Julius

Man, the gameplay of PES 2019 looks gooooood... Also, Konami have had their most profitable year since FY12. Getting Kojima and co. off their books, moving to mobile, pachinko/gambling, etc., seems to have really worked for their bottom line. I can’t think of any reason that they’d want to return to creating AAA games outside of the annual PES cash-in. A Metal Gear Solid FOX Engine collection also seems like a great shout for a potentially massive cash-in. But, good lord, I wish they’d, at the very least, let other developers do something with their engine and licenses. Having something like the FOX Engine gathering dust over in the corner besides occasionally using it for PES seems a waste, and having IPs such as Silent Hill, Castlevania, Metal Gear, Suikoden, etc., gathering dust is also a massive waste. I was reading something quite interesting the other week about how other companies seem to be picking up from where Konami left things, though, such as Capcom with Resident Evil VII (Silent Hills) and potentially Ubisoft with Splinter Cell (Metal Gear?). So, at least in spirit, I guess some of their IPs are getting to live on.

Do we think this is them getting out ahead of E3 so that they can gloss over it during their actual presentation, as opposed to having it be such a large focus like it was in the most recent Direct?

Finnish PR company 3H Distribution Oyhas has sent an email to press giving the release dates for many games coming this year. The list includes Code Vein, which is listed as releasing July 2018 for the PS4 and XBO. The game will have a PEGI 16 rating. If this is true, that’s pretty soon (and pretty awesome). It’s about time we begin to see some more major releases in the summer, given that Q1/Q2 is now mostly filled with massive, console-exclusive single player games with a narrative focus, and Q4 is mostly filled with third-party juggernauts.

Widely loved and praised EA CFO Blake Jorgensen has revealed that the game will be released March 2019: EA’s CEO, the also widely loved and praised Andrew Wilson, earlier this year hinted that the game would have some form of early access release: Thank the gods of gaming that Electronic Arts is the one putting out this game. They’d never take advantage of consumers, and would never be willing to rob us in broad daylight.

So, yeah. Zombies confirmed.

Potential leaks via Wal Mart’s pre-order page. There seem to be a few mistakes in there if there’s any truth to them. I’ll spoiler tag them I guess? Not sure how everyone feels about leaks...

Welp. No prizes for guessing who Nintendo’s ninjas just assassinated. Coupled with how Sakurai’s been hinting at this game being a new one, I guess this more or less confirms that (YES! ) this is a new game? Very excited for Nintendo’s E3 showing now (like I wasn’t before)

Oh dear. If there’s any accuracy/current truth in those numbers, which I assume there has to be considering who’s supplying them, I don’t think it matters how well Xbox do at E3 next month. PlayStation nearly caught up last generation thanks to some excellent games, huge price cuts/smart console redesigns, and some great PR moves (such as keeping online multiplayer a free service). I just don’t see where Xbox can pull that from, unless they’ve been sitting on a treasure trove of must-have AAA games that have been in development since 2014/2015. And, if they do have such games, what’s their play? Do they stick them out towards the end of this generation in a hope of a last stand? Or do they recoup and save them to strengthen the initial lineup for their next console?

