Sheikah

The point I made was simple. It has nothing to do with being able to play those specific, exact games I mentioned on today's consoles - it is to show that we had third party games on Nintendo consoles in the past, they were great, and so we can be annoyed if third party support might not be coming this time round. Whether we have a PS4 or not is completely irrelevant. There's no guarantee that every game will always go to our PS4s instead, or even see the light of day. Some games of old felt particularly suited to certain platforms and it's pretty clear without a helping hand from Nintendo, some wouldn't have been what they were. No, you don't. And word to the wise, by talking to people like that you achieve nothing more than coming across as condescending. I was commenting on this: Why would it 'surely' be for Nintendo games only? Again...that assumption that for PS4 owners, we should be fine with only Nintendo games on a Nintendo console. Why? It's this mindset that some people have bought into that almost makes me think people deserve paltry console support. It's what they expect, right?

No my statement was counter to something I found flawed about your reasoning. The idea that "Nintendo console is only for Nintendo games" and that PS4 owners shouldn't be annoyed baffled me - says who? When has that ever been in the past? I even remember many good exclusive third party titles (or timed exclusives). Remember how cool Resi 4 was? Doubt we'd have seen that if the gamecube was still basically an N64. Is it just generally accepted now that you get less for your money with Nintendo and that we have no right to be annoyed if we have another console? As you say, bizarre...

So you never enjoyed Tales of Symphonia, Eternal Darkness, Skies of Arcadia, Sonic Adventure Battle 2, Baiten Kaitos, Resident Evil 4, Turok or Harvest Moon? I have to say...I find that "bizarre". (Honestly though, the world knows no end to how many things you find "bizarre")

Spoken like a man who never played Tales of Legendia. Honestly though, I think nearly all the Tales games are pretty mundane, throwaway experiences with plots seemingly aimed at the teenage demographic.

Yeah so often you see people mistaking coincidence for causation. Past consoles didn't sell the most became they were low power, they did so because of something else. Saying 'they happened to be the lowest power' does not imply that another low spec console will be safe. Nobody is actively seeking a low power console.

I will drink the tears.

I had my bingo card ready with my marker pen raised slightly above "lightning in a bottle", as soon as I saw King V's post about the Wii. You are definitely right, and it's why comparisons to the Wii never really work. I mean, Wii U pretty much was trying to do the Wii thing again with the lower power spec but without dat gimmick it didn't stand a chance. It's concerning that the Switch GPU runs at only 40% power when in handheld mode versus docked. I can see games being capped in terms of design and graphics to ensure smooth running on the handheld version, which translates over to the docked experience (even factoring in the 720p to 1080p jump when docking, I'm not sure that will cover it). Either that or have separate optimised versions for both docked and handheld. This is basically shaping up to be a handheld experience as the home console one seems basically a little more than a Wii U again.

My concern is the amount of time to make that version. 3DS has its own version that runs on its hardware, and PS4 has its own version too that matches its hardware. If there is a NX version it will be more than a port, as it will need to be developed to match the hardware since it almost certainly can't handle the base PS4 game (much like CoD games needed their own Wii version).

To be fair, most games don't adopt this model so I have no idea, but it doesn't sound that high to me. Very impressive download figures though.

It has a lot of downloads but I've read that only around 1 in 10 downloaders are actually going on to buy the game.

I would rather it be an IAP model than be 8 quid, because I find that price expensive (like Goafer). Jungle Run comes to mind - tons of levels, the same Rayman gameplay, and the price? £2.49. Pretty sure it was a bit more on release but not much more, and it has been 69p a number of times too. For Mario, I think the price was misjudged based on the audience and the tactic of being a free download then asking for money was never going to go down well. Rayman was a payment up front and fared much better for it. To clear up the point about IAP - there are 'free' games I have played where IAP were used to do things like cheat to clear the level, while not really impacting the gameplay at all should you choose not to spend on them. Sure, there are games where the gameplay is clearly shaped around the microtransactions but it doesn't mean the game has to be made like that. I think I would rather it just be cheaper, since they're selling to a much larger audience they can afford to sell it at a lower price (which again, I'm sure is what the Rayman developers realised). You seem to think I'm all about sales and not about what I want, but the way I see it is that this is a mobile game targeted at the mobile crowd, much less the traditional Nintendo fans like us. I know I can get my Mario fix from Nintendo's game consoles so I can afford to view this release more critically. And being critical, I think they have missed a chance here and overpriced it. Also just a thought - you seem to be implying Nintendo are rising above the lesser companies with their noble behaviour here. I'd be very interested to see where Nintendo go with their next proper mobile game. I reckon they'll adapt their next game to the audience more, confirming most of what I'm saying.

