@Nymos Like you, I don’t like the limited release aspect of this, but unfortunately it does make good business sense.
Firstly, by time limiting it, they sold over 8 million copies. Secondly, Nintendo learnt the hard lesson of the Virtual Console, which is that ultimately putting out too much retro content hurts sales of their products.
Why does no one want NES or SNES games still? Because we’ve been oversaturated with them since the Wii era – that’s why people rightly want N64 and GameCube games on Switch Online.
The problem for Nintendo is that it makes more sense for them to ‘Disney Vault’ everything – release the games very infrequently but often enough to keep milking them, whereas if you make them readily available they ultimately lose some of their value if too many people can play them whenever they want and it reduces the desirability factor of 'buy now - or you might not have another chance'.
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I honestly hate cloud gaming. As you can only play the game with an active Wi-Fi connection, it goes completely against everything the Switch is about.
I am certainly not going to buy any of these games as I don’t want to support this practice. I appreciate there is a large hardware gap between the Switch and other consoles, but this is just laziness from developers. I am sure most games could be optimised for the Switch if they put in the effort as we have seen with other porting studios such as Panic Button.
Congratulations to Nintendo on literally the worst Direct ever. I honestly would have preferred to have had no Direct over this one – it was truly barren. Even the Mini Direct earlier in the year was leaps and bounds better than this one.
Seriously Nintendo – unless you’ve got some first party announcements then just hold off rather than trying to put together rubbish Directs.
I have no evidence for this just a theory – but I wonder if Nintendo was intending on having a full Direct but dropped the first party element because some of the games aren’t ready to show off or if there was some issue with the release dates.
The leakers indicated that “10 minutes” would focus on third party games – so I wonder if they just dropped the first party part and called it a ‘Mini Direct’.
There is no way Nintendo doesn’t have other games in the pipeline – after all we basically know Pikmin 3 Deluxe was supposed to be released around now (confirmed by multiple leakers) and that Metroid Prime Trilogy has been finished for a long time, but Nintendo just hasn’t yet decided to publish it.
I bet the main reason is that aren’t confident they can keep to their intended release dates and don’t want to announce anything until they are 100% sure after the Metroid Prime 4 debacle of announcing and then having to delay it.
@trakkerx I think you are right. Personally, I am genuinely divided on this. I really like the Switch Lite’s form factor – particularly the non-detachable Joycons as I think the Lite is likely to be more robust over the long term whereas I can see my original Switch deteriorating even if I take real care of it, just because the rails tend to loosen over time. However, I don’t want to completely lose docked mode.
The obviously solution, as you say, would be to buy another Switch – however, I have experience using the game sharing system and honestly, it’s annoying. I don’t like being forced to make one Switch my ‘primary’ console and another that is tied to Wi-Fi which might not work one day. At present, it’s therefore basically pointless to have multiple Switches until they sort this out.
I really admire Nintendo generally speaking, but their online system is rubbish when compared to the competition.
@trakkerx I totally agree that the Grey Switch Lite looks slick, particularly with the white buttons which leave a very clean feel to the whole unit and the matte finish is nicely done.
I am really surprised they didn’t release a light / tinted green Animal Crossing Switch Lite – but I guess they went for the flagship Switch unit given that Nintendo’s overall profit margin is somewhat higher for those than the Switch Lite, even though the Lite is cheaper to manufacture.
@trakkerx Exactly - Nintendo’s logic is obvious here.
At the recent investors briefing, it was noted that “Of the 57% of consumers that purchased Switch Lite (as their first system), Nintendo is seeing a higher percentage of female users than it had for Switch in the past, signalling further expansion of the female consumer base."
The intention of this model is clearly to appeal to that demographic.
I think the main point here is that Gamefreak is trying to set a precedent. I see lots of people saying they would have been happy to wait a year longer to give Gamefreak more time to include all the Pokemon. As I say, the point is they've decided they want to set a precedent so they don't have to include them all from now on. It does suck, but it kind of is what it is.
I think the bigger question is does this mean Pokemon Home is a permanent application or what happens if you transfer all your old Pokemon to it and they then decide to get rid of it in few years like with Bank, which is obviously going to become obsolete when Pokemon Homes comes out.
My guess is that this 'leak' is totally deliberate to allow the studio to evaluate the reactions to the change without doing so officially. Personally, I think it is a massive improvement.
Just one minor point of clarification concerning the comments at the end of the review - EA has no choice but to release FIFA onto the Switch and to continue to do so. EA is contractually obligated to do so - as part of the contract they were granted by FIFA they have to release the series onto every 'main' console. That's why they are putting in the bare minimum as they would be in breach of contract if they failed to release entries on Switch.
Really annoying that EA doesn't give the Switch version parity of advertising with the PS4 / Xbox versions, otherwise I suspect the UK sales would be much better even with the paired down version if it was explained more widely to people they could play FIFA on the go.
@Scorchio Completely agree. Just collected my Switch Lite this morning and have made it my primary console. It is so much lighter than the OG Switch and can fit easily in a pocket. Also, Nintendo has made digital sharing easy, so I was easily able to sync up all my saves. Now I have the best of both worlds by using both systems.
@Vriess I would agree that investors have been pretty irrational in the past - however there is little risk of that happening this fiscal year.
It's obvious that Nintendo is going to massively pass their goal of selling 18 million units this fiscal year. After all, if they could manage around 16.5 to 17 million with a $300 dollar unit, then the Switch Lite at $200 dollars should smash that target. Particularly with the games lineup this fall.
My guess is a reasonable number would be around 22 to 24 million units sold, so total worldwide Switch sales should be around 42 million units by the end of March. That would be pretty impressive.
@SonOfVon Yes you can. You simply have to set one of your Switches as the 'Primary' console and the second as the secondary console. The primary console can be taken any where, whereas the second needs a constant Wi-Fi connection.
I'm all digital on the Switch - it just makes so much sense in terms of making it easy to have all your games with you on a single SD card with no need to swap cartridges.
Should add for clarification to several comments above, that physical and digital games cost the same amount as games companies have agreed this to keep physical retailers happy. Retailers would obviously not want digital to be cheaper as games companies would then have every incentive to maximise profits by encouraging consumers to buy directly from them rather than retailers - but retailers could then hit back by refusing to stock console hardware. So, both sides would lose out, hence the use of price parity. Stupid if you ask me - as this is just pandering to retailers, but there we go.
My guess is that 'physical' games won't ever go away in the sense that you will always be able to purchase a physical box in retail stores. The change I can see happening, however, is that in future boxes won't have cartridges, but simply include a download code as this will be massively cheaper to produce from the point of view of games companies.