I just finished reading an interesting article by Kotaku AU, and I think I agree with their stance on Virtual Console/their new service: they should not limit the ways in which people can access these games. If they want to buy it, then they should be able to; and, likewise, if they want to access it through Ninty’s new service, then they should be able to. My biggest problem with it is that they’re so vague about their plans; it would have been simple enough to explain that other legacy platforms were coming to the service at some point, or that they had plans to bring games to the eShop (which they did, but not in the initial release of information on the site, but rather in an interview later on), etc. Leaving us in the dark gives us a perfectly valid reason to madly scramble around, worried that we’ll never get to see [insert critically acclaimed legacy title here] on the Switch. I think my problem with this particular ‘discussion’, though, is that it seems to based on a lot of misunderstandings between people over the Internet (which is to be expected, surely, in a more casual and laid back forum such as this) more so than any ill-intentioned misdirection. Heck, I even misunderstood the numbers you were putting out, but I didn’t mean to misdirect anyone. As far as I can tell, the £18 figure wasn’t featured in this thread until yesterday. If you saw it elsewhere before, that’s fine, but @Ronnie probably didn’t, which is why I’d imagine he was still using converted prices. Like I said before, I myself was still using the US$ price points yesterday morning, so it seems that the price of £18/year wasn’t officially out yet. Again, scrolling back through your exchange, it does seem that there have been a number of misunderstandings, but I think this is the one where the most confusion took place: Ronnie originally quoted £1.20/month based purely on exchange rates. You then asked where he got the figure of £14.40/year came from, and he said that he’d just seen that it was £18/year, which is £1.50/month, as he went on to say. I think it’s likely that he simply misread/misinterpreted your £14.40/year figure as £1.40/month, because that’s the only place that £1.40/month is found in the entire exchange (which was alluded to by Ronnie saying that the £1.50/month is only 10p more). I really do think that it’s down to a few misunderstandings, misinterpretations and a fair share of miscommunication. Either way, I still don’t think @Ronnie was intentionally trying to mislead anyone. I genuinely don’t think that £3.60/year is going to be the difference between anyone here picking up a subscription or not, so I struggle to see why this has become a do-or-die situation.

I guess this belongs here?

I don’t mean to the flames of this ‘discussion’, but £0.10/£1.40 is around a 7% price difference, not 25%. I certainly don’t mean to involve myself in this too much - because I respect and have had fruitful discussions with both of you, if not in this thread then in others - but I don’t think that @Ronnie was intentionally trying to mislead anyone, @Rummy, and I think it’s unfair to single him out for “wrong or misleading information”, when the 25% figure you just floated out can be seen as such given that it’s not contextually related to the current discussion. I’ve only been on these forums for a bit over two years, but I keep seeing heated debates between the two of you (and occasionally others) with ill-intentioned jabs at one another, and it has to stop. It’s not healthy for either of you, let alone the current discussion and other users here. I don’t know either of you personally, and so I don’t know whether your arguments are rooted in real life arguments or only online ones. As @Ashley points out, those UK subscription prices seem to be quite new. I certainly hadn’t seen them before, and I was even quoting the US$ prices as recently as yesterday in this very thread. Back on topic, with regards to the pricing, a family account subscription for up to eight users to use is available which costs only £31.49/year. That’s what, around £0.33/month/user? I think Nintendo has made it quite accessible in terms of pricing, especially if you compare it at face value to the prices of Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus. Whether you’re getting your money’s worth in contrast to the other two major console online services is a different matter altogether, though, and one I’m sure we’ll see coming up time and time again until we learn more about their plans for the service.

Get Out was great. This should be gooooood:

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. We’ve seen quite a bit of gameplay, but the lack of context (for the most part) makes it really difficult to get a read on the game itself and how it might flow. I’m actually seeing a lot of opinions that it could be a dark horse/sleeper hit next year, and I think that depends on how Sony positions The Last of Us Part II: if that game has a large presence at E3 and/or PSX, and ends up having a late 2019 release date, then I think Days Gone will just be completely overshadowed. From everything we’re hearing, it seems more mechanically driven than The Last of Us, but, at face value, I can’t help but worry that (potential) consumers are going to see it as a Last of Us rip-off. I really do hope that it turns out to be a successful game (Sam Witwer’s awesome and deserves all the success that he gets), but I do think it’s riding that fine line between being potential sleeper hit and a bomb.

