Rummy

News coming through of the hardhack making it through to Online - anyone with any opinions on what this might do to the service/value especially given it could affect the experience you're paying for? http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2018/05/25/hacking-is-starting-to-affect-online-switch-games.aspx Will it break it all apart knowing there's irretrievable devices out that with the hard hack vulnerability? Will the 'value' of the service still hold value?

Popped out to see this last week when Magnus Petersen gave me a shout as I hadn't even realised it was out so soon - unfortunately been overshadowed by IW I guess(lookin' at you, Brolin!) - not sure how I feel. On the whole, definitely positive. Compared to the first? Hmm. It's different. The problem with stuff like Deadpool being so quirky and irreverent is how to keep that going without losing yourself or become tacky/obvious - given that challenge I thought it did quite well. On the whole definitely enjoyed it and there was some great Deadpool-style moments throughout, with some really nice old comic book nods(and I don't even know them all that much for Deadpool). I think it's going to get relatively harsh criticism being a sequel to the first, but I think in the face of what it was up against it did really well! Given I didn't plan to see it or go in with much expectation I think I actually really enjoyed it, but I'm well aware it didn't blow me away but not sure I really wanted it to either.

Mod note: attempted to merge H-o-T and RedShell's threads together without even reading them given the titles, hopefully isn't any mess/redundancy between the two topics. Forgive me if there is! So didn't quite delete yours @RedShell just popped it into this. Doesn't seem to be any major confusion/issues.

I think I've generally always been to busy to watch these live, though I catch up later and later these days. There's a few games in there I'd like to see but probably won't end up getting in it all until they're all done. I do enjoy speedruns but I personally end up finding them quite hit and miss when I came to watching them too.

Ahhh fair enough. This goes in pretty hard pretty quick in a way I think you might enjoy, hopefully you'll manage to stay spoiler free until you're all caught up! (also ignore the phantom quote above)

Starting to think I may be the only fan left here but did anyone watch? Seems to have gone a lot harder a lot faster than I saw coming. Bit surprising to see but not complaining tbh. @Kav I recall you watched the previous ones; would be curious on your thoughts if you saw last night's opening episode?

Do you do your own tax returns? Would you declare this? Is it actually a declarable or taxable income ie. capital gains tax? Why would you even think or consider it to be? Or maybe, ykno, you wouldn't.

Well I mean sure why not - doesn't have to be exclusive but I think it's better if it is; though interestingly enough a two-tier system may actually foster its own demand. Also you might be able to make something of it(as you could already) with both the sales but also a social interaction to try and judge what sort of market you have on your system for what sort of titles. Given that I feel Nintendo are still playing really rather safe with a lot of remakes and easy choices such as with this service - I think it's a gradual informational approach they could take from progressive user feedback to possibly even tailor the Switch game market to better please their consumers, and ideally grow demand from there. I'll admit that in my own opinion this isn't a positive idea for Nintendo unless robustly done but working old franchise stuff into new franchise stuff whilst keeping it perceptibly wholesome could be really powerful imo.

Tbh I think this is how they should break the mold. Charge a price more in the £30-40 and add a NintendoNow style service where you can basically stream/download/play a game in the catalogue(with save functionality) from a range of generations at any time you fancy. Give some user feedback/interaction and allow potentially votes or open polls for old content people would like to see on there, work to get it ported etcetc. Have it be a growing service(along with it doing everything else it's supposed to and having online functionality elsewhere) and I think it'd add a lot of value that people would pay for, or at least something different to the others; slightly. They have great appeal with their back catalogue(VC across systems, SNES and Nes mini, remakes etc) but I think they've moved beyond monetising it well on a game by game/unit by unit basis because they've almost already oversaturated themselves. That's also basically why people aren't seeing enough value in the NES offerings of the service - they've seen it all before too often too recently and for too much - how many times are you gonna re-buy an old NES game, really?

