Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

I disagree that gaming is going that way. Back in 1998 games for the N64 were £50, some £60 (CBFD for instance). PS2 games were also £40 (same as PS4 games now).

 

If anything gaming has gotten cheaper as £50 then would be even more in today's money. There's also a lot of free to play games today unlike back then, which are typically sustained by those microtransactions. Microtransactions are totally optional and mean that people who want to pay them basically pay for the people who don't (who play for free). They can be in paid for games but again, they're still optional.

Games have gotten much cheaper as the culture has shifted more to the mainstream, and thank god! But these games you talk about which are F2P generally don't push the latest hardware like the blockbuster games seen on the next gen consoles and cost a fraction of the price to develop. The blockbusters may cost the consumer less from the offset but then you have to deal with microtransatcions and season passes which bump the price up considerably, granted they're a choice but necessary if you want the "full experience" (also day one patches, while not an expense, demonstrate just how stressful and maximum profit driven the industry has become). There's a reason the last 3 GTA generations have seen sequels or expansion packs, to get more profit out of the gamer on the technology they were developed using. The same is true for games like FIFA, CoD or Assassin's Creed.

You don't have to deal with microtransactions though? Don't understand why you say that. It's totally optional and we have seen in games like Destiny how events can be brought to every player because they fund development with microtransactions. Also happening with Pokemon Go - free to play for me because the game is supported by microtransactions. So that's good news!

Not sure what your point is about season passes - you realise that is people paying up front for unmade DLC right? So again...don't pay it. And you'll be getting just your game, just like you were back then. It sounds to me like you're bringing up loads of stuff that you can spend money on as a way of saying gaming now is more expensive. Well, it's not. Because all that extra stuff is just that - extra, optional stuff on top of the original game. Also let's not pretend DLC is something seedy and extortionist, or anti-consumer; we'd have killed for some way to get new tracks on Mario Kart 64 back in the day. What we have now is more options.

Coming back to the original point about regular (non F2P) games - these are £40 now, they were £50-60 on N64 in 1998. So no, it's not costing me any more today. Significantly less, in fact. And with budgets getting much bigger, but prices of games staying roughly the same, arguably you are getting decent value for money there too.

You don't have to deal with microtransactions though? Don't understand why you say that. It's totally optional and we have seen in games like Destiny how events can be brought to every player because they fund development with microtransactions. Also happening with Pokemon Go - free to play for me because the game is supported by microtransactions. So that's good news!

 

Not sure what your point is about season passes - you realise that is people paying up front for unmade DLC right? So again...don't pay it. And you'll be getting just your game, just like you were back then. It sounds to me like you're bringing up loads of stuff that you can spend money on as a way of saying gaming now is more expensive. Well, it's not. Because all that extra stuff is just that - extra, optional stuff on top of the original game.

 

Coming back to the original point about regular (non F2P) games - these are £40 now, they were £50-60 on N64 in 1998. So no, it's not costing me any more today. Significantly less, in fact. And with budgets getting much bigger, but prices of games staying roughly the same, arguably you are getting decent value for money there too.

We have already seen countless examples of how DLC is announced before a game's release, or is included on the disk with a microtransaction unlocking it. Pre-order bonuses are now a thing. Special editions. Exploitative practices are now accepted as the norm. People who do spend extra money, above the £40 base are always at an advantage if the game is competative, even Pokemon Go is evidence of that. Like I said, if you want the "full experience" you are asked to pay more. The reason we didn't see it in 1998 is because developers were less able / willing to exploit gamers. You paid for a game and bought the entire work of the developer. Nintendo, by the way, is just as guilty as other developers of these practices, but it highlights how gaming in it's 1998 form would now be unsustainable.

Anyway, to get back to the original point. I'm much happier Nintendo have chosen to go down this route as opposed to the standard next-gen route mainly for the points I've outlined above, but mostly because I don't think they have the desire or the funds to compete with Sony and Microsoft and it would end in disaster. They seem to perform better when they're forced into a corner.

Not as willing to exploit gamers back then? Can you really say DLC is that? They're giving gamers what they want - because if it wasn't what they wanted, they wouldn't buy it. Secondly, if you see it that way, that's still not true. Back then on PC you would have expansion packs for games that functioned exactly the same as modern DLC. Why not on console? Because they did not have hard drives then, and they could just reuse an engine and assets and sell it as a new game instead.