I suspect Nintendo’s decision to not allow the Switch Lite to connect to the TV is intended to avoid confusing casual consumers.
If the Switch Lite were able to connect to the TV, Nintendo would have to manufacture a smaller dock. Because the Joycons are built into the Switch Lite, consumers would need to purchase a separate dock and separate Joycons or Pro-Controllers.
I bet Nintendo would have ended up with lots of complaints and bad publicity with casual consumers who bought Switch Lite Docks, not understanding that separate Joycon would also be needed to access TV mode – unless Nintendo bundled a pair of Joycons with a Mini Dock, but that defeats the whole purpose by making such a bundle expensive.
I bet they also wish to keep an incentive for consumers to buy the existing Switch model, which this approach clearly achieves.
I don’t know why some people are annoyed that the Switch Lite isn’t compatible with the Dock and therefore can’t Switch – after all, Nintendo has form on this. They previously released the 2DS, which was a 3DS without the 3D… enough said.
As an existing Switch user, I’m pleased. The last thing I would have wanted would be a cheaper Switch with a 1080p screen as I would have felt cheated as an early adopter of the system.
As it is, the Switch Lite provides a cheaper model for people wanting a handheld only system while preserving the value of the more expensive model with the Dock – smart move on Nintendo’s part.
Oh dear, where to start with this. Firstly, we know that Sword and Shield have been in development since at least late 2016 / early 2017 as Ultra Sun and Moon and Let's Go were developed by a smaller team as Gamefreak has two primary development teams - a Lead Team and a Secondary Team. So the excuse about timing goes out the window.
So Gamefreak didn't have enough time to put all the Pokemon in these games, despite the obvious fact they have taken the models directly from the 3DS games, yet they had enough time to development the Let's Go games and use different models for those. Doesn't make a whole load of sense. I think this is simply laziness on the part of Gamefreak.
Personally, I probably wouldn't have completed the whole Pokedex, but at least I could have transferred my favourites. I totally agree with @thesilverbrick that this is a deal breaker.
@thesilverbrick Thanks - just to clarify I'm not saying this is my opinion as such, I am just saying I think this is Microsoft's approach.
You can kind of see why. PS4 is about to reach the 100,000 unit mark, whereas Xbox One is nearer to 40,000. That is a seriously big gap. I agree that, obviously, Switch and Xbox One are in competition but I'm not sure that is how Microsoft sees it.
From their point view, Switch is never going to compete on the hardware front in terms of graphics and capacity, so they really aren't losing anything by putting their games on the platform.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Forza comes to Switch for example. If you want the definitive 4K experience you're still only going to get that on an Xbox One - which is going to get even cheaper when the streaming only model comes out soon. My point being, Microsoft (in the big picture of things) loses nothing from putting their IPs on Switch.
You can tell they don't regard the Switch as being in the same territory as the PS4 - otherwise why not just publish Cuphead on PS4 for example? Because Microsoft see Sony as the main enemy and realise that Switch is not the main competition. Least this is how I read Microsoft's thinking.
Plus they want Xbox Live to become more of a service. Again if they eventually bring Xbox One games to Switch through streaming they lose nothing - if you want to actually own the games you'll still need to buy an Xbox One.
@thesilverbrick I will try and cover this – what does Microsoft have to gain?
Expose through the Switch to gamers in Japan, where Microsoft’s market share is small
Greater profitability for their games, which can be marketed to a wider audience
Microsoft is also about marketing services, which is why they want more active users by bringing Xbox Live to the Switch
As the Switch does not directly compete with the Xbox One in power terms, this ultimately doesn’t hurt Microsoft as it is not like people who buy a Switch are then never going to consider buying an Xbox One.
@DavidMac Totally agree with you. I am honestly getting annoyed at Nintendo for not yet porting Wind Waker over to the Switch.
I mean, it had a handheld mode on the Wii U so seriously, how difficult could this be? Plus it only sold 2.28 million copies worldwide - so this seems a real no-brainer.
@Mrbayram92 Usually because of the price parity rules. Comparisons between different platforms don’t really work as game pricing will be different for Xbox One and PS4, which have been out a lot longer, and Switch which obviously has only been out two years – which does factor into the price.
I’m not defending Capcom’s pricing structure, which will influence the games. I just get tired of lazy people blaming the game publishers when it is a fact that the main culprit is Nintendo.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Nintendo – but some of their pricing policies lead to the prices of games being inflated. This is simply a fact. They could cut the price of cartridges more and drop the absurd price parity policy so that digital games cost less.
The cost has probably fallen somewhat since. I am not sure we can use this figure to correlate a price for PS4 discs as this depends on lots of factors – such as what Nintendo and Sony charge for games to published on their platform (the publishing fee) and whether they offer any incentives to third parties (I wonder if Sony might subsidise some of the costs to encourage publishers to come to their platform as they are notoriously hyper competitive)
Also we don’t know how much the cartridges retail to third parties. Theoretically, it should be just the manufacturing cost – but my guess is that Nintendo probably licenses the manufacture of the cartridges at the slightly higher cost. I have no evidence for that, but it is an educated guess based on Nintendo’s usual approach to pricing.
As you say, the cost has probably fallen somewhat since. We also don’t know how much Nintendo retails the carts for as we are all assuming they retail at the same price as the manufacturing cost – whereas I would bet that Nintendo retails them through the manufacturer to third parties at a slightly higher cost. I have no evidence for that, but just an educated guess.
I am not saying that pricing isn’t influenced by Capcom’s own decisions, but merely that this is simply one factor at pay here. People do need to look at the big picture as game pricing is influenced by lots of factors.
@Supadav03 Thanks for replying. It is one of the factors as the price parity rules still apply to digital games - they have to be priced in an equivalent way to physical games.
For example, the reason Sega made Sonic Mania Plus a collectors edition with a booklet etc is that otherwise the price parity rules bwould have applied and they would have been forced to retail it at the digital price (£15.99) and possibly made a loss due to the cartridge costs.
Also, we don't know what the fee regime is for digital only titles by Nintendo, so there could be some additional costs from that perspective.
I wish this article included some proper analysis of why Nintendo Switch games are more expensive than other formats. There are a variety of factors at play here:
Cartridges cost more to manufacture due to the use of flash memory which has different capacity sizes. By comparison, CDs have a standard manufacturing cost, but the size can vary, so they are relatively inexpensive by comparison
It has been confirmed that 32GB Switch carts cost the publisher $20 just for the cart! Other carts are similarly expensive in relative terms – so publishers uprate their prices to reflect this.
