Nintendo Switch Event 2017-01-12 and Switch Launch discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shifty Geezer said:
Wouldn't this be better on Xbox and PS though? Would look a lot prettier and have a decent, stable framerate...
Click to expand...

nah, i need it to be portable.

sure i can remoteplay to PS4 but its bloody hard to start without good internet connection (for some reason sony requires internet even for local remoteplay) and router.

i do have lug around my PS4+PSVR back-and-forth between home and out of town tho... but playing 2D games using VR Cinema mode is a pain.
 
Going back to my initial impressions from the reveal trailer in October:

Gradthrawn said:
If a single platform, designed with proper TV connectivity in mind, can provide the first/second party Nintendo console IP I normally enjoy and the content on handhelds that I would like to play then I'm all in. I'm in, day one, for $250 USD or less. Anymore than that, however, and I think I'll wait for a price drop.
Click to expand...

Nothing shown at this event or any of the info leading up to it has changed that impression for the better.

eastmen said:
Japanese launch linup:
- Zelda Breath of the Wild
- 1 2 Switch
- Dragon Quest Heroes 1+2
- Nobunaga no Yabou Power Kit thingy
- I am Setsuna
- Puyo Puyo Tetris S
- Disgaea 5
- Super Bomberman R
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen a confirmed NA launch lineup? What I'm reading so far doesn't make sense.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Wouldn't this be better on Xbox and PS though? Would look a lot prettier and have a decent, stable framerate...
Click to expand...

At this point and for the first time ever I just wish they did it for the PC and multiplat, as I am serious considering getting out of consoles as I dont have any of the current gen (but I do need t buy a gfx card as mine died...)
 
For the cost, Nintendo could have simply used a downloadable app on the Google Play store and a 40 to 50 dollar controller and allowed users with Android 6.0 or greater devices play their games on that platform, same goes for Ipads and Iphones. The cost is the biggest issue here IMO. Google or Apple would have been happy to make a concession on pass through sales on their stores simply to have Nintendo as an exclusive partner in their ecosystem so the notion of fees to platform holder could have been negotiated. And for Nintendo it would have access to millions more potential consumers and a much simpler supply chain to manage. Imagine being able to access the VC store on your phone or tablet for a one time 50 fee which included a controller and access to NES, SNES and new Nintendo games; that would have been great.
 
Last edited:
I think you may be severely underestimating what a support nightmare mobile and especially Android Mobile is. Better to say they should have gone 3rd party because goddam trying to reliably perf. profile even 20% of the Android market would be insane. Nintendo games will drive the GPU and CPU to 100% for extended periods of time which is precisely what phones are not designed to handle
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Why monthly drain? I spent £35 for thereabouts for a year's PS+. £35 as a single cost is certainly affordable and something you can even set as a Christmas or birthday type present. The PSN experience is reasonable for the money IMO, although a bit flaky. Across the chat options (cross title party chat) and added games, I think the value is just about there, and I'd rather pay £35 a year for a decent service than nothing a year for a crappy one that's not invested in.
Click to expand...
I've been playing online games for a couple of decades on the PC. At €50 per year, that would have accumulated to roughly €1000. Things add up. Over a five year generational console cycle, it would be €250, or the better part of the console price itself! So of course it has to be a part of the overall value analysis. (Plus, I simply don't like leeches attaching themselves to my bank account.)

Honestly, I fail to see how they provide something I think is worth the fee that Steam doesn't. Wouldn't say Valve doesn't invest in it....
 
Entropy said:
I've been playing online games for a couple of decades on the PC. At €50 per year, that would have accumulated to roughly €1000. Things add up. Over a five year generational console cycle, it would be €250, or the better part of the console price itself! So of course it has to be a part of the overall value analysis. (Plus, I simply don't like leeches attaching themselves to my bank account.)

Honestly, I fail to see how they provide something I think is worth the fee that Steam doesn't. Wouldn't say Valve doesn't invest in it....
Click to expand...
I'm not denying the cost. However, you are wrong about 'another monthly fee', unless you're a chump. ;) Sony don't have my bank account details. I buy PSN credit or subscriptions from Amazon or eBay or whoever at a (small) discount.

And big numbers can be made by totalling up any regular purchases over a couple of decades, so that makes for a poor argument IMO. How much do you spend on gaming a year? Compare the online fee to that and get a percentage. Netflix costs me £8 a month, so nigh on £100 a year or £2000 over your two decade interval. Ask me to pay £2000 for two decades of streamed TV and I'd run away screaming, but as a small monthly subscription, a small percentage of monthly outgoings, it's worth it to me.

The question is whether $50/£35 a year is reasonable value for the service. If the games and experience is good enough on PC and you have a PC to game on, then no (it categorically wasn't 2 decades ago! Not even 1 decade ago which is why Live did so well in the first place, thanks to subscriptions funding it). If you want to play online in a closed ecosystem, then possibly. Moreso with the added value of the extra games for which you only need a couple of decent one in a year to justify the expensive in terms of content, let alone online service. In the case of Switch, if it's shit and free, being free isn't worth anything. If it was awesome and $100 a month, it'd be no good. If it was awesome, cost $50 a year, and allowed Nintendo IPs to be played online where you can't play them on PC, it'd have plenty of value for some.
 
Are the € prices official or made up and high to avoid losing money on orders?
330€ is a lot to ask after the Wii U failure, even in good faith.
It should have been 250€ to sell well, at 300€ it will be difficult, and Zelda for 70€?
That's just not what I expected neither what I think will work well, that said the NGC price dropped quickly after its release...
(NGC went from 250€ to 200€ only days before its launch date in europe.)
 