Right, so I feel like this particular discussion is veering into heated territory, so let's just try reel this back again. Certainly, there are arguments you could make for not following the trend of free to play, but is £8 really a good fit? What if, for instance, they made half a game and sold it up front at £4? They could even make the full number of levels and sell the other half later down the line as a second game for another £4. I think the problem many had was that it was free to download and then after a short time it hit you with an £8 price tag. I can see the typical mobile gamer not being pleased with that tactic. Anyhow...regarding me not being a typical mobile gamer; my understanding is that most actually don't pay, and that a lot of the money comes from a smaller pool of people. You can argue it's exploiting in the case of people with what would constitute a gambling addiction but I have seen quite a lot of good come from F2P. In my opinion, Nintendo could probably have made such a method work without compromising their core values. It's just a shame that the way they've gone hasn't gone down well. I also think from a more general view that Nintendo's focus for this game isn't really to sell at a high price to bring big spenders to their titles on mobile who then don't mind spending high on their next traditional console. Rather, I should think they wanted this to do well, make money and attract people to their brand. At £8 I don't believe this is the best way to achieve those things, and I do think that this is being reflected in general reception we've seen. Of course, I can see myself getting this when it comes to Android but as you say, I am not your average mobile gamer.

How is it exploitng? I had great fun with Pokemon Go and didn't part with a penny. This isn't about exploiting people. You can argue all you want that Nintendo are noble with their but ultimately they are out to make money. Their £8 pricing for a crowd not interested in paying up front indicates more that they once again misjudged their audience. And that choice is having a knock on effect on their reviews, and so no doubt their sales. I actually consider £8 very steep for these people and ultimately not a good choice for them in the long run.

Except investors do know something as the game is already out! Wake up Serebii! When are you going to take both the share hit and consumer backlash (2.5 stars on app store) together and figure out that the pricing strategy is a poor one considering the target audience? £8 is too much for these people - they are cheap as hell up front, cash cows in the long run! Hilarious isn't it! Almost as if this was a game made to make money, and that the stock price went down because the game wasn't being received well! Fun times.

Except that's not true, is it? Pokemon Go ticked every box, Nintendo didn't even make it, and we saw a massive increase in Nintendo's share price. Once again, proving how little you know outside of your Pokémon bubble. The reason Nintendo's value has dropped is because of the large backlash to their pricing of the game. It is a direct response to a poor pricing strategy. If the game was generally being received well then this wouldn't be happening.

Wow...ok. So this is frankly one of the most...flagrantly ridiculous responses on the forum that I have seen in a while. Nintendo effectively wiped £958 million off its company value from releasing this game! How can you honestly argue that most people can be wrong and then go on to compare it to the Nazis?! Not sure if you're being even remotely serious in your post or if you just have no idea about how to make effective comparisons. What people were referring to was quite simple - don't sell a product to the wrong audience. Nintendo did just that - and now they face the consequences. Quote for mother-fucking truth!

What does that have to do with anything. If anything that makes Pokemon Go worse for Pokemon's brand image, since Pokemon are being plastered onto a game that is of a far lower quality than the main series. Anyway, Mario's brand integrity is fine - it's huge and people like the games. Having a free to play Mario game on app store isn't going to make people think "Mario has really gone down hill and is free now, no way I'll pay the £40 for a new game on the NX". If anything it will capture the minds of young kids again who have moved onto other games in recent years. It's already £8 so less than a quarter of the price of what the NX game will ever be. May as well go the whole hog and make it very cheap to avoid the current situation instead.

They're not devaluing IP. Can people stop repeating this daft line. Did the free Pokemon Go devalue Pokemon? No! Sun and Moon went on to do just fine. Saying that Nintendo are great for charging customers £8 when they're used to 'free' is rather out of touch. They obviously need to adapt to whatever market they're selling to or if won't take off.

While it's true you technically buy the game as an in-app purchase, what I was saying was that there are no microtransactions to continuously rake in the money (i.e. how most games make their money, and what that revenue graph basically shows). Since that doesn't exist here (gullible people throwing money at microtransaction regularly), I would expect android to be a massive platform for the game.

Yeah but said revenue is usually acquired through in-app purchases...which Mario doesn't have. It makes its money purely from the downloads...i.e. the left graph. Although I expect the graph will shift somewhat since iOS people will be proportionally higher to stump up cash for it, the gullibility factor and in-app spends isn't there. They need to get this out on android, and I do think that this is too much to charge.

After a guy wins a competition held by the game developers who make Disgaea, the winner is called out by name by the company. Unfortunate: [tweet]809790686170124288[/tweet]

Yep. High framerate is also a must.

That's...pretty fucking ridiculous.

But how can that be? It only needs to transmit 'a few KB'. :p Hoping this comes to android soon.

Pretty much everyone has a cap on data, unless they pay for the most expensive tariffs. Even then, there is a cap on the so called 'unlimited' tariffs. I'd be more concerned about data usage associated with the internet use. 3G/4G use is always a battery drain.