A lot of information coming from Game Informer on the game: • Been in development for five years. • First idea came after making Uncharted Golden Abyss. • More than 100 developers, team size has doubled since 2016. • Picks up several years after a pandemic has ravaged the US. • People infected by virus are simply called "infected" by NERO (National Emergency Response Organization). • NERO operated 12 checkpoints for quarantining and processing people, but now abandoned. • Deacon has a mercenary friend named Boozer. • Plot is about surviving, not finding a cure. • Stealing Boozer's stuff will make him upset, which will effect your relationship. • Five encampments in the world which Deacon goes between, has to forge relationships. • Have to clear out locations to unlock fast travel. • Weapons look worn down because of the rain. • Larger towns to explore. • Weapons lockers and safehouses which refill ammo. • Deacon can scout camps with binoculars. • Deacon is the enforcer of a biker club called the Mongrels. • Bike is completely upgradeable with cosmetic upgrades such as paint jobs. • Can increase fuel efficiency and durability, swap out tires based on weather. • Can ambush camps. • Wide variety of weapons such as Shotguns, sniper rifles, molotov cocktails, pistols, LMGs, grenades, napalm. • Freaker-ear bounties, hunting animals, camps to clear. • Flashback missions where you learn about Deacon's past with Sarah. • Ambush camps are bad, encampments are good. • Ambush camps will attack you roadside(marauders). • Freakers are drawn to dark places such as tunnels and will make nests. • Only way to clear freaker nests is via molotovs, gas cans, oil drums. • Deacon has "survival vision" which highlights items of interest, can be upgraded to highlight enemies. • Deacons stamina, health, time slowdown are upgradable. • Radio towers that you can climb. • No fetch quests or time trials, everything has context. • Hordes are scattered throughout the world. • 300 zombie hoard is a "baby hoard", E3 2016 demo had 500. • Hordes need to eat, sleep, and drink. Travel in groups. NERO mass grave was where they were in demo. We also have our first look at the game’s map: They also estimate that the game’s critical path is around 30 hours long, but this is a number which can easily be changed by the weather that you experience during your playtime.

Game Informer have been crushing it ahead of E3 this year - what with their excellent Spider-Man coverage last month and God of War earlier this year - and they’ve just revealed that Days Gone will be the game that they feature this month. I’m looking forward to learning more about this game, because we really don’t know much about it at this point, which is a bit perplexing given that it’s been present on-stage at the last few E3s.

It’s just going to be a five minute long apology for the cancellation of Final Fantasy VII Remake, isn’t it? But seriously, mentioning the future of the company makes me wonder what else we might see besides the already announced games scheduled for release later this year? An update on the Avengers Initative seems a good bet, but beyond that, I’m not too sure. It seems too early for Final Fantasy XVI, but maybe we’ll hear something about what Luminous Productions have started work on? If I’m remembering correctly, wasn’t it also this sort of time last year that Takahashi Tokita (director of Chrono Trigger) teased a Switch project? Maybe - if Nintendo are only keeping things first-/second-party for their Switch Online/Virtual Console replacement - we’ll get some news about a 2D Final Fantasy collection for Switch? Or a Chrono Trigger port? I’m probably focusing on the wording a little too hard, but I’m excited for what they have to show I’ll go update the original post!

I know Avatar (not the blue people) is not an ‘anime’ in the Western connotation of the word, but I do think this belongs here, if not because it rides the fine line between an anime and cartoon, then because I’m sure that some people here have enjoyed it! Anyways, a month or two back, it was announced that Avatar: The Last Airbender would finally be seeing a complete series blu-ray release this summer, and some reviews for it are coming in from over the pond (where it’s already out). Visually and audibly, it seems to be the best version out there, and is supposedly vastly superior to the DVD release of the complete series. Fingers crossed it makes its way over here. As someone who has made it a tradition to watch the show every summer, I’m really excited about finally being able to watch it without the blurriness visible throughout a lot of the DVD release

What’s really frustrating about this is that we’re even more confused than we were before. Games we’d expect to see under the Virtual Console banner will be up and running within months - if that - on Switches which are utilising homebrew. They really do like to do things the hard way, don’t they?