I'm trying to be civil here Ronnie - did you reach your subjective conclusions objectively? Did you reach them with no reasoning? Was there no reason to your argument about the value? It's like if anyone(or particularly me) points out something in your posts they disagree with it or see a discrepencies they must just be wrong. No weight at all allowed to their thoughts. It's all well and good trying to again present numbers and value objectively - but it IS as you even there yourself realise subjective. However presenting a price and playing with numbers surely isn't subjective, but objective? You're implying that £18 and 4 games are a value across a board rather than your own personal interpretation of the value. How am I able to know what you're presenting objectively or subjectively if you're going to use numbers but not even acknowledge it's a subjective perception or point of view you're trying to get across? Again I wouldn@t take issue with it if this was clear. I felt you were trying to get a numbers based rationalisation across for the value of the service without acknowledging that for some, or indeed many, here that that isn't the same value despite he numerical basis. It isn't the points you make, it's the way you make them. This is something I've generally always been mixed on(and why I generally tend to go physical over digital). The question I'd ask, because I know I've crossed my own threshold here with ps+ running a service of a similar nature, is whether there's a point you'd be ok with it? PS+ is kinda great in that if offers quite a lot of diverse content that I don't feel I lose out too much if I don't have it subscribed to - but also I know that if ever do stop but then re-subscribe all my content will still be there presuming no major reneges or changes on Sony's end. Are we aware of the Switch thing being similar? Or is it a case of subscribe anytime and access these X amount of games whilst you are, rather than getting a title for a library month by month? Kinda middle ground between current sorts of subscriptions and Netflix style stuff? This I'm in the same boat on as well - whilst it won't terribly upset me I do think it's unfair to possibly not allow people an option to permanently buy a game or two that they really want over subscribing to a service that offers access. Interestingly enough it comes back into the online service for me too and some expressions made by others previously iirc - given the small online catalogue and arguable lack of perceived value for the yearly subscription service would they consider giving any sort of one-off game passes? Ie you might not want to pay £18 a year for the service as it is but you might be happy to pay a small one off fee for lifetime online for a single game like Splatoon etc?

The error in your reasoning for me appears to be exactly what Ashley states - value is subjective. As we've seen already from the thread - many people don't see a value offered in the service to spend the money or subscribe to it even despite this or its affordability. It's all well and good to talk about supposed value - but if a majority of consumers don't appear to actively want it then how much is it really worth? I think if it was more expensive but offered a lot more especially something like a streaming service then yes, many people would pay for that. The problem is that right now it seems to many that it offers very little for its price. Given Nintendo's history should we really expect any major overhauls to the service or reactions that seem in line with majority of consumers demand, or will they bullishly just forge on with the plans they have regardless? I actually think they should make an expensive, robust service(on par with competition), but within it offer a PSNow style streaming service for their back catalogue. They have massive draw from their old titles as mentioned - capitalise on it by offering it in abundance to encourage adoption of the system etc.

Why would they cost that when they've been 3.50 in essence from Wii and Wii U unless I'm mistaken? The bigger issue is sure you think that's value, but it seems for a number of folks here it isn't. I'm worried for what that all means on a wider scale for the console and its future online ecosystem(due to lack of uptake); especially where, as evidenced by a few here, the issue isn't the affordability but that they simply don't see the same value in it that you do. I think in terms of value and market demand, 5quid a NES game won't sell particularly well at all these days; especially given points of cannibalism of their own market with 'Mini' systems and a repeated system of consumers rebuying these games time and time over on various systems such as Wii, DS family, Wii U and now Switch etc. It's part of the issue of feeling a lack of value given you pay for a service and have to repeatedly re-buy games you might thoroughly enjoy time and time again across different systems: particularly if you feel it's due to a poor implementation of an online system wherein others have already managed this many years before.

Inclined to mostly agree - but they're fracturing and splitting themselves here. Backwards compatibility/VC stuff is just one part of the myriad of issues folks seem to be worried about with the system.

Haha yep my first one too! Well, one that wasn't a cartoons racer like mario kart street racer diddy Kong etc. I just recall it came with the PC or some multimedia bundle and we didn't really have/get PC games much but it was there so I would play it! Wasn't very good at first but it's my first foray into a more real sort of driving game. Funnily enough if I had to pick a favourite racing series it would probably be Burnout too - really wish they'd make a new one.

We haven't truly recovered enough since the 2008 crash and these are imo small accumulative knock ons from that. Only the beginning as well, because if they up interest rates just imagine how hard it's going to hit businesses with all time record loans etc. We may actually see a notable death of certain parts of the high street.

Thanks for the insight! Tbh my experience is severely limited in not being a PC gamer(or even much of a user these days) and mostly going by seeing my mates having a good time and chatting about it etc. tho still none of them did buy it after the trial. I didn't realise it was feeling bare to folks, but I again must profess my ignorance. I wonder if it's something, or even the attitude, or releasing something that isn't neccessarily end market but tailoring more real time to users etc? The world of day 1 patches constant updates/changes and content etc is certainly upon is.

