Hopefully they’ll be releasing games for both Switch and Switch 2 for a while like what happened with PS4/PS5. I know the flagship games will be 2 only, but other 3rd party stuff.
I noticed that Tomodachii was announced for the Switch with a 2026 date. So there will at least be some games still made for it next year as well. A 150 million install base is nothing to sneeze at!
Either that, or the powerful gaming PC you put the Switch 2 money towards that will eventually emulate the Switch 2. Seems like a better investment than buying a locked down console with a GPU less powerful than a RTX 3050 that can only play $80 games.
KDE’s built in screen keyboard is broken (Using Steam’s keyboard). GNOME keyboard does work fine.
Autologin is on and screen locking is off due to a broken keyboard.
Manual installation if hhd, steam, flatpak, lutris may required a physical keyboard for first setup.
KDE wallet is on to protect (non-file) data. (Wifi passwords, chrome/Firefox login, etc…)
JamesDSP is used as pulse/easyEffects may need a reset as the audio may “break” when resuming from suspend.
I didn’t want a non-vanilla Debian system (Bazzite), so I chose to manually install Debian and have a nice Debian setup. Besides those issues, everything works pretty good (no crashes, hiccups.)
their legal action against emulators and DRM circumvention. they have the audacity of allowing people to play their games which were legally purchased on unapproved hardware.
I’m personally very excited for Prime 4, DK Bananza, and Hyrule Warriors Imprisoning War, as well as F-Zero GX getting released from the vault. Maybe not hyped enough to pay day 1 prices though
Not always the case as with the swift price drop for the 3DS. Depends on what sales look like for the Switch 2. Maybe we’ll get an OLED version for $500 or something. But my gaming plate is pretty full, and I may just power through Prime 4 on Switch.
The en-ca in the URL means nothing as I’ve bought from .ca websites and been charged in USD before. To be fair, it wasn’t a large company like Nintendo but it still happened. Fastest cancel I’ve ever done. So, Unless it’s explicitly called out next to the price or I’ve bought something from there before, I usually assume it’s USD.
Isn’t that generally the case, though? Sure, not rootable on day zero, but usually it is only later models that get some hardware patch, leaving the earliest models with the vulnerability.
I don’t plan to buy one because proprietary, locked down hardware isn’t a great investment compared to PC hardware that can serve a lot of different purposes, but am eagerly awaiting the news of Nintendo’s well-earned pwnage.
It is priced at 60 to 70 dollars (fuck that still hurts)
It has a solid OFFLINE story mode.
If they try pull 100 dollar bullshit or fill it with micro transactions then I am out. Also I will not pre order this game (I didn’t with 5) I will wait until its out and I hear good things from the players.
Just like I did with 5. Had coworker who was bragging about the game every day. Finally and picked up a copy at Vintage Stock. This is the original PS3 version only one I have.
I only recently started playing again specifically because I found out that all the missions in online mode that required you to be in a public lobby are now able to be ran in a private lobby. Playing in a solo lobby is basically like getting more SP story (there are story missions in GTAO; it’s not all races and DM). Don’t have to deal with cheaters or asshats.
Exactly. $100 is a lot of money, however games are cheaper than ever these days (adjusted for inflation) and $100 for no micro transactions sounds fair.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t buy it at that price either. I‘d wait for a sale…
To respond to yours though, I’d say it depends on how much content there is! If a game can easily take 1000 hours with no degradation of enjoyment, I would pay $100 for it
Edit to add: I realize this didnt exactly address your question, but I’m not sure what percentage since it heavily depends on the quality and quantity of content
For me personally, I find it really easy to add “hours” to a game’s runtime, and I’d sooner pay more for a higher quality experience and a shorter runtime. I’ve spent about a fifth of that 1000 mark in both Baldur’s Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and they’d have been worth $100 to me. Indiana Jones was worth every bit of the $70 I paid, and it took me under 20 hours.
The only full price game I recall ever buying was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (back when £35 was the standard "full price" price point). Now that one was worth it, but no other AAA game that I can think of has justified the cost to me. Once we're talking about that amount of money there's a lot of other things I would get more enjoyment from.