https://kotaku.com/virtual-console-...witter&utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter The exact phrasing is interesting. This is pretty much marketing speak for “Yeah, we’re rebranding”. To what extent remains to be seen: is it a Netflix-style service as @Serebii seems to think? I don’t necessarily think so; it could just as easily be classic games brought together under a different brand name, which isn’t surprising at all, considering that Nintendo have been doing a lot of work to reinvent their brand since the NES Classic was revealed. To be clear, the branding (Nintendo Entertainment System — Nintendo Switch Online) for the Switch online service on their site very clearly outlines that their current plans are for NES games only. Suggesting that legacy titles from the GB, SNES, GBA, GC, DS and/or Wii are guaranteed to come to this service when Nintendo are being so cryptic about it - when the text “with more on the way” is so vague as to what is actually coming - is a bit on the naive side. I absolutely agree with @Hero-of-Time: this has been handled poorly, and is notably unprofessional considering just how well Nintendo has done at accurately conveying the message of what the Switch is in its marketing campaign. We already knew that their plans were for a rebrand in some form anyways, though; the return of a brand called Virtual Console was never on the cards, but rebranding doesn’t necessarily mean a change in concept (such as to a Netflix-style service). Here’s an excerpt of an interview from last June, conducted by Kotaku: I’m both extremely worried and excited by what many seem to think Nintendo are currently proposing. Excited because, hey, I’d love a third party physical Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest collection for the Switch. But I’m worried because the phrasing of this seems to suggest that Nintendo are only going to be featuring first- and second-party games in their catalogue, regardless of whether it’s Netflix-style or just Virtual Console with a different name. While Nintendo has a great back-catalogue - arguably the greatest - the presence of a service/brand associated with a quality standard which allowed for third parties to rerelease legacy titles was a great way to incentivise third parties to do so. I just genuinely don’t see many third parties wanting to go out of their way to optimise, market and release legacy titles. I can’t see this actually being more profitable than Virtual Console, when one considers the size of Nintendo’s back-catalogue and the low cost of their online service if shared through a Family account.

I’ve mentioned this before, but, personally, this is probably the sole reason that I’ve been able to hold out on purchasing a Switch for so long. As enticing as Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, etc., are, I have an obscenely long back log of hundreds of games, about half of which I’d reckon are Nintendo games. I have no doubt in my mind that I’ll never be able to get through all of them, but the portability of the Switch is an aspect which can’t be overappreciated when it comes to playing such widely adored legacy titles. I’ve had to stave off the temptations of heavily investing in the Wii/Wii U/3DS Virtual Consoles, because Virtual Console has to come to Switch eventually. Right?! All I can think of is that they’re saving it for E3 as one of their trump cards. As great as Nintendo have been doing, they seriously need to fill out the second half of the year with some excellent titles, and I think Virtual Console being launched would help ease the mounting pressure that’s on them to deliver at this E3.

The more and more we talk about it, the more I’m convinced that Pokémon Switch will be exempt. @Hero-of-Time‘s and @Glen-i‘s point about how cloud saves could lead to cloning is something I hadn’t even thought about, and is an excellent point. There’s also the issue of multiple user accounts on the Switch, and saves currently being tied to the system, which means that multiple save files for a Pokémon game would be allowed, which I just don’t see happening. Having multiple people in a household have the same game is one of the biggest ways that I imagine they cash in. The only solution to these problems I can see them realistically using is the one that they’ve used since the first games, and that’s having the game save locally to the cartridge. That would almost certainly mean that it wouldn’t be tied to the online subscription service, in my mind?

Going back to how they’re handling the NES games tied to the service, though, I’m reading around and there’s a lot of confusion going on with regards to titles from other legacy platforms. “Will SNES, GC, etc., titles be coming to this service? It says that there’s more coming later...”; “It only makes mention of NES titles, so Virtual Console is still an option”; “no, I think this means Virtual Console is dead”, etc., etc. Nintendo need to have whatever they’re planning for other legacy titles worked out by, and announced at, E3. The Switch is already vulnerable, and all that’s left to do for emulators to run perfectly well on Switch now is optimisation to an fps count relative to the game. Oh, I totally agree. From a PR standpoint, I think such a move is incredibly risky when taking fans of other franchises into account. I don’t think that it’s something that they should pursue, to be clear. However, I do think it’s one of the few AAA titles that, from a business perspective, makes sense to make exempt. For one, the online services seen in Pokémon games is incredibly basic and pared down when compared to other games. It also is, by no means, the game’s main draw; I’d argue that it belongs in a conversation alongside Odyssey’s freerunning leaderboards as opposed to the likes of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. For many children, Pokémon will be a gateway experience into the Nintendo library of gaming, as it has been for the last 22 years, and I think it’s one of their franchises best positioned to do that. I don’t think that confusing parents with young children with the online capabilities of the Pokémon games and a subscription price being attached to them is the way to go. Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon were easily on course to cruise past the 20 million units sold mark, which would have been the first time this happened in the franchise since Pokémon Gold and Pokémon Silver. Nintendo’s radio silence on numbers since January 2017 means it’s unlikely that this mark was crossed, and the release of the divisive Pokémon Ultra Sun and Pokémon Ultra Moon likely borough Sun and Moon’s figures to a standstill. Just imagine how well a Pokémon Switch game will sell compared to this, what with a relatively older average consumer than the 3DS playing into the hands of a franchise that depends arguably a bit too much on nostalgia. However, my lukewarm take aside... I don’t think this can be understated. If Bank is turned into a free app, or one that’s bundled with a purchase of a Pokémon game, then maybe Pokémon Switch will be one of the games tied to the online service. But, if not, it seems unfair to ask Pokémon players to shell out for a subsidiary service on top of the core online subscription service when players of other games don’t have to. An important point that I forgot about up until now, though, is the actual price of the game: there is no way that Pokémon Switch doesn’t have an RRP of £59.99. The 3DS games has an RRP of £39.99, so what’s going to be so different about these games that their RRP is on the same level as games such as Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, etc.? As much faith as I have in Gamefreak when it comes to giving me an experience that makes me feel like a child again, I just don’t see them making this the fully fledged game that everyone optimistically wants to see at an RRP of £59.99. I think the addition of a free online for what is essentially only side content and not the main feature of the game, as well as access to a Pokémon Bank which doesn’t require any further cost, could go some ways towards justifying that kind of price tag.