As cartridge sizes increase, so do the relative manufacturing costs
Price parity policies distort the market and result in higher costs for digital games than would otherwise be the case
Even when a game isn’t produced physically, the same rules apply in case a physical edition is ever made. The only exemption to this rule is for Collectors Editions, which are allowed to vary their price.
Publishers are already paying a fee to get their game published on the Switch, so asking them to absorb the additional cost of higher cartridge formats would make it unprofitable to bring many games to the platform.
Ultimately, this is Nintendo’s problem as they could either cut the price of the cartridges or perhaps waive / absorb these costs to encourage more publishers to come to the Switch.
Not sure why there are so many people criticising Capcom. At the end of the day, Nintendo is to blame. They set the prices of the cartridges and require price parity between digital and physical games. Why should a publisher like Capcom be expected to cut their profits because of this?
Nintendo need to get their act together and price the cartridges more sensibly if they want more third parties to publish games on the Switch.
@starman292 I think you could be right. When this was shown, my first thought was that this could be one of the Eshop only games Emily Rogers was referring to in her recent post.
@Spudtendo I pretty much agree with you - as I said I just want more third party western companies as well as Japanese ones - but the third party offering was a good one.
Perhaps I am being a little demanding, but the Switch has now been out for nearly three years and I am wondering how long it's gonna take Nintendo to bring Wind Waker, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword to the Switch.
I accept that perhaps this is simply a pacing issue and Nintendo wants to space them out so they have a release each year. I just really wish Nintendo could 'clear up' the old Wii U Ports, so we can move onto new games.
At a minimum, those games plus Super Mario 3D World and Pikmin 3 (unless a sequel is coming) need to come to Switch. Nintendo can then be done with the port thing and we can move on to new games only.
@Spudtendo I am pleased that is the case. As I said, I am just expressing my thoughts as I personally prefer 3D Zelda games, but I respect the fact that there are lots of Zelda fans like yourself who prefer 2D titles, so it's good that Nintendo produces a variety of games.
I just wish we had more than one Zelda title per year.
@starman292 I hope you are right. At this point, I don't think I'll be purchasing the game.
As I said, I am happy for fans who want the game. Personally I am just disappointed as we only get one Zelda game a year and I would have preferred Wind Waker or another Zelda Wii U Port.
I know lots of people are against Wii U Ports, but they are great on the Switch and full 3D Zelda games really fit this nicely.
@LegendOfPokemon I completely agree with you. It’s good that many fans are pleased with the announcements, but personally I feel really deflated after the Direct.
The only decent announcement was Super Mario Maker 2. As you say, strange to put it first and hype everyone up, only to be disappointed with the other lower key announcements.
I am just disappointed that Nintendo only seems to be able to get Japanese developers with a sprinkling of western titles – why aren’t they are reaching out more to third party developers in the west? This would also help them fill out the rest of the year, while we wait for the big first party titles to be released.
The biggest let down, however, was Zelda. I really want Wind Waker to come the Switch as this is an absolutely epic title. The problem for me with Link’s Awakening is that it is basically not a fully-fledged title. Happy for those who want the game, but I’m not shelling out $60 for a remake of a Gameboy game. If it was a full 3D title that would be different.
@electrolite77 I definitely think you are right on that one as evidenced by Labo underselling the shipped units provided in each territory. As I recall, retailers were quick to heavily discount Labo in the weeks immediately after the launch.
@electrolite77 Absolutely agree. Your point about Labo is really interesting. I think you are right that Nintendo made a huge mistake by thinking Labo would do way better than it actually did.
@electrolite77 Totally agree that we shouldn't trust analysts as they tend to be all over the place with their predictions.
I take your point that Nintendo need to analyse why they failed to hit their own fiscal target.
My guess? I think Super Smash Bros was supposed to launch in September, alongside the Online Service, but got delayed. Three extra months of sales would have made a big impact on the number of units shifted.
They probably would have hit 17m units by now if SSBU had launched earlier in the late fiscal quarter.
Amazing – here comes the usual idiotism. According to NintendoSoup, Asymmetric Advisors, an investment financial group, are already saying the Switch’s second year is a “huge failure”. Give me a break!
So, a system selling roughly the same of amount units in the second year as in the first is apparently a failure even though the system sold better than its competitors this holiday season? These analysts seriously need to get some perspective as they obviously can’t decipher sales numbers.
Have to say I am not impressed with new Nintendo CEO Furukawa who apparently said, “I’m not sure why it (Nintendo Switch) is not shipping, but we will look back at what happened”.
Seriously? Why not just say that the 20 million target was ambitious and the company has just adjusted it accordingly and emphasise that 17 million is nonetheless an impressive target.
@Balta666 I agree with you that clickbaiters made it out to be something it wasn’t. That said, I am really pleased that Switch makes up 90% of Nintendo’s revenue. This means, despite what the company may say in public, they are basically totally dependent on Switch and will have to be Switch-focused going forward.
I am also really pleased that the classic systems had such sales – also interesting that Nintendo hasn’t published the revenue figures for Switch Online which I assume means they are still dire. My guess would be that the sales of the physical classic systems are probably seven or eight times larger than the revenue from the online service at this point.
While I don’t think they will give up on the Online service, I am hopeful that this will encourage Nintendo to up their game and expand the amount of systems available on the service and perhaps have a multi-tiered price service. I would honestly be willing to pay a lot more if they would simply give us N64 and Gamecube games.
It’s amusing that people recently thought Nintendo would be getting out of the console business based on remarks by President Shuntaro Furukawa saying, “we aren't really fixated on our consoles”. Seems like he should be fixated on consoles, given that the Switch is generating 90% of their revenue! Kind of worrying that the President of the company doesn’t appreciate this fact…
Amazing though that the Earnings Return shows that the Switch has sold 32.27 million units worldwide – very impressive in two years on the market. Crazy that the holiday hardware sales alone was 14.49 million units!
Not surprised Nintendo probably won’t meet the projected 20 million sales, now revised down to 17 million – there simply wasn’t enough software released outside of the holiday period. Hopefully, they will learn to have more frequent and more staggered releases across the year.
For those who are interested, the classic systems continue to sell well. The NES and SNES classic sold 5.83 million units during this same fiscal period. Amazing, Nintendo can't work out these are a better revenue driver than the Nintendo Switch Online Service...
