Julius

This is Nintendo being very, very aware of the current success of eSports in my opinion. And that's great, because this game looks like it could be great fun!

Couldn't agree more. Dropping the news on SM last year was smartly done, but this year we probably won't hear anything until April at the earliest - in the event that there is a game due to be released at the end of this year, that is - in my opinion. Possibly even later if it's "just" a revamp/third version of SM.

Don't think I could agree more with this. As things stand, it simply out-prices a lot of families, and let's not forget the potential downturn for damaging the console. What is it, ~£40/Joy-Con half? Wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot of insurance plans floating around for this. Anyway, personally, I don't have a problem with the cost of the console: it's the first of its kind, and is cheaper overall than shelling out on both a 3DS and Wii U (at least based on their respective launch prices). I do understand the qualms many of you have with the prices we've seen floating around, which is why I plan on optimising my use of pre-order price guarantees. My biggest problem is the cost of everything else, though. Based on GAME pre-order prices: £65 for a pro controller, which is more-or-less Ninty's Dualshock? £114.97 (!!!) for another fully functioning Joy-Con controller (each Joy-Con half is £42.99, with the main body of the unifying controller being £27.99)? Some prices seem reasonable, such as the Joy-Con straps, some of the cases, and even the Joy-Con wheels. But since when do we have tiers for the prices of games? I mean, it makes sense - for example, 1-2 is £39.99 and is more-or-less just a Joy-Con game, whereas Zelda and other AAA titles have been optimised for both home and portable use - but the fact that we now have pricing tiers is bound to baffle the more casual of gamers, surely?

Well...what a weird way to start the day. Seems rather oxymoronic right now. See you all later (14:30 is it?) for the Treehouse!

Man, the inconsistent prices are going to drive people off the wall. At a glance, seems to be: • first party/AAA title - £59.99 • Wii U Port - £49.99 • experimental/indie games - £39.99 EDIT: expect to see some people talk about Sony/Microsoft already having online subscriptions. That's true. But theyre more powerful systems with a much, much wider array of already established games, and currently at a lower price than the Switch?

So, some things "missing" from that presentation based on leaks: • reveal of Super Mario Rabbids RPG • Beyond Good & Evil teaser • word on Mother 3 (not so surprising) • Dark Souls? • what the heck are Retro working on?

I'd be surprised if more than 500,000 of the 2 million units are for Europeans/Brits at this rate. So that's not such a crazy idea. I can see it falling to £250 by the summer, if the pound stabilises. The extra £30 seems to be coming from Ninty wanting insurance that they'll make a profit.

Goodness knows what this means for Pokémon fans currently on the Switch. Bank has proved somewhat divisive to the fan base, but if a Nintendo Subscription is required to use online features to enable Bank? Even more divisive. Even more costly. And then there's the fact that parents are not going to want to shell out £50/60 for one game when before that meant 2 or 3 on the DS/3DS. Even more divisive in the U.K.

Just to point out that this doesn't seem to be the case, the note on Amazon saying "7 AM BST" has been changed to just "7 AM", so if anyone is interested in a pre-order with Amazon...the time changed. By an hour. Which is always fun.

Going at current exchange rates anyhow, $299 equates to just under £250. Seems like the additional £30+ is Nintendo's insurance in the event that the strength of the £ continues to dwindle.

I'd certainly recommend placing a pre-order with ShopTo or Amazon if I were you. The potential upside to their pre-order price guarantees is often very good, and if the price hasn't fallen considerably by launch, which it often does, then cancel the order? I saved £70 just the other month on the Pokémon Solgaleo/Lunala N3DS XL with Amazon. But I agree. Barmy price point for this time of year.

If it makes you feel any worse, even Puyo-Puyo Tetris doesn't have a release date. Oh dear.

Gosh darn, there's that too. Pokémon has the right idea. Money is worthless. Let's start collecting bottle caps!

...ouch. Pre-orders with sites/retailers who have pre-order price guarantees (ShopTo, Amazon, etc.) seem to be the best way to try to save on both the console and games, then. Though, I'm not too surprised by this. They are eventually cutting off a dedicated portion of their revenue when it comes to games, so with Switch being a portable/home console hybrid it certainly makes sense, even if that price is still baffling. Zelda is more or less their saving grace with Nintendo fans. It could potentially sell great in the Americas and Japan, as well as across Europe, but I can't see the mainstream audience even attempting to tap into this until prices start to tumble a bit in the U.K.

Nintendo's official YouTube channel.

MARIO Kart 8 Deluxe trailer just came out on Ninty's channel... April 28th launch

Well, grow me a moustache and make me a plumber. That was awesome.

I think Ronnie is right in saying 6 AM, unless they messed up? Says BST, not GMT/UTC, so if their apparent mistake is accurate (7 AM BST), then it would be going up at 6 AM (GMT/UTC).

ShopTo pre-order placed. Now to just sit and wait on Amazon starting Friday... The hype for this was going right over my head, or so I thought. Hit me when I woke up this morning; not long to go now!

I'm not going to help by muddying the waters, am I? I've seen/been part of cases where the pre-order goes live a few hours ahead of schedule, goes live at the "right" time (at most 30 minutes after reveal) and occasions where they've been days off. My plan is to pre-order pretty much everything Switch on Amazon, and as release beckons I'll cull anything I (or my friends or family) am not interested in. I still think Amazon has the best pre-order price guarantee considering some of the savings I've made myself..

Yes they are, by 9 hours. Meaning that 4am here = 1pm there, the time that the presentation starts in Japan. So, the presentation starts at 4am here in the U.K. EDIT: so yeah, it's Friday in Japan (think Dcubed may have accidentally been referring to the US times!)

Well, the Brain Trust meeting was already scheduled and has been in the works for a while now. Naturally, after such an unfortunate passing, this is something that will come up. It's good that they have quite a good length of time and don't have to rush into any rash decisions, and can give Leia and Carrie the send off she deserves.

Whilst I agree that Billie Lourd would be the ideal stand-in for Leia, I think you've hit the nail on the head right there: she's already appeared in another film as another character. Also, considering the length of time Leia is in Rogue One, I'd have to disagree simply because it wouldn't optimise her talent.

I agree that the CGI is very touch-and-go at times, but to say it's "really terrible" is perhaps misleading. This is something that can be cleaned up further in the future, and you can tell from the special effects used in the film that this was a large chunk of their budget (see: ships landing, such as Krennic at the start of the film and Rogue One on Scarif). It's funny, because nobody nitpicks the awful use of CGI in other films released this year; for example, Tony Stark's jittery head in Civil War. But that's besides the point: though not perfect, the CGI facial reconstruction used in this film, especially for Tarkin, is very good. There are some shots where it is more telling than others, but seriously, people can't point and say "oh, this looks nowhere near as good as the young Stark in Civil War!", because there's one thing to understand which puts this feat into perspective: Peter Cushing died over 20 years ago. Your argument for Mon Mothma also loses me, perhaps even more so than your CGI one. Rogue One leads directly into A New Hope, so there's no second guessing as to why Leia has to look like Carrie Fisher (may she rest in peace) in a New Hope; there are four years between the end of Rogue One and Return of the Jedi, and the actress used has already been utilised before (in Revenge of the Sith; her scene was cut from the final film). It was argued upon seeing the release of the deleted scenes that she looked suited for the role, but ten years later certainly more so: the actress looks very similar to the one used in ROTJ. Not to mention that it's a secondary/recurring character at best: if a Leia lookalike had been utilised, we'd be picking that apart even more so.