You're bringing up some good examples of bullshit practices that are employed now but that doesn't really go to show that gaming is more expensive. I could still buy games for cheaper than I could then even buy some microtransactions and it'd probably still be cheaper than a game back then.

I'm also not having a lesser experience, or missing out on the 'full' experience in Pokemon Go by not paying. Paying in that game would speed things up but I wouldn't be experiencing any new content or modes of any kind, so I disagree with you on that. In fact that's how it is on most F2P games - the money never really buys you content. Arguably, paying to win would also be a lot less satisfying and therefore actually detract from the experience for me.

Microtransactions are this generation's expansion pack, LAN adaptor, memory cards, multi-taps etc. Companies will always find ways to get more money out for better or newer experiences. Technology (and society) has changed to force new directions and allowed for more of it, but upsell has always existed.

Not as willing to exploit gamers back then? Can you really say DLC is that? They're giving gamers what they want - because if it wasn't what they wanted, they wouldn't buy it. Secondly, if you see it that way, that's still not true. Back then on PC you would have expansion packs for games that functioned exactly the same as modern DLC. Why not on console? Because they did not have hard drives then, and they could just reuse an engine and assets and sell it as a new game instead.

 

You're bringing up some good examples of bullshit practices that are employed now but that doesn't really go to show that gaming is more expensive. I could still buy games for cheaper than I could then even buy some microtransactions and it'd probably still be cheaper than a game back then.

 

I'm also not having a lesser experience, or missing out on the 'full' experience in Pokemon Go by not paying. Paying in that game would speed things up but I wouldn't be experiencing any new content or modes of any kind, so I disagree with you on that. In fact that's how it is on most F2P games - the money never really buys you content. Arguably, paying to win would also be a lot less satisfying and therefore actually detract from the experience for me.

I don't disagree with you, but having DLC on the disc or holding back content is definitely something that wouldn't have happened back then, though it is standard fare in 2015. They may be giving gamers what they want in some cases, but they also may be giving them what they haven't got in others.

Banjo Kazooie and Tooie are perfect 1990s examples of re-using assets, but they were two complete games, set in different worlds and were seperated by a £50 price tag. I bought the first, was massively satisfied and rented the second becuase I was unwilling back then to spend that much money on a similar, but also complete experience. It totally bombed as well. We all, as gamers, have a choice how to spend our cash. PC gaming has always been different, admittedly more so back then, and hard-drives give us the choice whether to spend more on expanding, if we like the game, just like I did for Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros (even if the pricing wasn't great). The point I'm trying to make is that this content is not always good value, or as I mentioned before, is already on the disc or planned before release, this in partuclar is what I despise, and something that seems to becoming more common.

Those of us like me, and probably you, who are happy with our game which comes on the disc or is F2P are seemingly at a disadvantage. Firstly, because competative gaming gives the advantage to those who spend. For example, I have absolutely no hope of ever taking over a gym on Pokemon Go unless I spend 5 hours a day playing it, which I can't, therefore I can't get the full experience without paying. Paying to win is cheap (in the bad sense ) and unsatisfying, and I also would never even give it a thought. Secondly, the actual on-disc content seems to be becoming less and less, and as I mentioned in my previous posts, there will become a point where gamers like you and I could just say no becuase a retail game may no longer justify it's £40 price tag. This is a problem I see happening mainly with blockbuster games more than anything else. Humble bundles and Playstation Plus are undoubtedly great, but so were bargain bins in 1998, or second hand games. It seems to me that it's just an evolution of that for the digital age.

Yeah back in the old days developers never used to hide content behind additional purchases.

Just to throw a spanner to that - there are games like Overwatch where all microtransactions are purely cosmetic; they also promise free maps and characters for life, funded no doubt by said microtransactions. They can be done very well, if the developer wills it. Many games with a serious competitive side do not have microtransactions that affect actual gameplay (Destiny too). This is a model I definitely agree with as it means we tend to get updates for free.

