[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[Tech614]

Nintendo's idea of trying to catch up with AAA gaming is not in making a home console that can run AAA games. Instead it's throwing a season pass on Zelda and locking hard mode behind it. Other companies have pay 2 win micro transactions, Nintendo makes you pay to make the game harder fucking LOL.

Nintendo is trying really hard to botch this launch.

[Gatsbybutters]

Nintendo was the last gaming company I liked and supported. Hope the switch flops and they tank at this point. Wii u and 3ds games have been banning me with unmoderated report systems for being good at video games. The latest gen of 1st party titles have been mediocre at best. And a season pass on Zelda... that's like... fucking blasphemy haha.

They are just like the rest now.

[draykorinee]

Oh my days. Are they actively trying to hurt their image/brand. The worse thing is people defending this in the comments sections.

[Truhan]

And here's the link about the season pass everyone is talking about.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/02/...ld-season-pass

About the best thing I can say about it is, well, most season passes are $40. At least this one isn't quite as expensive (instead, it just has next to no fucking content for your $20).

[Vankrys]

I don't think graphics mater that much in the end, as long as it looks and feels ''ok'' the avg consumer will be looking at the price and release dates. The Xbox started catching up to the PS4 in sales after Microsoft learned the same lesson Sony had to learn with the PS3 that price maters and that being more expensive then the other guy doesn't help.

Graphics don't matter that much for a game as long as there isn't an easily available alternative.

Whether it's on an older game, or a stylized game (like telltale games for example), I don't mind lower end graphics, as long as the feel, the fun, the gameplay or the story is there.

But when a AAA cross plateform game is release, why would you choose the lower quality one for the same price. Graphics will matter in that case. Even assuming the switch sells very well, because of portability and 1st party games, if someone own both a PS4 and a switch, unless he really want to play a mobile version, why even buy a lower quality version of the same game.

And going one step further, knowing that, why would a game studio invests large chunks of money in porting their game catalog to the switch.

Console power and performance is important. There isn't two ways about it.

[Vankrys]

You do realize that people have gotten their hands on it and tested it already, correct? Just because it hasn't been released to the masses yet doesn't mean it hasn't been reviewed.

True, though there could be embargo on releasing review.

[johnhoftb]

And here's the link about the season pass everyone is talking about.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/02/...ld-season-pass

About the best thing I can say about it is, well, most season passes are $40. At least this one isn't quite as expensive (instead, it just has next to no fucking content for your $20).

It's all going to depend on how big the story content and dungeon are going to be.

[tankbug]

....
And going one step further, knowing that, why would a game studio invests large chunks of money in porting their game catalog to the switch.
Console power and performance is important. There isn't two ways about it.

Well, I don't think anyone has that kind of faith in the Switch to make downgraded AAA-titles for it, but should Nintendo manage to sell 30 million or something the first two years, the developers would certainly have a huge base of potential buyers, and it might be worth either making a port. Depends if they can recreate the best parts of the game with few resources. It's all about money in the end.

[Truhan]

Well, I don't think anyone has that kind of faith in the Switch to make downgraded AAA-titles for it, but should Nintendo manage to sell 30 million or something the first two years, the developers would certainly have a huge base of potential buyers, and it might be worth either making a port. Depends if they can recreate the best parts of the game with few resources. It's all about money in the end.

The Wii sold 30 million units worldwide in its first two years, and 100 million in its lifetime. It didn't get many AAA ports. I've already been through this part of gaming history, if the console isn't up to snuff, developers will absolutely NOT port their games to it. The Switch could sell 50 million in its first two years and at best it would just get a bunch of shovelware. The fact that developers are open about not bothering with it before it's even released is a pretty big deal, they didn't even do that with the Wii. I do hope some developers change their minds, but it's looking to me like they've already abandoned the system.

[tankbug]

The Wii sold 30 million units worldwide in its first two years, and 100 million in its lifetime. It didn't get many AAA ports. I've already been through this part of gaming history, if the console isn't up to snuff, developers will absolutely NOT port their games to it. The Switch could sell 50 million in its first two years and at best it would just get a bunch of shovelware. The fact that developers are open about not bothering with it before it's even released is a pretty big deal, they didn't even do that with the Wii. I do hope some developers change their minds, but it's looking to me like they've already abandoned the system.

Yes, but the wii was weird and had all these motion controls. Your point is valid, but I thing the Switch is less problematic. At any rate, I don't think the Switch will get much support from like Rockstar and EA, but it will get all the best Nintendo has to offer and a bunch of less graphically intense games, which can also be fun. I don't worry too much about not getting the latest Battlefield for it, because I would never play those games with a joypad, but mostly because I already have a PC for those, which I sadly can't carry around and play when I travel.

[Jtbrig7390]

Whatever respect I had for Nintendo died with the announcement of the Zelda BOTW season pass.

For $20 you don't get dick.......

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but the wii was weird and had all these motion controls. Your point is valid, but I thing the Switch is less problematic. At any rate, I don't think the Switch will get much support from like Rockstar and EA, but it will get all the best Nintendo has to offer and a bunch of less graphically intense games, which can also be fun. I don't worry too much about not getting the latest Battlefield for it, because I would never play those games with a joypad, but mostly because I already have a PC for those, which I sadly can't carry around and play when I travel.

Right you are not worried about The Switch getting those 3rd party titles.