@ottospooky Totally agree with you as Furukawa said they are not considering a "successor" but that doesn't mean they won't consider a "revision". Interesting though that his pledge not to cut the price of the current model would appear to rule out the possibility of an upgraded Switch model.
@derty The Japanese version can be played in English, so all you would really be getting is Japanese packaging. The Japanese listing on the Eshop makes clear that it can be played in English.
I prefer digital releases, although you do have to be savvy about price management. I have access to all the regional eshops - so I tend to buy from whichever has the cheapest. Nintendo's gold points also help in this regard.
I just think digital makes more sense. I have currently around 50 plus games on my 400GB card instead of 50 plus cartridges to have to take around with me. Each to their own, but I like the convenience factor. Digital is also often cheaper if you shop around and know where to find the best prices.
@electrolite77 Thanks for replying to my comment. Yes, absolutely this is speculation on my part - however, let's look at the rationale here.
Many people who don't like Let's Go seem to be suggesting that Junichi Masuda went off on his own tangent and did his own thing. This is simply not how Japanese companies work, which is largely on the basis of collective agreement and shared responsibility. My guess, albeit an educated one, is that Masuda had to pitch the Let's Go proposal to the Gamefreak/Pokemon Company board and they collectively approved the project.
Secondly, maybe Gamefreak will maintain a two tier game series as you suggest, with annual rotations of each series. Personally, I think that would be extremely confusing for the casual consumer. It would also be odd for them to effectively say 'Thanks for buying our casual game, now try new this new harder one with completely different mechanics'. Maybe that will work, but I doubt it.
I think it is more likely that, going forward, new entries in the series will be a hybrid of both sets of games - for example, they could have wild battles for the fans that want that, but put in an option so you can turn off the mechanic and use catching throwing if you want. That would please everyone and keep the casual fans on board. I think something like that is more likely.
Again, I have no concrete evidence for this - but if you want to understand how a Japanese company works you need to look at this from the perspective of their decision making process.
I also struggle to believe that they would want to maintain two separate product lines - again, look at what Junichi Masuda has been doing. They haven't been marking Let's Go as a game for 'casual fans' but a game 'for all fans'. It even says so on the box! My point being, they are clearly trying to unite the fan base, rather than going down the route of making products that cater to one or another.
Again, look at the messaging and the not so subtle hints.
The main point is that the sales clearly vindicate Junichi Masuda's strategy of having a more accessible game. I therefore suspect this format will be used going forward.
Those who expect the 2019 game to be a return to form are going to be seriously disappointed. There is no way Gamefreak is going to attract loads of new players only to revert the format back to random wild battles. Not saying the main core games will be exactly like Let's Go, but I would be seriously surprised if they don't take heavy inspiration from them.
Personally, I think Let's Go is great, but the old core series is clearly not going to return in the same format as before.
@Jeronan Exactly, completely agree with you. The games are fun and the grinding aspect of the game is great. The Pokeball Plus also works exceptionally well.
I'm just going to say it here first - the core fans who expect the 2019 game to be a 'return to form' are going to be seriously disappointed. Pokemon Let's Go has been a massive success. It has already sold 3 million copies - the fastest game launch to date on the Switch. Nintendo manage to shift around 600,000 Switch units in Japan alone because of demand for Pokemon.
Whether people like it or not, Gamefreak will interpret this as a complete vindication of Junichi Masuda's strategy and I am sure the 2019 game will adopt some of the aspects of this game. To do otherwise, makes absolutely no sense.
Gamefreak is not going to attract a lot of casual fans and then say 'That's great - now here is a more difficult game with a catch mechanic which is totally different to the game you played last year'. Again, makes no sense whatsoever.
My guess is that old core series, as we understand it is dead, and whatever comes in the future is going to be very different to what has come before.
Pokemon Let’s Go has had the second best debut of any Switch game. It only trails Splatoon 2, which managed to sell slightly more at 670,000 units. This is amazing, given that the Switch userbase is, in relative terms, still quite small.
I have also noticed on YouTube and elsewhere that a lot of people purchasing the game clearly also have a brand new Switch - which seems to evidence that new people are being encouraged to come on board.
Personally, I have had way more fun and enjoyment from these games than previous entries. I hope Gamefreak uses this opportunity to keep this format going forward as the existing mainline series had become very stale and boring.
The new catch mechanics are nicely balanced against time spent battling and the Pokeball Plus is a great accessory that helps to enhance the gameplay.
Comments 97
Re: Random: Nintendo Ironically Celebrates All Mario Switch Games With Fans, Weeks Before Wiping Some From Existence
@Dr_Lugae Yes - that's a very good observation. I totally agree with you.
Re: Random: Nintendo Ironically Celebrates All Mario Switch Games With Fans, Weeks Before Wiping Some From Existence
@Nymos Like you, I don’t like the limited release aspect of this, but unfortunately it does make good business sense.
Firstly, by time limiting it, they sold over 8 million copies. Secondly, Nintendo learnt the hard lesson of the Virtual Console, which is that ultimately putting out too much retro content hurts sales of their products.
Why does no one want NES or SNES games still? Because we’ve been oversaturated with them since the Wii era – that’s why people rightly want N64 and GameCube games on Switch Online.
The problem for Nintendo is that it makes more sense for them to ‘Disney Vault’ everything – release the games very infrequently but often enough to keep milking them, whereas if you make them readily available they ultimately lose some of their value if too many people can play them whenever they want and it reduces the desirability factor of 'buy now - or you might not have another chance'.
Re: Evidence Of Resident Evil 3: Cloud Version For Nintendo Switch Seemingly Uncovered
I suspect this will be an unpopular opinion, but I honestly hate cloud gaming. As you can only play the game with an active Wi-Fi connection, it goes completely against everything the Switch is about.
I am certainly not going to buy any of these games as I don’t want to support this practice. I appreciate there is a large hardware gap between the Switch and other consoles, but this is just laziness from developers. I am sure most games could be optimised for the Switch if they put in the effort as we have seen with other porting studios such as Panic Button.
Re: Poll: Did The Nintendo Direct Mini: Partners Showcase Meet Your Expectations?
The Direct exceeded my expectations… in how terrible it was. Seriously mediocre.
Re: Watch: Nintendo Direct Mini: Partner Showcase July 2020
Congratulations to Nintendo on literally the worst Direct ever. I honestly would have preferred to have had no Direct over this one – it was truly barren. Even the Mini Direct earlier in the year was leaps and bounds better than this one.
Seriously Nintendo – unless you’ve got some first party announcements then just hold off rather than trying to put together rubbish Directs.