Also regarding the on-disc content, I'd say we're getting more and more. The scale of games gets bigger and bigger while the price tag stays pretty solid. GTAV is much bigger, more detailed and feature-rich than GTA3 - and yet, the price was pretty much the same. You could argue the same for many other games too - like Assassin's Creed Syndicate. The scale and detail is immense in that game. As the scale and amount of content increases with these games (as it always seems to), I can only see games becoming better value for money as time goes on.

As I said before, games back in the 90s were actually quite poor value; consider the average wage then and they were really quite expensive. Also think about games like Smash 64 and the limited number of characters and levels - compare that to Smash of today. I honestly completely disagree that games now seem to offer less and less for your money.

The problem as I see it is that gaming has exploded, to the point that people spend more on games as there are a lot more games of good quality to buy.

I don't disagree with you at all, but it would be interesting to see how much Sony and Microsoft spend on development and marketing now, compared to 2006 and whether they are making more or less percentage profit. Microsoft has already announced that Xbox games are coming to PC as cross buy for the windows store. To me that's an admission that their home console division is failing.

Not sure I think it's more about MS trying to drive W10.

I'm sorry,calling something someone said "nonsensical" is now disrespectful? Are we really at extreme nanny state levels? Nonsensical is offensive now? That was me being polite. It is a nonsensical thing to say, as in, it doesn't make any sense, as in - moaning that you don't want to play Zelda on an 8" screen, when you don't have to do that. It IS nonsensical. No disrespect. No insult. It doesn't make sense. And I know that isnt even the argument against it....oh boy....

Anyways, in news, Nintendo's supplementary device patent has just been passed in America. Maybe there is a booster!!

Just to throw a spanner to that - there are games like Overwatch where all microtransactions are purely cosmetic; they also promise free maps and characters for life, funded no doubt by said microtransactions. They can be done very well, if the developer wills it. Many games with a serious competitive side do not have microtransactions that affect actual gameplay (Destiny too). This is a model I definitely agree with as it means we tend to get updates for free.

 

Also regarding the on-disc content, I'd say we're getting more and more. The scale of games gets bigger and bigger while the price tag stays pretty solid. GTAV is much bigger, more detailed and feature-rich than GTA3 - and yet, the price was pretty much the same. You could argue the same for many other games too - like Assassin's Creed Syndicate. The scale and detail is immense in that game. As the scale and amount of content increases with these games (as it always seems to), I can only see games becoming better value for money as time goes on.

 

As I said before, games back in the 90s were actually quite poor value; consider the average wage then and they were really quite expensive. Also think about games like Smash 64 and the limited number of characters and levels - compare that to Smash of today. I honestly completely disagree that games now seem to offer less and less for your money.

 

The problem as I see it is that gaming has exploded, to the point that people spend more on games as there are a lot more games of good quality to buy.

For sure there are great examples like Overwatch, but you and I both know these are the exception to the rule. Splatoon is also a fantastic example of this. Gaming has indeed exploded since the 90s, and prices have adjusted accordingly for the mass market. More people buying games = lower price points. GTA 5 is bigger and better in every way than it's predecessors, but that's down to the advances in technology and capability of the hardware. GTA 3 was also ridiculous for it's time, as was DK64, Gran Turismo 2, the original Zelda etc etc. This trend will undoubtedly continue, but so will the rising costs, which is the crux of my argument. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, I'm simply suggesting that at some point there won't be the user base to support these ever-expanding projects, and as that time draws closer, we'll likely be offered a gradually worse deal as gamers, and these exploitative practices will become more commonplace.

Look at it this way, the number of people going to the cinema has dropped off massively since the 90s with the advancement of technology, the Internet, more forms of entertainment etc. Many independent cinemas have shut their doors in the past 20 years and huge multiplexes are pretty much all that remain, standing on the outskirts of cities. Films are more expensive and grand than they have ever been, yet to compensate their increasing production costs, prices have risen many, many times above inflation, not just for tickets, but for everything else like drinks and popcorn. Who's to say that same cut off point for gaming isn't right around the corner if things continue this way?

Not sure I think it's more about MS trying to drive W10.

While at the same time admitting that "only on Xbox" doesn't quite have the same meaning it once did? I'm sure that every serious PC gamer has already upgraded or plans to upgrade to Windows 10, especially considering it was free for 7 and 8 users.