But The Switch needs full 3rd party support, Not shovelware bullshit like the Wii had. No system can live on first party titles alone, The Wii-U showed this.

[Poppincaps]

I think it's shady that you have to buy the season pass to get any of the DLC. You should be able to buy it separately. But there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with season passes. Let's take The Witcher 3 season pass for instance. You could buy the Season pass pre-launch, post launch, post 1st DLC launch, or even post both DLC's launch and you lose nothing from doing so. You can still buy them both separately but if you find that you might enjoy them both then you can buy the bundle for 5 or so dollars cheaper.

This hatred for season passes is just whiney people who don't have the willpower to wait and see. It's not like some pre-orders where they throw a billion incentives to try and coax you into buying a game before the reviews are out.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever respect I had for Nintendo died with the announcement of the Zelda BOTW season pass.

For $20 you don't get dick.......

- - - Updated - - -


Right you are not worried about The Switch getting those 3rd party titles.

But The Switch needs full 3rd party support, Not shovelware bullshit like the Wii had. No system can live on first party titles alone, The Wii-U showed this.

And you have proof of this? To be completely honest the description of the DLC is vague as hell and we realistically have no way of quantifying how much content is in the season pass.

We should be slamming Nintendo for not allowing the DLC to be bought separately, not for a lack of content when it could really go either way.

[Jtbrig7390]

And you have proof of this? To be completely honest the description of the DLC is vague as hell and we realistically have no way of quantifying how much content is in the season pass.

We should be slamming Nintendo for not allowing the DLC to be bought separately, not for a lack of content when it could really go either way.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/02/...ld-season-pass

Pack 1 - Summer 2017

A new Cave of Trials challenge
Hard mode
"A new feature for the in-game map"
Pack 2 - Holiday 2017

A new dungeon
A new "original story"
Additional challenges

Its clear as hell this content was cut from the game, Even more so since it will be releasing this year. You don't just make a story in a few months and put it in. That shit takes time. But for giggles lets say it wasn't cut from the game. Look at pack 1, that is shit they should be in the base game and not cost $20 to get.

For the overall bundle its highly lacking for the price they want. This DLC is more lacking then the FFXV Season Pass, I mean hell at lease that is adding a full Multiplayer Mode.

Hell this feels more lacking then MK8 dlc and I though that was priced really well.

Hope Nintendo proves me wrong, but they haven't yet...

[Poppincaps]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/02/...ld-season-pass


Its clear as hell this content was cut from the game, Even more so since it will be releasing this year. You don't just make a story in a few months and put it in. That shit takes time. But for giggles lets say it wasn't cut from the game. Look at pack 1, that is shit they should be in the base game and not cost $20 to get.

For the overall bundle its highly lacking for the price they want. This DLC is more lacking then the FFXV Season Pass, I mean hell at lease that is adding a full Multiplayer Mode.

Hell this feels more lacking then MK8 dlc and I though that was priced really well.

Hope Nintendo proves me wrong, but they haven't yet...

Baseless claims across the board. That's what we're going with huh Jt?

Like I said, the description for the DLC is extremely vague, which is its own problem, but it also stands that you can't make an accurate assumption of the quantity based off of it.

[Jtbrig7390]

Baseless claims across the board. That's what we're going with huh Jt?

Oh shit someone stated a opinion you don't like, Call the police.

As it stands and from what is known, ya I think its shitty. I also added in I hope they prove me wrong, but with everything that has been announced pre-switch reveal. I have no faith in Nintendo.

Also really....locking hardmode behind a season pass and you are defending this....fucken lol.

- - - Updated - - -

"Expansion" Pass reveal trailer.

[Tech614]

You're literally paying $20 for a hard mode(should be a part of base game), a switch t shirt(LULZ), a few other unnamed items, an extra trial(which is probably 5-30 mins long based on what we know of the trials) an unnamed "map feature"(again doesn't sound like something you should be charged for) and the story dlc.

Story DLC is all well and fine, the rest of the shit is crap that should be part of the base game. GTFO defending someone pay walling hard mode for a game.

I would gladly pay $20 for a story dlc worth the price, the rest of that bullshit should not be part of any season pass at all. They scream "please preorder our story dlc you have to wait 8 months for and enjoy these bonuses that should be part of base game".

Then again Nintendo fans defend smash dlc pricing and the shovelware warriors dlc... so... not surprised we have someone jumping to bat for them. The only DLC Nintendo has ever made worth a damn is the MK8 DLC so that doesn't exactly bestow me with much hope for the story dlc either.

[zEmini]

20 for a single dungeon seems like a rip off.

[Truhan]

20 for a single dungeon seems like a rip off.

Hey, we don't know how much story content that is! For all we know, the base game only has three dungeons! /s, but that's about the only way I would consider the price fair (and if there were only three dungeons, the base game would get trashed by reviews for sure).

[tankbug]

But The Switch needs full 3rd party support, Not shovelware bullshit like the Wii had. No system can live on first party titles alone, The Wii-U showed this.

The Wii showed us that you can live without the big AAA-titles though. Nonetheless, there are lots of good third party titles for the 3DS, so there is no reason why the Switch wouldn't get some as long as Nintendo get the sales off to a good start on their own. The Wii U was mostly unknown to the public, and was never seen as a viable platform for third party, even when it was new and at least as fast as its competitors.

[draykorinee]

The Wii rode on the success of gimmicks, the right ones at the right time, I really wish people would stop using it to say we don't need x because the wii.