~$4.40 if you split the $35 cost with the maximum seven other Nintendo Account holders seems like something that many will want to take advantage of. I’m curious if this is by design or if Nintendo have been a bit too innocent in assuming that users will use the Family membership as it was designed (i.e. for a family)? My bad forgot that PS Plus only expands storage for users, but it’s offered regardless; in which case, I’m not a fan of how it’s behind a paywall either. And yeah, I’m definitely getting the sense that Pokémon will be one of the titles exempt from the online subscription cost. It’s a system seller which always manages to play on nostalgia to the right degree for most (though notably a bit too much for some) much like Zelda and Mario. I don’t think I’m too concerned about a potential backlash which might arise from Bank returning as a paid service in addition to the cost of the online subscription, because every generation of Pokémon is keen to include every single species across their respective games (something I’m personally not a fan of, but alas) due to how competitive play is handled (i.e. a Pokémon must be native to the current generation of games to be used in tournaments, etc.). Then again, I could definitely see a small minority of hardcore competitive players being irked by that, seeing as they would feel obliged to pay for Bank to transfer their perfect Pokémon for breeding to the new games.

This actually sounds quite promising, at least to me. The way that they’re handling cloud saves, as far as I can tell, is the same as PlayStation and Xbox, so I don’t think anyone can complain too much about that if that is the case. I own a number of those NES games, but have only played a select few, and personally wouldn’t mind playing through them, especially with added online functionality. My only concern would be that the vast majority of Switch owners have more than likely already played some/all of those games and aren’t enticed by added online functionality. I’m hoping that this means that previous titles from all of their legacy platforms won’t be tied to such a service if and when they do come to Switch, and that we see the return of a Virtual Console-style set-up that is hopefully a bit more fleshed out and streamlined as a result; personally, I really do not like the idea of a Netflix-style service and would rather pay for and own the games myself as opposed to having them tied to an online service, so hopefully their silence on such a topic (NES games aside) is an indicator that that isn’t part of their plan. The family subscription, at least at first glance, sounds like a very smart idea too, and the online subscription prices currently being quoted seem more than fair given the current state of other online services. All in all, I think the newly announced items are interesting, and a good way to go. I’m still a bit worried about how well the online service will actually perform, and from everything that I’ve read, the smartphone app needs a complete overhaul, but it was smart of them to get this information out ahead of E3. There are still a few areas which aren’t fully explored in this newest release of information, so I hope that they leave this to the side during E3 to focus purely on the games and return to it in a dedicated Direct in July or August. I’m definitely inclined to pick up a subscription when I get a Switch later this year, if only for the special offers With this out of the way and no news on their plans for legacy titles beyond the NES, I wonder if they’re saving Virtual Console/whatever it will be called for E3? Dare I even suggest a shadow launch, on the day following their video presentation? (If you can’t tell, I really want Virtual Console on Switch...)