I'm sorry,calling something someone said "nonsensical" is now disrespectful? Are we really at extreme nanny state levels? Nonsensical is offensive now? That was me being polite. It is a nonsensical thing to say, as in, it doesn't make any sense, as in - moaning that you don't want to play Zelda on an 8" screen, when you don't have to do that. It IS nonsensical. No disrespect. No insult. It doesn't make sense. And I know that isnt even the argument against it....oh boy....

 

Anyways, in news, Nintendo's supplementary device patent has just been passed in America. Maybe there is a booster!!

Don't get it twisted, I have thicker skin than most - but you often lack the filters to know when you're simply being provocative. I'm sure if we met you wouldn't have that tune with me so there's no need for the hard talking, chest beating talk just because you're in a forum. Let's maintain a civil community - and refrain from aggressive undertones, we're all adults here.

I'm more than happy to block you if you're seriously having trouble understanding this.

In your cinema example the cinema is a function; the film is the medium. Films aren't losing popularity, just the cinema, which starts to lose out to the home. That's why companies like Microsoft were/are desperate to own your living room space with their TV TV TV push.

So to favourably compare to your cinema example - gaming arcades, the function, lose their popularity - which they already have. If we look at the actual games, which are the medium, they are totally different - stats show sales of PS4s are higher than any PlayStation console before it. Even if video game uptake stopped rising, technology constantly improves to allow better games to be made at the same cost. That is why I don't see it as doomed.

We also now see incredibly competent companies that handle outsource work no doubt for cheap (see FFX remaster, Wind Waker HD). And even ingenious ways that small teams can make big games (see No Man's Sky).

In your cinema example the cinema is a function; the film is the medium. Films aren't losing popularity, just the cinema, which starts to lose out to the home. That's why companies like Microsoft were/are desperate to own your living room space with their TV TV TV push.

 

So to favourably compare to your cinema example - gaming arcades, the function, lose their popularity - which they already have. If we look at the actual games, which are the medium, they are totally different - stats show sales of PS4s are higher than any PlayStation console before it. Even if video game uptake stopped rising, technology constantly improves to allow better games to be made at the same cost. That is why I don't see it as doomed.

 

We also now see incredibly competent companies that handle outsource work no doubt for cheap (see FFX remaster, Wind Waker HD). And even ingenious ways that small teams can make big games (see No Man's Sky).

I agree that the cinema is the fuction, but it's also where the majority of the money is made. How many people will still buy it on Sky Box Office? How many people buy it on disc compared to 20 years ago? Alternatively, how much does Hollywood make from someone just waiting and watching their film on Nextflix six months later? The production costs go up, as does the price of the ticket or the disc or the box office viewing.

Of course, gaming is not the same as film in many regards, but if we're talking specifically about blockbusters, games which push the boundaries of technology, then the costs will always rise (see bold highlight). Graphics in the yearly franchise updates have to improve, as does A.I, physics etc, otherwise, what's the point in buying the new game? All of this costs money, money which the consumer surrenders to get that improved experience. Cease to improve a franchise and it's audience will fall off. No Man's sky is a good example of an "independent film" (with Sony support), something which genuinely pushes the boundaries in an innovative and interesting way, but does so in a cost-effective way. It hasn't been without its problems though, particularly the endless delays. I'd be interested to see if this can be a real big seller, or whether it will go the way of other games of its ilk and sell a good, but not great number and make the developer a decent haul of cash. Do you think it can reach mainstream blockbuster levels of sales, 5, 10, 15 million? I'm genuinely asking here.

Remasters and remakes are great, and I love seeing these great games in full HD with new controls etc, but they are not, in my opinion, the games which really sell systems.

I'm sorry,calling something someone said "nonsensical" is now disrespectful? Are we really at extreme nanny state levels? Nonsensical is offensive now? That was me being polite. It is a nonsensical thing to say, as in, it doesn't make any sense, as in - moaning that you don't want to play Zelda on an 8" screen, when you don't have to do that. It IS nonsensical. No disrespect. No insult. It doesn't make sense. And I know that isnt even the argument against it....oh boy....

 

Anyways, in news, Nintendo's supplementary device patent has just been passed in America. Maybe there is a booster!!