I've always been inclined to agree but my SNES yellowed a bit and weirdly more in a non-smoking household than a mates' did. Ofc this all happened when I was younger and unaware of it being a thing and full console history his side etc but I may be tempted to unase and try unyellowing it via lost's method. Ofc in my slight ignorna cemy first question was the exact same as yours - how did it get there in the first place!! #NotAllYellows

Only just seen it myself! Remember I had it as some massive PC kit bundle thingy. Unless I'm mistaken Four to the Floor was one of my faves tracks of the time... (such a blast from the past!) Edit: actually I think I may have merely had this as one of my favourites. Very tempted to put these on my usb stick for the car...

Look at this guy, putting the G into S.C.G! Unfortunately I cannot help as any of the few games I played and would have given as a potential suggesting already seem to have been covered by you @Azalus! However I would like to welcome you to forum and hope you find out what the game is - be very curious to know when you do as I've had this same thing many a time with old games or cartoons/TV shows of my youth

Kinda what I was expecting - I've cut the above quote but appreciated the whole post. My concern/issue was this though. Rather than an issue of affordability some consumers(notably moreso ones like us) rather than seeing this is a service they might pay X Y or Z for would actually see it as offering so little or possibly being disappointing(without going into it Nintendo's online and promises have tended to be rigid at times) that they wouldn't subscribe at all. I wonder how this will affect the system as a whole - especially trying to foster online multi environments etc. Low player bases aren't ideal, and die off much quicker. In the short term it isn't great, but I feel like in the longer term it does more damage to make people feel less encouraged to adopt in future or continue to subscribing to the service once starting etc. I worry how well it'll thrive without that. I agree on top of that the way of announcements and reveal and delays don't seem particularly rational given their lengths and reasons/features given. I also recognise the difference of affordability and choosing not to use the service. I do wonder what might happen given the perceived lack of value but apparent...openness? of the family pass? If they don't lock down too tight on that I could certainly see more older single gamers coming together to share a family pass for much cheaper content if it's as easy and simply being tied to your NNID username/login. They said you'd be able to play on ANY switch with it, right? Not limited to a particular console or two or having a specific primary etc?

Well as long as people aren't getting on my back for reasonably asking him where his figure came from, and can allow the fact I haven't changed my numbers repeatedly I'm fine with that - because it's a foundation for the points I wanted to come onto. People have already mentioned the value of the service to them, something which you surely can't come up with without considering cost. There's going to be different ways to compare this too - which is also related. I wanted to avoid just getting repeats of the same issues people feel they have with it atm though. So first off - for those who don't feel it's worth the £18 yearly(remember this at the moment is a minimum/cheapest price, and shorter term buys work out more expensive). Ignoring the family pass for the moment - for those who don't feel it's worth the £18 then what DO you feel it is worth? Is there a lower price threshold you'll pay for it in its current speculated state (I realise there's lot of room for movement and unknowns in here) or do you simply feel it's a service that does not currently offer enough to bother with at all? Next up - how do you feel the price compared with alternatives; either both at advertised pricing and obtainable? My point here as an example is that ps+ has been recently raised to an official price of...£60 for 12 months? Though in reality you can often get it for less via places like CDKeys etc and Sony themselves often do small deals on it - this is something I think we're unlikely to see from Nintendo and I doubt anywhere will sell pre-paid 12 month cards etc for anything less than £18 so it's likely to be an absolute bottom. What happens next if, as some are wondering, the service isn't up to scratch? There's already murmurs of potential issues of withdrawing currently existing free online play to behind the subscription; what happens if the service just doesn't get a good uptake? There's enough Switch owners here dithering on the fence and for me online has been a big question mark that's held me off purchasing a switch for a while. Another reason I wonder about this came up in General sales etc - some suggesting that retail sales seem to be down more these days and someone else wondered if it was due to a proliferation of digital options for consumers now. What happens if this online service doesn't quite keep up with shifting patterns or trends, especially when we've seen retailers dump Nintendo lines previously with the Wii U? Tbh I don't see it really happening with the Switch as demand still seems to be going, but I do wonder what will happen after this online service is launched. Questions also still hanging out there about piracy/hacked devices and whether this will be a service designed to counteract any negative effects of that. I'd like to hope they have designed a service smartly enough for it but given its been rather notably hacked relatively short into his lifespan I'm curious whether they'll be prepared for what could come(even if it was a Tegra vulnerability rather than their own). I'd also be curious about the verification when it comes, and if someone clever might find ways to get hacked Switches online playing without paying etc. For me there's lots of questions about something we don't really have many answers to - I can't say it makes me keen to jump in with the system atm.

