I understand what you were saying. I'm saying it doesn't make a fundamental difference what architecture is being used and there are other aspects that impact performance, so you can't make assumptions based on that. Plus the GPU is very PC-like, or at least it was on the first Switch. Porting to these things is actually surprisingly straightforward.
Don't quote me, but I think they will ship a plastic guard to use for the mouse, just like the Lenovo Legion Go does. Don't knock it til you try it, it does work.
For the record, it's weird to see Nintendo stumble upon the incredible concepts of Kinect and Discord in the year of our lord 2025. But hey, every Nintendo console needs a gimmick you can proceed to ignore, and this one will at least be useful to... somebody? At least it's a gesture that online games aren't an afterthought anymore.
What I'm not sure about at all is the pricing model for games and backwards compatibility as it is. And while the hardware is perfectly acceptable for a modern handheld and very comparable to the current batch of PC handhelds it's the target for the next decade, presumably, so it's at best as outdated as the original Switch was while not being the only game in town to play some of those HD ports.
I don't think it's an underwhelming propostion at this point, and you can't deny the first party software on display. I don't think it's nearly as exciting as the first Switch, though. We'll see how it does with mainstream audiences, I suppose.
I mean, go nuts. It will have cheaper games, a lot of the same cross-platform stuff and it trades blows on performance and display, from what I can see... but price isn't really the biggest difference here.
That is entirely meaningless. That's not how performance works, it has no bearing on anything.
In practice, they showed a whole bunch of footage of comparable games, including Elden Ring, Cyberpunk. Hitman, Star Wars Outcasts and Split Fiction. At a glance, it seems fairly comparable to the current batch of PC handheld APUs and seems to be mostly running cross-gen PC games at lower resolutions and framerates but pretty solidly otherwise.
That puts it in a weaker spot than next-gen PC handhelds, but on par with most of the current batch. Or at least as on par as the Steam Deck is.
So in terms of pricing for the hardware it seems pretty consistent with what we're seeing elsewhere. The two Deck models seem to have the most comparable specs, and those are slightly cheaper for the LCD and slightly more expensive for the OLED. Other handhelds are marginally more powerful but also way more expensive. With the upcoing batch of high-end AMD APUs being also way more expensive than last gen, it seems the Switch 2 is price-competitive, at least until Valve decides it's time and tries to make another custom deal with AMD for a more powerful APU at scale.
Got it, thanks. Yeah, it seems it's a 10 euro extra for physical. I get why, those Switch carts were expensive, and it seems like they've moved to even more expensive, faster storage, but it REALLY sucks. Puts the "virtual card" stuff they announced in perspective.
It just seems crazier for MK specifically because... well, it's forty bucks with the bundle, and the bundle is digital-only. Makes physical 2x the cost, which is nuts.
They're really milking this launch on a number of avenues I'm not cool with, and I'm not sure the offering justifies it. Some of those current-gen ports looked rough.
The reporting I'm seeing puts it at 40 if you buy the console bundle. Which... I mean, why wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what the deal is with the physical version, I have to assume it's some collector's edition deal with an Amiibo or something. Can't imagine they straight up double the price if you want to buy the card in a box instead of bundled with the console. Waiting on official prices for all of it, in any case.
Is that where it is now? I haven't looked at the documentation in an age. I think most stay lower because ultimately cloud storage is a cross-platform concern and different first parties have different requirements. Plus you want to keep it under control anyway. At any rate it's not a huge concern and other services like PSN or Nintendo Online already charge for it, so... not a dealbreaker as long as the base implementation stays free.
It's on par with Steam, I think. You get like 200 megs per product. I know because my Witcher 3 install is above that and it's annoying. That wouldn't be a dealbreaker as a subscription benefit, I don't think.
With the rest I do agree.
I can tell they're struggling and have been for a while. It isn't easy to compete with Steam, and the thing that would have done it (having DRM'd new games in the service) was voted down in a similar survey some time ago.
I would not be against some Patreon-like crowdsourced solution for behind the scenes stuff and prioritization rights. GOG, or something like it MUST exist. Steam is bad enough with their current dominant position, it can't be the sole remaining option in this market.
I would much prefer to be able to give them more money in exchange for more games, though. I am constantly frustrated by how often some indie game is only available on Steam, and I've started buying things full price on GOG but waiting for sales on Steam as a matter of policy.
Looks good, seems fun and it's obviously ripping off the SNES demakes of the X-Men CotA and MSH Capcom made, which is 100%, absolutely the right choice.
Right now you can absolutely share digital games. You do need to have your account logged in on both machines and only the one where your "main" account sits can play the games offline.
This seems both easier and harder? There are now arbitrary time limits and per-game activations, which seems like a massive mess. Before the only limit was that a game couldn't be played in two places at once and that secondary consoles needed to stay online.
But conversely, the "main account" thing was annoying for a portable, so if you shared with someone that carried their console around outside the house it kinda required giving THEM the main account with all the games and keeping the secondary for yourself. This is a very parent-like situation to be in. So... that's better?
The worry here is that this sure seems like setting the groundwork to give up on physical media altogether without messing with the way people use Nintendo portables, and that is a bad thing overall. Given Nintendo's dumb, litigious approach towards these things they're getting no benefit of the doubt from me in this area.
No, I am seeing what people say and how it relates to reality, then deriving conclusions from that.
For instance, my conclusions just got significantly reinforced by the fact that you're framing my stance as "defending" the subject of built-in outrage because of what or who they are, as opposed to what they did.
That's a meaningful part of that statement. Unintended, for sure... but meaningful.
What combination? The game was announced as F2P a while ago, it's been running tests for a while and was always assumed to have MTX. The only thing that changed is they will make the MTX live during a test run and then refund them, which is not particularly rare.
If you must know, it normally has as much to do with seeing how popular your ideas for cosmetics are as it does with testing that your commerce system works properly.
But none of that is what's sparking the fake outrage.
I did! And if this conversation was even remotely related to any of them I'd give it more consideration.
But people read "microtransactions in Alpha", which was clickbaity on purpose, did not read the game was free to play, which was hidden at the bottom of the article on purpose, and got mad anyway.
So proxy for the disintegration of public discourse it is.