I think it's more saying stuff like "that is nonsensical!!" The punctuation gives a more aggressive tone and one I don't believe you were trying to give off.

Basically never use more than one exclamation mark because it comes off as either angry or crazy

Back on the NX.

What the chances of this being region free? Surely Nintendo are going to get with the times and have it region free.

Back on the NX.

 

What the chances of this being region free? Surely Nintendo are going to get with the times and have it region free.

With the 3DS being locked down... I'd say the prospects aren't good. We will have to continue to wait it out for niche games.

I hope this is true. I thought I got lucky with Zelda being pushed back to March next year but if this is handheld that syncs up to the tv then I'll be convinced Nintendo is making games and consoles exclusively for me.

As I write this I have my month old son trying to fall asleep on my lap. I'm sure things will get easier but at the moment I've tried to fire up Star Fox Zero and TP a few times since he popped out and every time he wakes/wants his food etc and that's it, switch the console off and forget about it.

However with my 3DS I've managed to make decent progress with Monster Hunter Generations just as its so much easier to flip it open and close, doesn't take much to set up and, just as crucially, there is no inquisition from the Mrs as to why I'm playing too many games :p

It may not be too everyone's taste (and until I see it officially I'm still somewhat sceptical) yet for me, at this point in my life when time to game is at a premium, this would be the perfect console option.

Plus Nintendo should focus on the handheld business, that's where they dominate and I don't think people would be half as negative (or have negative mind share) if they just had the 3DS on sale, as Wii U distracts (sales wise) from what Nintendo have always been good at and arguably should be their future business.

I hope this is true. I thought I got lucky with Zelda being pushed back to March next year but if this is handheld that syncs up to the tv then I'll be convinced Nintendo is making games and consoles exclusively for me.

 

As I write this I have my month old son trying to fall asleep on my lap. I'm sure things will get easier but at the moment I've tried to fire up Star Fox Zero and TP a few times since he popped out and every time he wakes/wants his food etc and that's it, switch the console off and forget about it.

 

However with my 3DS I've managed to make decent progress with Monster Hunter Generations just as its so much easier to flip it open and close, doesn't take much to set up and, just as crucially, there is no inquisition from the Mrs as to why I'm playing too many games :p

 

It may not be too everyone's taste (and until I see it officially I'm still somewhat sceptical) yet for me, at this point in my life when time to game is at a premium, this would be the perfect console option.

 

Plus Nintendo should focus on the handheld business, that's where they dominate and I don't think people would be half as negative (or have negative mind share) if they just had the 3DS on sale, as Wii U distracts (sales wise) from what Nintendo have always been good at and arguably should be their future business.

Not sure Nintendo as it stands can grow with just a handheld business. Remember this market is shrinking.

Back on the NX.

 

What the chances of this being region free? Surely Nintendo are going to get with the times and have it region free.

This is so important for me. And may mean me not picking up an NX for a long time if it's not region free.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Keeping things simple for the time being, I'd say that when NINTENDO said that they want to break away from the Wii and Wiiu brand, I'm guessing that they mean the 'Wii' name. So no Wii 2, WiiMii or Wii US or anything. It will be a new name, similar to the NX codename.

If, for example, MicroSoft said that they want to break away from the XBoX brand with a new console, yet they kept the design of the conventional/classic controller, that everyone's misguidingingly stuck to by an abstract emotional attachment, I'm pretty certain that nobody would wail that MS had lied and not broke away from the XBoX brand just because of a coventional design of a controlpad.

There is a possibility that NINTENDO had merely traversed back to the future with motion controlled gaming, similar to the mote & chuck (a conventional controlpad split into two with added motion input) but improved.

I dont think that the detachable controllers are 2 seperate controllers for multiplayer gaming, because some games are 4 players, so more controllers would need to be bought anyways. It'd be a true gimmick. Besides, in this day and age players should be able to bring their controllers along and sync to the home console part to increase the player count, similar to how the Wii could sync multiple wiimotes, and like how I imagined the Wii u would've done for games such as Mario Kart, Smash, FPS and any suitable game really.

