“Fortunately we have a product for people who aren’t able to stay connected; it’s called Xbox 360” - Don Mattrick, Microsoft’s President of Interactive Entertainment Business
Except that was about internet connectivity and this is about price. Telling people to go with the old console because they can’t due to a bullshit restriction is crazy, saying it about price is pretty fair. If you can’t afford a current gen console, then the last gen would be the best option. At $450USD it will still be the cheapest console on the market other than the Switch 1.
I’m honestly shocked people are so up in arms about the price. Doesn’t really seem like Nintendo is gouging here, a comparable phone or tablet with the same specs comes in around the same price or higher. It has pretty much every feature people were asking for at about a $100USD premium over the existing Switch.
Raising standard game prices, charging for the tutorial app, and charging for next gen upgrades, that I get the pushback on.
Well, traditionally, console prices were subsidized by the more expensive game prices. They’d sell the console at a loss to then make that back per game. Them raising both the console price as well as game prices is what makes it awful.
I would agree about getting buying the cheaper version, if it doesn’t also might mean buying an EOL product.
If Nintendo stops providing updates and new games of the old switch (soonish) then (what I suspect from console gaming) then suggesting to buy the old product from Nindendo looks like they just want to empty their Switch 1 stockpile.
If Nintendo just treats the Switch 1 and 2 as the same console, with just different performance and price, but get the same support period and games, then I am fully with you.
What’s annoying about this is that (at least for me) the switch 2’s price is not the problem (outside of the USA, good luck to American Nintendo fans, you’ll need it), I get that it is expensive for a Nintendo console (I probably couldn’t afford one) but it has hardware worth the price (from what I have seen, feel free to correct me). The problem are the overpriced games, £75 (physical)/£67 (digital) is too much even for a Nintendo game. Do Nintendo really think they can just get away with prices that inflated in a market where most families will go “but we already have Mario Kart! Why spend another £430!!”
Not to sound like a fanboy, I mean I am but that’s not why, but I get the Mario Kart price tag.
I’ve had a switch from day 1 and look in the e-shop charts about once a week, and Mario Kart was consistently in the top 20 most sold games of the past 2 weeks.
From a switch perspective, you paid $70 for MarioKart + $25 for the DLC and got a single game a lot of people played since April 2017. In that same time you got 8 Call of Duty games for $70 each ($560) - with the later CoDs charging you $30 for chores or “Battle Passes”. Or you could have paid 95 Fortnite Battle Passes (total ~$950) since the launch of MarioKart.
if only MK, Fortnite and CoD would be the only three options for gamers then probably MK would win this round.
Unfortunately you comparing your favourite game to two vomit piles full of microtransaction and battle passes so cant see your point there.
If you enjoy the games Nintendo sells go for it, in my opinion the inflated new prices are ridiculous and will have a negative impact on the gaming industry in global as other big corpos will start copying them if Nintendo can get away with it.
MK 8 is also a previous generation title that Nintendo got to double dip on already.
MK night be a good value proposition for some folks. It’s still too expensive. I have games that I’ve paid $20, $10, sometimes even less for that I’ve gotten more play time out of. Play time to cost is not a good argument.
Let me also contrast with some of Nintendo’s worst practices, like selling 3 old Mario games with no enhancements, that are just emulated, for $60.
Also the greed. Charging for the virtual tour game (however cheap it may be), charging for performance updates to existing games (not extra content, only performance). Switch 1 games should just run better on the new console by default.
I’m not even sure hw is fairly priced. They’re able to sell the same thing in Japan for 100$ cheaper. I don’t think they’re losing money there.
I think it very tone deaf with regards to how their trying to up the prices of games, which I think is BS, and increasing the price of accessories, and locking things behind subscriptions.
Very much so a Blizzard, “don’t you have phones?” Type of situation.
If you’re working on your credit score… Go for it!
I was able to get an Xbox Series X and made on-time monthly payments for it over 2 years. It opened a new line of credit and regular automatic payments toward it did wonders for my credit score.
Isn’t the “Rainbow Six Universe” just, like, the regular world? I haven’t played an R6 game in more than a decade, but I remember the draw being realism.
If anything Firaxis’s take on XCOM has made turn based tactics somewhat mainstream again, and Ubisoft has already tried to surf on this trend once with Mario+Rabbids.
I don’t think there’s been a turn based game that has sold as well as BG3 in a long time. They’re just chasing trends. Something like XCOM is a better comparison in terms of gameplay and style, but doesn’t have the sales that BG3 has.
Don’t bemoan this just yet. Ubisoft’s name on the game is a red flag as always, but they made a pretty sick turn-based tactics game in the Ghost Recon universe on the 3DS, from designer Julian Gollup, formerly of original XCOM fame, now working on a game called Chip 'n Clawz vs. the Brainioids.
Besides, I don’t want a single player Rainbow Six. I want a Rainbow Six that’s either single player or co-op, with a proper planning phase. I’m about halfway there with the Door Kickers games.
Maybe they are doing it due to how similar gen1 and 2 are to develop on. Gen2 just gets faster processing power. Maybe Nintendo told the devs target 30 fps on gen1 and we will almost guarantee 60 on gen 2. Or something to that effect.
They actively harm the emulation scene, despite themselves being responsible for making it necessary. They don’t want to make their old games available for sale where those potential customers are; they want you to buy their hardware and rent those old games from them in perpetuity. We’re also now at a point, at least temporarily, where their latest games often play better if you emulate them than play them in the only way Nintendo makes them available legally, so buying games and playing them “the right way” is worse. Then there’s the whole thing where they actively stand in the way of competitive Super Smash Bros.
Except for Smash Bros., yes, but they created a really shitty vicious cycle. I don’t care if it’s first or third party; I’m not giving Nintendo any more of my money.
Then maybe it’s worth bringing up their recent behavior as a patent troll. Regardless of what you think of palworld, nintendo is suing them based on patents that were filed AFTER palworld was announced, or even released in some cases, and has gone on to follow the patent troll playbook beat for beat. Recently they’ve started putting in more baffling patents as ammo against companies seen as threats, such as patenting squeenix’s “HD2D” art style, or, in an extreme, but recent example, patenting “a character standing on top of a vehicle and moving with that vehicle”
This is also my guess. Nintendo knows the demand, they’ll do $499.99 for the launch model and release a cheaper “lite” version like the original Switch in 2 years at $350 or $400 or something.
insider-gaming.com
Najnowsze