Re: Nintendo Direct Mini: Partner Showcase Airs Later Today
I have no evidence for this just a theory – but I wonder if Nintendo was intending on having a full Direct but dropped the first party element because some of the games aren’t ready to show off or if there was some issue with the release dates.
The leakers indicated that “10 minutes” would focus on third party games – so I wonder if they just dropped the first party part and called it a ‘Mini Direct’.
There is no way Nintendo doesn’t have other games in the pipeline – after all we basically know Pikmin 3 Deluxe was supposed to be released around now (confirmed by multiple leakers) and that Metroid Prime Trilogy has been finished for a long time, but Nintendo just hasn’t yet decided to publish it.
I bet the main reason is that aren’t confident they can keep to their intended release dates and don’t want to announce anything until they are 100% sure after the Metroid Prime 4 debacle of announcing and then having to delay it.
Re: A Gorgeous Coral Switch Lite Is Releasing On Animal Crossing: New Horizons Day
@trakkerx I think you are right. Personally, I am genuinely divided on this. I really like the Switch Lite’s form factor – particularly the non-detachable Joycons as I think the Lite is likely to be more robust over the long term whereas I can see my original Switch deteriorating even if I take real care of it, just because the rails tend to loosen over time. However, I don’t want to completely lose docked mode.
The obviously solution, as you say, would be to buy another Switch – however, I have experience using the game sharing system and honestly, it’s annoying. I don’t like being forced to make one Switch my ‘primary’ console and another that is tied to Wi-Fi which might not work one day. At present, it’s therefore basically pointless to have multiple Switches until they sort this out.
I really admire Nintendo generally speaking, but their online system is rubbish when compared to the competition.
Re: A Gorgeous Coral Switch Lite Is Releasing On Animal Crossing: New Horizons Day
@trakkerx I totally agree that the Grey Switch Lite looks slick, particularly with the white buttons which leave a very clean feel to the whole unit and the matte finish is nicely done.
I am really surprised they didn’t release a light / tinted green Animal Crossing Switch Lite – but I guess they went for the flagship Switch unit given that Nintendo’s overall profit margin is somewhat higher for those than the Switch Lite, even though the Lite is cheaper to manufacture.
Re: A Gorgeous Coral Switch Lite Is Releasing On Animal Crossing: New Horizons Day
@trakkerx Exactly - Nintendo’s logic is obvious here.
At the recent investors briefing, it was noted that “Of the 57% of consumers that purchased Switch Lite (as their first system), Nintendo is seeing a higher percentage of female users than it had for Switch in the past, signalling further expansion of the female consumer base."
The intention of this model is clearly to appeal to that demographic.
Re: Nintendo Has "No Plans" To Release A New Switch Model This Year
@Grumblevolcano I hope you are right as Wind Waker definitely needs to come to the Switch. It is my favourite game of all time.
Re: Nintendo Raises Annual Switch Sales Forecast After Stronger-Than-Expected Nine Months
@JSDude1 My guess is that we'll get a February Direct to pad out the start of the year, with the big hitters announced at E3.
Re: There Are "No Plans" To Bring The Full Pokédex To Pokémon Sword And Shield, And Future Games Will Follow Suit
I think the main point here is that Gamefreak is trying to set a precedent. I see lots of people saying they would have been happy to wait a year longer to give Gamefreak more time to include all the Pokemon. As I say, the point is they've decided they want to set a precedent so they don't have to include them all from now on. It does suck, but it kind of is what it is.
I think the bigger question is does this mean Pokemon Home is a permanent application or what happens if you transfer all your old Pokemon to it and they then decide to get rid of it in few years like with Bank, which is obviously going to become obsolete when Pokemon Homes comes out.
Re: Rumour: New Images Supposedly Show Sonic's Movie Redesign, But We're Not Convinced Just Yet
My guess is that this 'leak' is totally deliberate to allow the studio to evaluate the reactions to the change without doing so officially. Personally, I think it is a massive improvement.
Re: Review: FIFA 20 - A Shamelessly Cynical Attempt To Swindle Switch-Owning Footy Fans
Just one minor point of clarification concerning the comments at the end of the review - EA has no choice but to release FIFA onto the Switch and to continue to do so. EA is contractually obligated to do so - as part of the contract they were granted by FIFA they have to release the series onto every 'main' console. That's why they are putting in the bare minimum as they would be in breach of contract if they failed to release entries on Switch.
Really annoying that EA doesn't give the Switch version parity of advertising with the PS4 / Xbox versions, otherwise I suspect the UK sales would be much better even with the paired down version if it was explained more widely to people they could play FIFA on the go.
Re: Wall Street Journal Report Says Nintendo Tried To "Aggressively" Cut Costs Of The Switch Lite
It's important to remember the Switch Lite actually costs around £166.60 as 20% of the price is comprised of VAT.
Re: Poll: Nintendo Switch Lite Is Out Today, Are You Getting One?
@Scorchio Completely agree. Just collected my Switch Lite this morning and have made it my primary console. It is so much lighter than the OG Switch and can fit easily in a pocket. Also, Nintendo has made digital sharing easy, so I was easily able to sync up all my saves. Now I have the best of both worlds by using both systems.
Re: Nintendo Shares Rise To Highest Point In 15 Months As Switch Lite Launch Nears
@Vriess I would agree that investors have been pretty irrational in the past - however there is little risk of that happening this fiscal year.
It's obvious that Nintendo is going to massively pass their goal of selling 18 million units this fiscal year. After all, if they could manage around 16.5 to 17 million with a $300 dollar unit, then the Switch Lite at $200 dollars should smash that target. Particularly with the games lineup this fall.
My guess is a reasonable number would be around 22 to 24 million units sold, so total worldwide Switch sales should be around 42 million units by the end of March. That would be pretty impressive.
Re: Guide: Where To Pre-Order Nintendo Switch Lite
@SonOfVon Yes you can. You simply have to set one of your Switches as the 'Primary' console and the second as the secondary console. The primary console can be taken any where, whereas the second needs a constant Wi-Fi connection.
Re: Nintendo's Digital Sales See A Whopping Year-On-Year Jump
I'm all digital on the Switch - it just makes so much sense in terms of making it easy to have all your games with you on a single SD card with no need to swap cartridges.
Should add for clarification to several comments above, that physical and digital games cost the same amount as games companies have agreed this to keep physical retailers happy. Retailers would obviously not want digital to be cheaper as games companies would then have every incentive to maximise profits by encouraging consumers to buy directly from them rather than retailers - but retailers could then hit back by refusing to stock console hardware. So, both sides would lose out, hence the use of price parity. Stupid if you ask me - as this is just pandering to retailers, but there we go.