I think I paid about £10 for GTA V. I'd maybe go to £15 or £20 these days, but beyond that I simply have other things I could play.
Meh I’d drop 100 plus on standard night out. I dont buy many games but buying God of War Ragnarok for 30 and getting 100 hours of entertainment was well worth it, to the point I regret not buying it full price day one.
There are many things I'd spend more on, but gaming is something that I can spend a lot of hours on without necessarily enjoying. As in, the experiences are often weirdly compulsive and before I know it I've tanked eighty hours without really enjoying it all that much.
I collected all the submarine collectibles in GTA V - do I think that was more fun than a party with friends? Absolutely not. Did it take more time? Most definitely.
If the biggest game of the decade charges $100, every triple A game will charge the same, and other games will probably be more expensive as well, and in most cases it’ll be more money for the same steadily decreasing quality, at least in the triple A market.
Because Rockstar is going to do it and sell a gorillion copies, so it’s basically a guarantee that everyone else will jump on the opportunity. And once every game is $100, what are people going to do, stop buying video games? I find that unlikely anymore. They’ll bitch and complain about it and sales might drop a little on average but studios will survive. And now we have a new price floor set forever.
I think yes, people will stop buying video games (at that price). There are very few games that carry the demand that GTA does, and customers have shown with the likes of Suicide Squad that they won’t just buy anything that marketing tells them to. Meanwhile, customers are very aware of the options available to them for free.
You’ve got more faith in the purchasing public than I do, then. I’ve been watching them buy a new copy of the same COD slop every year for a fresh $60 basically since I’ve been old enough to buy my own video games.
People like what they like, and the core of CoD hasn’t changed enough to dissuade people, in general, yet it still has bad years where it doesn’t do as well as it did this year.
I think it will be 80 dollars, with bigger editions available, eg. including online mode. For me, the 30fps is the most annoying, I was never a performance fanatic, but I’m used to 60 now.
I feel like im the only person in the world who isnt excited for this game. I dont care for GTA, they just feel super clunky and sloppy to play. (I know, no one asked.)
I played GTA IV mostly because the mechanics were fucking awesome. The driving was incredible for an open world game like that. Euphoria was dope.
The first seconds of the GTA V gameplay trailers hinted that they neutered the driving. Then they announced the driving was ported from a Midnight Club game and that was the last nail in the coffin for me.
Tried the game once at a friend’s house and the gameplay feel was so shit I never played it again. I knew I’d always be distracted by it.
You’re not the only one, friend. The only thing I care about is what sort of pricing hijinks they get up to, which could have industry-wide consequences.
It makes a lot of sense to at least ask the question if you should split this game into two parts when each part has a very different pool of customers. I don’t think they’ll do it, because they want people in the online component to be present for multiplayer in the first place, but it makes sense to ask the question.
If this game is going to have issues running at 60 FPS on the PS5, I don’t think 30 FPS is for the benefit of the Switch 2. Even if it was, Switch 2 is a platform that people will want to play GTA on. The tech that Rockstar is trying to push forward comes at the cost of frame rate. That’s not making it shittier; it’s making different trade-offs.
GTA IV had a superficial story? I certainly did not feel that way about that game. Niko is the best protagonist they’ve ever had; a great protagonist in general.
I grew up breaking games to make them run under minimum settings. Subnautica has (or at least had) a Dev menu or some shit that you could make the game look like utter arse.
Got me like 18fps at 480p, worth it #playable for younger me.
If I get under 100fps at 4k now I’m unhappy. How times change.
Lol, same, I’ve played some games at such abysmal resolution it became a testament of how good the art direction was, making it possible to recognize things amidst that jumble of pixels.
Funny how we grow accustomed with what we have. I was hyper-aware of my disk usage when I had a tiny HDD, nowadays I’m like “Why am I low on storage???”, then I go check and find 200GB of junk I no longer need on my downloads folder. Whoops.
Yeah I have, for a looong while. I understand a stable framerate is much better than a “high” one, but like, were not talking about a “Low-end” PC here, we’re talking about the current, still marketed generation here.
How come 30’s still the target when all the marketing is talking about how powerful it is and how amazing the upscaling is? And it’s a fixed target on top of all that, like common man
wccftech.com
Aktywne