Perhaps the stand for the screen is for playing the home console games away from the TV (but perhaps not on-the-go like the handheld part). And potentially attaching the motion controllers together for a conventional controlpad for certain games (such as Smash, where control styles are optional). For the most part, I'd perfer not to have heaps and heaps of controllers like the Wii & U, just one exclusive and innovative controller that says "I am my own brand" like how MS's and Sony's controllers do.

The handheld screen won't be a powerhouse, but possibly (yet exponentially improbable) pretty decent for playing the home console games on-the-go with handheld/conventional controlpad controls.

The home console graphical capablities may be fairly more powerful than the Wiiu yet not quite PS4/XBO level.

If this detachable-motion-motes-from-a-screen is a controlled leak from NINTENDO, then I believe that it's logical to presume that they're showing us nothing overly out of the ordinary just to whet our appetites and they'll dive more into the "brand new gaming concept" be that from what they've already shown us, or be it another element to the formula altogether.

But I for one am thoroughly pleased if they've refined an advanced controller to improvement for ultimate gaming within this future where the the world is closing to an end and ought to do so with a bang. All I hope is that the games come; a good Mario, a good Star Fox / Lylat Wars, Metroid, F-Zero, a good Mario Party (like number 4 but huger and online), a good Mario & Sonic (like the first one but huger and online) etc etc etc. If third party games come, like say, Assasins Creed, keep it exactly the same but with full support of motion controls so that the misguided gamer can see the greater fun to be had and buy the NINTENDO version thus NINTENDO cashing in and growing their audience.

I most certainly dont have high hopes at all, but the possibiliteis that I've seen so far seems like a road that I'd finally like to walk up, so I'll just being watching with a little curiosity, which I haven't been doing for aeons. So it's quite a hopeful sign I'd say.

NINTENDO, are you listening to your fans with consideration? As a gamer, I do hope so.

Not sure Nintendo as it stands can grow with just a handheld business. Remember this market is shrinking.

Yeah, with the annual growth of mobile tech and mobile gaming, focusing just on a dedicated handheld is a sure way to go extinct.

I still believe Nintendo can compete sufficiently in the home console space if they pulled their finger out and listen to their core audience - I'm still with the belief that Nintendo have yet to try properly with a truly competitive machine that is friendly to 3rd parties (the medium used for example), powerful and of a similar architecture to the rest of the competition and a solid online infrastructure with robust features, subscriptions (if worthwhile) and a proper account system which doesn't see the consumer re-buying digital games once they've updated their machine. Basics really.

Yeah, with the annual growth of mobile tech and mobile gaming, focusing just on a dedicated handheld is a sure way to go extinct.

 

I still believe Nintendo can compete sufficiently in the home console space if they pulled their finger out and listen to their core audience - I'm still with the belief that Nintendo have yet to try properly with a truly competitive machine that is friendly to 3rd parties (the medium used for example), powerful and of a similar architecture to the rest of the competition and a solid online infrastructure with robust features, subscriptions (if worthwhile) and a proper account system which doesn't see the consumer re-buying digital games once they've updated their machine. Basics really.

Kinda accepted that we will never see an online infrastructure in Nintendo machines that matches the competition.

Like the Eurogamer article said. There is no desire from Nintendo to include this things. They don't see it as a must have.

Not sure Nintendo as it stands can grow with just a handheld business. Remember this market is shrinking.

Funny that you should mention that, because I've been thinking about what it could mean for a number of the almost exclusively portable Nintendo franchises, at least when it comes to the main series of the franchise, such as Pokémon, and the general idea of a console which can be taken on the go and upscaled to the TV is...pretty amazing. I mean, if they were to go ahead and change the landscape, I think there's a few ways in which they could do it, being:

1) Pokémon release a predominantly handheld game which can be upscaled to the TV (basically Colosseum/Battle Revolution)

2) They release a predominantly home console game, and when out and about with the handheld you can battle others and perhaps catch location exclusive Pokémon too (much like GO)

3) They release more of a hybrid game. Not sure how you could make a game 50% handheld and 50% home console, but it could definitely work.

I think recent revelations, and older ones, on what the NX could be can only be a good thing for the portable side of things.

Best mockup I've seen so far...

https://mynintendonews.com/2016/07/28/heres-a-rather-good-nintendo-nx-mockup/