My guess is that 'physical' games won't ever go away in the sense that you will always be able to purchase a physical box in retail stores. The change I can see happening, however, is that in future boxes won't have cartridges, but simply include a download code as this will be massively cheaper to produce from the point of view of games companies.
Re: Nintendo Switch Lite Officially Revealed, Launches This September
I suspect Nintendo’s decision to not allow the Switch Lite to connect to the TV is intended to avoid confusing casual consumers.
If the Switch Lite were able to connect to the TV, Nintendo would have to manufacture a smaller dock. Because the Joycons are built into the Switch Lite, consumers would need to purchase a separate dock and separate Joycons or Pro-Controllers.
I bet Nintendo would have ended up with lots of complaints and bad publicity with casual consumers who bought Switch Lite Docks, not understanding that separate Joycon would also be needed to access TV mode – unless Nintendo bundled a pair of Joycons with a Mini Dock, but that defeats the whole purpose by making such a bundle expensive.
I bet they also wish to keep an incentive for consumers to buy the existing Switch model, which this approach clearly achieves.
Re: Nintendo Switch Lite Officially Revealed, Launches This September
I don’t know why some people are annoyed that the Switch Lite isn’t compatible with the Dock and therefore can’t Switch – after all, Nintendo has form on this. They previously released the 2DS, which was a 3DS without the 3D… enough said.
As an existing Switch user, I’m pleased. The last thing I would have wanted would be a cheaper Switch with a 1080p screen as I would have felt cheated as an early adopter of the system.
As it is, the Switch Lite provides a cheaper model for people wanting a handheld only system while preserving the value of the more expensive model with the Dock – smart move on Nintendo’s part.
Re: You Cannot Have A Complete National Pokédex In Pokémon Sword And Shield
Oh dear, where to start with this. Firstly, we know that Sword and Shield have been in development since at least late 2016 / early 2017 as Ultra Sun and Moon and Let's Go were developed by a smaller team as Gamefreak has two primary development teams - a Lead Team and a Secondary Team. So the excuse about timing goes out the window.
So Gamefreak didn't have enough time to put all the Pokemon in these games, despite the obvious fact they have taken the models directly from the 3DS games, yet they had enough time to development the Let's Go games and use different models for those. Doesn't make a whole load of sense. I think this is simply laziness on the part of Gamefreak.
Personally, I probably wouldn't have completed the whole Pokedex, but at least I could have transferred my favourites. I totally agree with @thesilverbrick that this is a deal breaker.
Re: Microsoft Asked The Studio Behind Cuphead To Bring The Game To Switch
@thesilverbrick Thanks - just to clarify I'm not saying this is my opinion as such, I am just saying I think this is Microsoft's approach.
You can kind of see why. PS4 is about to reach the 100,000 unit mark, whereas Xbox One is nearer to 40,000. That is a seriously big gap. I agree that, obviously, Switch and Xbox One are in competition but I'm not sure that is how Microsoft sees it.
From their point view, Switch is never going to compete on the hardware front in terms of graphics and capacity, so they really aren't losing anything by putting their games on the platform.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Forza comes to Switch for example. If you want the definitive 4K experience you're still only going to get that on an Xbox One - which is going to get even cheaper when the streaming only model comes out soon. My point being, Microsoft (in the big picture of things) loses nothing from putting their IPs on Switch.
You can tell they don't regard the Switch as being in the same territory as the PS4 - otherwise why not just publish Cuphead on PS4 for example? Because Microsoft see Sony as the main enemy and realise that Switch is not the main competition. Least this is how I read Microsoft's thinking.
Plus they want Xbox Live to become more of a service. Again if they eventually bring Xbox One games to Switch through streaming they lose nothing - if you want to actually own the games you'll still need to buy an Xbox One.
Re: Microsoft Asked The Studio Behind Cuphead To Bring The Game To Switch
@thesilverbrick I will try and cover this – what does Microsoft have to gain?
Re: Rumour: Link's Awakening Might Not Be The Only Zelda Game Released In 2019
@DavidMac Totally agree with you. I am honestly getting annoyed at Nintendo for not yet porting Wind Waker over to the Switch.
I mean, it had a handheld mode on the Wii U so seriously, how difficult could this be? Plus it only sold 2.28 million copies worldwide - so this seems a real no-brainer.
Re: Talking Point: Capcom’s Resident Evil Switch Pricing Is Nothing New
@Mrbayram92 Usually because of the price parity rules. Comparisons between different platforms don’t really work as game pricing will be different for Xbox One and PS4, which have been out a lot longer, and Switch which obviously has only been out two years – which does factor into the price.
I’m not defending Capcom’s pricing structure, which will influence the games. I just get tired of lazy people blaming the game publishers when it is a fact that the main culprit is Nintendo.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Nintendo – but some of their pricing policies lead to the prices of games being inflated. This is simply a fact. They could cut the price of cartridges more and drop the absurd price parity policy so that digital games cost less.
Re: Talking Point: Capcom’s Resident Evil Switch Pricing Is Nothing New
@JasmineDragon Thanks for replying.
The figure of $20 for 32GB cartridges comes from a Nintendo Life article from 2017: https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/09/feature_exploring_the_switch_tax_and_why_nintendo_was_right_to_use_game_cards
The cost has probably fallen somewhat since. I am not sure we can use this figure to correlate a price for PS4 discs as this depends on lots of factors – such as what Nintendo and Sony charge for games to published on their platform (the publishing fee) and whether they offer any incentives to third parties (I wonder if Sony might subsidise some of the costs to encourage publishers to come to their platform as they are notoriously hyper competitive)
Also we don’t know how much the cartridges retail to third parties. Theoretically, it should be just the manufacturing cost – but my guess is that Nintendo probably licenses the manufacture of the cartridges at the slightly higher cost. I have no evidence for that, but it is an educated guess based on Nintendo’s usual approach to pricing.
Re: Talking Point: Capcom’s Resident Evil Switch Pricing Is Nothing New
@Silly_G Thanks for replying.
The figure of $20 for 32GB cartridges comes from a Nintendo Life article from 2017: https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/09/feature_exploring_the_switch_tax_and_why_nintendo_was_right_to_use_game_cards
As you say, the cost has probably fallen somewhat since. We also don’t know how much Nintendo retails the carts for as we are all assuming they retail at the same price as the manufacturing cost – whereas I would bet that Nintendo retails them through the manufacturer to third parties at a slightly higher cost. I have no evidence for that, but just an educated guess.