So my numbers haven't actually been faulty anywhere whereas Ronnie's repeatedly have and I'm somehow mistaken by logically following them and pointing out the flaws in them, trying to see why this has occured? Gotcha. It's not my fault he can't keep track of his own calculations and decided to repeatedly state different numbers. I wasn't inconsistent - this all stemmed from his portrayal of a price of 1.20 a month, which still even from there is 75% of the 1.50 it actually is (so 25% or 20% depending which way you work it). I wouldn't mind if there was acceptance of it - but somehow I'm wrong because of something Ronnie has continued to mistate and misrepresent; even after I've rather civilly highlighted the discrepancy. Would it be ok for me to misrepesent the price the other way, claiming it to be more expensive or a rip off price designed to exploit the consumer when it isn't even the correct pricing for that market? I'm just saying I'm not gonna let bad numbers fly around unquestioned when they're incredibly weakly based (I would ask you to show me from the last 10 years any UK price that converted as a direct analogue from a USD price given the exchange rate of the time - I can't recall a single instance where the UK has recently gotten a digital service or product from Nintendo at a price directs let convertible from USD - it's generally always more expensive and if you're going to consider doing such a comparison (tho hopefully this is a lesson in why it's bad) the better idea would to use EURvGBP for your approximation as well as making that clear that's it's exactly that.

I'm referring back to my original post calling it out - 14.40 is neither 10p short of 1.50 a month and 18-14.40=3.60 and 3.60/14.40 is 25%? Arguably do it the other way and it's 20% - that's still a significant room of error. I have a benefit of a doubt on the original - but why is it constantly being claimed that different numbers were posted? I already knew the £18 figure before I'd seen his post made, so I felt it was disingenuous to suggest a price of £14.40 in comparison - let alone if you want me to go into a longstanding history of considering that UK digital prices do not convert in line with US digital prices and it's a bad comparison to take - as I said one mistake I can see, but it's repeated. Ronnie claims claiming a 10p difference which never happened - yet me working a 14.40 Vs 18 cost is apparently me being irrelevant? It's contextually related to a misrepresentation in price - and I'd say given we've had a few people talk about the value offered by the service I think it's relevant too(and glen-i for example has said he doesn't have the disposable income for it at the price, tho dcubed also offered the counter of sharing family membership). What's important is surely not to have wrong information floating around when it's not needed? I am posting quite Ronnie specifically here - I'm happy to accept one mistake or two but it seems to run through, what does it serve for the thread if it gives people like me oppurtunity to call it out? Why post bad maths or bad information at all, why make speculative conversions with no basis at all, and try to downplay them when called out? I'm all fine for accepting what's being said about relevance - but my numbers add up whereas Ronnie's don't. Whether I'm a mod or not I'm not going to just let people go about posting estimated numbers as if they're fact or what could be argued as straight up bullshit and not call them out. How is it ever going to be sensible to constantly let that happen? Or let me put it to you another way : How many people here wouldn't be keen to pay £18 a month for the service as they see it to be now, but would possibly pay it if it was £14 instead? Or £14.40 to be precise?

You seem to still be misreprenting your own numbers - I mean making one or two mistakes I can understand but to repeatedly do it leads me to believe you ARE being intentionally misleading in order to troll. These supposed small price differences are quite significant when you consider them relatively and especially in context of people who possibly don't feel they have the disposable income for the service. I mean implying a service 25% cheaper than it really is is quite a large room of error, is it not? Not particularly helpful to the thread to have the wrong or misleading information in it, particularly when we know otherwise.

Is it a big surprise given the Xbox and Microsoft's current sort of position/standing in the market? Also how does this Xbox game pass thing work in regards to PC? Few of my mates played for a bit on PC during the trial and possibly thinking of picking it up later on - but similarly I don't think they have/will quite yet. Ofc it's a bit of a shame that due to it being Rare etc this won't make it to ps4 - they could make a killing with the install base of the ps4 now. I can only see it growing bigger and I'm not sure how much competition is really going to impact on it now vs vice versa. It'll be interesting to see how sales go over time - I imagine a few people are looking to pick it up eventually but the other thing that surely affects how good/worth it it is is also the size of the playerbase?