Last edited:
Entropy said:
I've been playing online games for a couple of decades on the PC. At €50 per year, that would have accumulated to roughly €1000. Things add up. Over a five year generational console cycle, it would be €250, or the better part of the console price itself! So of course it has to be a part of the overall value analysis. (Plus, I simply don't like leeches attaching themselves to my bank account.)

Honestly, I fail to see how they provide something I think is worth the fee that Steam doesn't. Wouldn't say Valve doesn't invest in it....
Click to expand...


I have made peace with that.
othrewise, i wont be able to enjoy the short time I'm having in the world of the living.

so many stuff in this world are leeching to our bank account. heck, even my bank leech my monetary condition and sold my personal info to telemarketers with crazy amount of details (like... when i save around 100-200 USD into my bank account, i will get calls from telemarketers).

hmm, i think i a real job... so spending money for entertainment becomes less of an issue.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
The question is whether $50/£35 a year is reasonable value for the service. If the games and experience is good enough on PC and you have a PC to game on, then no (it categorically wasn't 2 decades ago! Not even 1 decade ago which is why Live did so well in the first place, thanks to subscriptions funding it). If you want to play online in a closed ecosystem, then possibly. Moreso with the added value of the extra games for which you only need a couple of decent one in a year to justify the expensive in terms of content, let alone online service. In the case of Switch, if it's shit and free, being free isn't worth anything. If it was awesome and $100 a month, it'd be no good. If it was awesome, cost $50 a year, and allowed Nintendo IPs to be played online where you can't play them on PC, it'd have plenty of value for some.
Click to expand...
True, it is a value proposition, provided you have the funds sloshing about.
But if you for instance need it to play Splatoon, then suddenly the ticket of entry has grown well beyond €450. Want to play any other game? Zelda? Add another €70. Now you can play one game on your own and one online with other people, and you can do it any where, and any time! That's nice. It cost you north of of €500. That's not so nice.
Even in the affluent west, that is a sizeable chunk of money to spend on just "fun" in one go. It is not casual friendly by any stretch. It will be interesting to see sales data for the first year, but I think Nintendo would have benefitted immensely by initially pricing for building installed base rather than skimming the early adopter cream, in terms of luring in third parties and building a sustainable platform.
 
Online should be free, taxing us like that is wrong, I don't play a dime for online systems on my PC why should I for a console ?
I shouldn't that's just theft in broad daylight :p
 
Rodéric said:
Online should be free, taxing us like that is wrong, I don't play a dime for online systems on my PC why should I for a console ?
I shouldn't that's just theft in broad daylight :p
Click to expand...
It depends on whether the consoles provide services that cost or not, and whether those costs are covered elsewhere or not. I was certainly against paying for PS+ on PS4 after free online on PS3, but I've gotten used to the idea (paid once and now forget about it until the year is up) and it's really not a lot. It's part of the added cost of console gaming versus PC gaming. Higher game costs thanks to license fees is a far more significant financial burden than the online-tax.
 
ToTTenTranz said:
The games we saw.. zero multiplatform titles in the reveal. Mario Odyssey looked a bit mediocre in the "real-life" stage that was shown.
Click to expand...
CaffeinatedChris said:
Hey, that's not true. Zelda's going to be on the WiiU as well.
Click to expand...
Has Been Heroes (by Frozenbyte) game will be launched in March 2017 for Switch, PS4, XboxOne and PC platforms. This title does not seem to be demanding to run on any believable platform.

Gradthrawn said:
Going back to my initial impressions from the reveal trailer in October:
Nothing shown at this event or any of the info leading up to it has changed that impression for the better. Has anyone seen a confirmed NA launch lineup? What I'm reading so far doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Neogaf has edited a NA launch lineup.
 
People who says the price is high are way underestimating how much the stupid controller and attachments must cost at this stage. Before Nintendo can ramp production, they will be looking at a pretty steep price for that stuff. And Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss so it is expected that they will charge a huge premium for it. It can be remember of the Wii U launch where nothing was especially high priced in the whole console but the price was much higher than the competition and was still speculated to barely break even for Nintendo.

This console is shaping up to be exactly what I had expected since the reveal. Overpriced and gimmicky and Nintendo still haven't learned anything. You think a delay would mean they would have software and games ready but this is just sad. Not only do they not even have a competitive online platform to xbox live of 2006, they think they can change for it?
 
chris1515 said:
GameSpot impression Zelda Wii U have a better framerate than Zelda Switch...
Click to expand...

Stuff like this is why I could cancel my pre-order the week before launch (that and because it arrives the same week as Horizon Zero Dawn). That said, plenty of games are rough pre-launch and the Wii U version has had more than enough time for polish whereas the Switch version likely has not. The GameSpot guy played the Wii U version at E3 (presumably 2016) and said the Switch version they played today is not the final version.

Zelda does look good though. Survival, crafting, Witcher-style battle preparations.

Shifty Geezer said:
It depends on whether the consoles provide services that cost or not, and whether those costs are covered elsewhere or not. I was certainly against paying for PS+ on PS4 after free online on PS3, but I've gotten used to the idea (paid once and now forget about it until the year is up) and it's really not a lot.
Click to expand...
Those of us who lived through it can attest that PSN being run on zero income was shit compared to PSN being run on actual income. PSN is far from perfect but boy it was bad during PS3. Launching Switch without online pricing is awful. Not an issue for me as I never play online but how do Nintendo expect others to make an informed decision without knowing the running costs down the line? :no:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BRiT
  • Locked
  • Poll
Nintendo Switch Price Speculation (Last Week Poll)
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
13K
BRiT
BRiT
Back
Top