I am not saying that pricing isn’t influenced by Capcom’s own decisions, but merely that this is simply one factor at pay here. People do need to look at the big picture as game pricing is influenced by lots of factors.
Re: Talking Point: Capcom’s Resident Evil Switch Pricing Is Nothing New
@Supadav03 Thanks for replying. It is one of the factors as the price parity rules still apply to digital games - they have to be priced in an equivalent way to physical games.
For example, the reason Sega made Sonic Mania Plus a collectors edition with a booklet etc is that otherwise the price parity rules bwould have applied and they would have been forced to retail it at the digital price (£15.99) and possibly made a loss due to the cartridge costs.
Also, we don't know what the fee regime is for digital only titles by Nintendo, so there could be some additional costs from that perspective.
Re: Talking Point: Capcom’s Resident Evil Switch Pricing Is Nothing New
I wish this article included some proper analysis of why Nintendo Switch games are more expensive than other formats. There are a variety of factors at play here:
Ultimately, this is Nintendo’s problem as they could either cut the price of the cartridges or perhaps waive / absorb these costs to encourage more publishers to come to the Switch.
Re: Want Resident Evil On Your Switch? You'd Better Have Deep Pockets
Not sure why there are so many people criticising Capcom. At the end of the day, Nintendo is to blame. They set the prices of the cartridges and require price parity between digital and physical games. Why should a publisher like Capcom be expected to cut their profits because of this?
Nintendo need to get their act together and price the cartridges more sensibly if they want more third parties to publish games on the Switch.
Re: Feature: The Big Nintendo Direct Summary - 13th February
@starman292 I think you could be right. When this was shown, my first thought was that this could be one of the Eshop only games Emily Rogers was referring to in her recent post.
Re: Feature: The Big Nintendo Direct Summary - 13th February
@Spudtendo I pretty much agree with you - as I said I just want more third party western companies as well as Japanese ones - but the third party offering was a good one.
Perhaps I am being a little demanding, but the Switch has now been out for nearly three years and I am wondering how long it's gonna take Nintendo to bring Wind Waker, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword to the Switch.
I accept that perhaps this is simply a pacing issue and Nintendo wants to space them out so they have a release each year. I just really wish Nintendo could 'clear up' the old Wii U Ports, so we can move onto new games.
At a minimum, those games plus Super Mario 3D World and Pikmin 3 (unless a sequel is coming) need to come to Switch. Nintendo can then be done with the port thing and we can move on to new games only.
Re: Feature: The Big Nintendo Direct Summary - 13th February
@Spudtendo I am pleased that is the case. As I said, I am just expressing my thoughts as I personally prefer 3D Zelda games, but I respect the fact that there are lots of Zelda fans like yourself who prefer 2D titles, so it's good that Nintendo produces a variety of games.
I just wish we had more than one Zelda title per year.
Re: Feature: The Big Nintendo Direct Summary - 13th February
@starman292 I hope you are right. At this point, I don't think I'll be purchasing the game.
As I said, I am happy for fans who want the game. Personally I am just disappointed as we only get one Zelda game a year and I would have preferred Wind Waker or another Zelda Wii U Port.
I know lots of people are against Wii U Ports, but they are great on the Switch and full 3D Zelda games really fit this nicely.
Re: Feature: The Big Nintendo Direct Summary - 13th February
@LegendOfPokemon I completely agree with you. It’s good that many fans are pleased with the announcements, but personally I feel really deflated after the Direct.
The only decent announcement was Super Mario Maker 2. As you say, strange to put it first and hype everyone up, only to be disappointed with the other lower key announcements.
I am just disappointed that Nintendo only seems to be able to get Japanese developers with a sprinkling of western titles – why aren’t they are reaching out more to third party developers in the west? This would also help them fill out the rest of the year, while we wait for the big first party titles to be released.
The biggest let down, however, was Zelda. I really want Wind Waker to come the Switch as this is an absolutely epic title. The problem for me with Link’s Awakening is that it is basically not a fully-fledged title. Happy for those who want the game, but I’m not shelling out $60 for a remake of a Gameboy game. If it was a full 3D title that would be different.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
@electrolite77 I definitely think you are right on that one as evidenced by Labo underselling the shipped units provided in each territory. As I recall, retailers were quick to heavily discount Labo in the weeks immediately after the launch.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
@electrolite77 Absolutely agree. Your point about Labo is really interesting. I think you are right that Nintendo made a huge mistake by thinking Labo would do way better than it actually did.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
@electrolite77 Totally agree that we shouldn't trust analysts as they tend to be all over the place with their predictions.
I take your point that Nintendo need to analyse why they failed to hit their own fiscal target.
My guess? I think Super Smash Bros was supposed to launch in September, alongside the Online Service, but got delayed. Three extra months of sales would have made a big impact on the number of units shifted.
They probably would have hit 17m units by now if SSBU had launched earlier in the late fiscal quarter.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
Amazing – here comes the usual idiotism. According to NintendoSoup, Asymmetric Advisors, an investment financial group, are already saying the Switch’s second year is a “huge failure”. Give me a break!
https://nintendosoup.com/financial-analyst-calls-switch-a-big-failure-for-not-hitting-targets-nintendo-ceo-tells-investors-not-to-worry/
So, a system selling roughly the same of amount units in the second year as in the first is apparently a failure even though the system sold better than its competitors this holiday season? These analysts seriously need to get some perspective as they obviously can’t decipher sales numbers.
Have to say I am not impressed with new Nintendo CEO Furukawa who apparently said, “I’m not sure why it (Nintendo Switch) is not shipping, but we will look back at what happened”.
Seriously? Why not just say that the 20 million target was ambitious and the company has just adjusted it accordingly and emphasise that 17 million is nonetheless an impressive target.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
@Balta666 I agree with you that clickbaiters made it out to be something it wasn’t. That said, I am really pleased that Switch makes up 90% of Nintendo’s revenue. This means, despite what the company may say in public, they are basically totally dependent on Switch and will have to be Switch-focused going forward.
I am also really pleased that the classic systems had such sales – also interesting that Nintendo hasn’t published the revenue figures for Switch Online which I assume means they are still dire. My guess would be that the sales of the physical classic systems are probably seven or eight times larger than the revenue from the online service at this point.
While I don’t think they will give up on the Online service, I am hopeful that this will encourage Nintendo to up their game and expand the amount of systems available on the service and perhaps have a multi-tiered price service. I would honestly be willing to pay a lot more if they would simply give us N64 and Gamecube games.
