have a lot of good memories of Cruis'n USA and that's one game I'd like really like to see come back in some form... Switch Online N64, Nintendo? Didn't play as much Cruis'n World and never got the chance to play Exotica, but I'd like to go back to all of them some day...
Re: Nintendo Won't Say Whether Switch OLED Joy-Con Fixes Drift, So Don't Count On It
That is unfortunate, but not at all surprising. They already announced that the new system uses the exact same Joy-Con controllers; why would they somehow, magically, be any different? Oh yeah... they wouldn't. I am not too concerned because I almost exclusively use Pro controllers, and to this day I have never experienced drift on any of my own Joy-Cons.