Re: Nintendo Cuts Its 20 Million Switch Hardware Sales Target Despite Incredible Holiday Season Performance
It’s amusing that people recently thought Nintendo would be getting out of the console business based on remarks by President Shuntaro Furukawa saying, “we aren't really fixated on our consoles”. Seems like he should be fixated on consoles, given that the Switch is generating 90% of their revenue! Kind of worrying that the President of the company doesn’t appreciate this fact…
Amazing though that the Earnings Return shows that the Switch has sold 32.27 million units worldwide – very impressive in two years on the market. Crazy that the holiday hardware sales alone was 14.49 million units!
Not surprised Nintendo probably won’t meet the projected 20 million sales, now revised down to 17 million – there simply wasn’t enough software released outside of the holiday period. Hopefully, they will learn to have more frequent and more staggered releases across the year.
For those who are interested, the classic systems continue to sell well. The NES and SNES classic sold 5.83 million units during this same fiscal period. Amazing, Nintendo can't work out these are a better revenue driver than the Nintendo Switch Online Service...
Re: Nintendo Is Not Considering A Switch Successor Or Price Cut At This Time, Says President
@ottospooky Totally agree with you as Furukawa said they are not considering a "successor" but that doesn't mean they won't consider a "revision". Interesting though that his pledge not to cut the price of the current model would appear to rule out the possibility of an upgraded Switch model.
Re: Call Off The Search, The Best Yoshi's Crafted World Bundle Has Well And Truly Been Found
@derty The Japanese version can be played in English, so all you would really be getting is Japanese packaging. The Japanese listing on the Eshop makes clear that it can be played in English.
Re: Feature: Digital vs Physical - What Is Your Preference for Nintendo Switch?
@manu0 Me too. I think the Amazon Japan game prices are really good value.
Re: Feature: Digital vs Physical - What Is Your Preference for Nintendo Switch?
I prefer digital releases, although you do have to be savvy about price management. I have access to all the regional eshops - so I tend to buy from whichever has the cheapest. Nintendo's gold points also help in this regard.
I just think digital makes more sense. I have currently around 50 plus games on my 400GB card instead of 50 plus cartridges to have to take around with me. Each to their own, but I like the convenience factor. Digital is also often cheaper if you shop around and know where to find the best prices.
Re: Pokémon: Let's Go Sells 3 Million Copies In First Week, Becomes Fastest-Selling Game On Switch
@electrolite77 Thanks for replying to my comment. Yes, absolutely this is speculation on my part - however, let's look at the rationale here.
Many people who don't like Let's Go seem to be suggesting that Junichi Masuda went off on his own tangent and did his own thing. This is simply not how Japanese companies work, which is largely on the basis of collective agreement and shared responsibility. My guess, albeit an educated one, is that Masuda had to pitch the Let's Go proposal to the Gamefreak/Pokemon Company board and they collectively approved the project.
Secondly, maybe Gamefreak will maintain a two tier game series as you suggest, with annual rotations of each series. Personally, I think that would be extremely confusing for the casual consumer. It would also be odd for them to effectively say 'Thanks for buying our casual game, now try new this new harder one with completely different mechanics'. Maybe that will work, but I doubt it.
I think it is more likely that, going forward, new entries in the series will be a hybrid of both sets of games - for example, they could have wild battles for the fans that want that, but put in an option so you can turn off the mechanic and use catching throwing if you want. That would please everyone and keep the casual fans on board. I think something like that is more likely.
Again, I have no concrete evidence for this - but if you want to understand how a Japanese company works you need to look at this from the perspective of their decision making process.
I also struggle to believe that they would want to maintain two separate product lines - again, look at what Junichi Masuda has been doing. They haven't been marking Let's Go as a game for 'casual fans' but a game 'for all fans'. It even says so on the box! My point being, they are clearly trying to unite the fan base, rather than going down the route of making products that cater to one or another.
Again, look at the messaging and the not so subtle hints.
Re: Pokémon: Let's Go Sells 3 Million Copies In First Week, Becomes Fastest-Selling Game On Switch
The main point is that the sales clearly vindicate Junichi Masuda's strategy of having a more accessible game. I therefore suspect this format will be used going forward.
Those who expect the 2019 game to be a return to form are going to be seriously disappointed. There is no way Gamefreak is going to attract loads of new players only to revert the format back to random wild battles. Not saying the main core games will be exactly like Let's Go, but I would be seriously surprised if they don't take heavy inspiration from them.
Personally, I think Let's Go is great, but the old core series is clearly not going to return in the same format as before.
Re: Guide: How To Check IVs And Catch Pokémon With Flawless IVs In Pokémon: Let's Go On Nintendo Switch
@Jeronan Exactly, completely agree with you. The games are fun and the grinding aspect of the game is great. The Pokeball Plus also works exceptionally well.
I'm just going to say it here first - the core fans who expect the 2019 game to be a 'return to form' are going to be seriously disappointed. Pokemon Let's Go has been a massive success. It has already sold 3 million copies - the fastest game launch to date on the Switch. Nintendo manage to shift around 600,000 Switch units in Japan alone because of demand for Pokemon.
Whether people like it or not, Gamefreak will interpret this as a complete vindication of Junichi Masuda's strategy and I am sure the 2019 game will adopt some of the aspects of this game. To do otherwise, makes absolutely no sense.
Gamefreak is not going to attract a lot of casual fans and then say 'That's great - now here is a more difficult game with a catch mechanic which is totally different to the game you played last year'. Again, makes no sense whatsoever.
My guess is that old core series, as we understand it is dead, and whatever comes in the future is going to be very different to what has come before.
Re: Soapbox: Don't Listen To The Pokémon: Let’s Go Haters - The Game Has Definitely Found Its Audience
Great article.
Pokemon Let’s Go has had the second best debut of any Switch game. It only trails Splatoon 2, which managed to sell slightly more at 670,000 units. This is amazing, given that the Switch userbase is, in relative terms, still quite small.
I have also noticed on YouTube and elsewhere that a lot of people purchasing the game clearly also have a brand new Switch - which seems to evidence that new people are being encouraged to come on board.
Personally, I have had way more fun and enjoyment from these games than previous entries. I hope Gamefreak uses this opportunity to keep this format going forward as the existing mainline series had become very stale and boring.
The new catch mechanics are nicely balanced against time spent battling and the Pokeball Plus is a great accessory that helps to enhance the gameplay.