Sheikah

Like Dcubed says I reckon there's probably more cost to the joycons than you think. Else I can't see why they are selling them at £70, when in the past their controllers like the Wii remote, gamecube pad etc. have all been pretty reasonable. I think it also makes sense not to look at the cost price for Nintendo since we are talking about what the customer is losing out on by paying £70 less. By paying £70 less, they are not getting the joycons which would cost them £70 to buy. Joycons obviously don't cost £70 for Nintendo to make but if you can't get them yourself for less than that then it's a valid argument. Sure there is the cost of the controls on the Lite unit but given the omission of so much tech I cannot imagine this would come even close to a joycon, and you can't play with your friends with them. Then there's a lot of other features you are missing out on: - Dock and TV play (dock is something like £80 on Nintendo's site, but third party alternatives available) - Same level of console power (no dock means no docked mode, no 1080p) - Screen size - 15% smaller - 2 player - no joycon Then there are also extras if you did want to buy a separate pair of joycons to play 2 player...no means of charging them (have to buy a charger for them), and a stand for the Switch. In fact the dock alone is being sold on eBay for £40-50. So if you wanted, you could buy an original Switch and sell the dock, then have a larger screen handheld Switch with joycons for almost the same money as the Lite... Ultimately what this all says to me is that it's overpriced. Sure people might not want the extra stuff that's with the original Switch but that doesn't mean Nintendo are giving a fair price. I think £165 would have been a fair opening price, with bundles later taking this to an effective price of £150.

He's just pointing out what's true - that the cost of the system itself should be cheaper given the omission of components which are priced high by Nintendo. There's no denying that the cost of the Lite + one pair of joycons is the same as the cost of the original Switch, but you're losing a lot more besides.

Or even fairly priced. Gamers these days!

That's the conditioning they've done to you over the years. It's worked

The 3DS was always horrendously overpriced though for the spec (it was a very low-fi machine), whereas the Vita pricing was decent (and prices dropped reasonably well) but they made up for it by charging way too much for the proprietary memory cards. I don't think the spec is worth the asking price, just comparing it to any tablet you will see they have far better tech for less (or the same) money. Compare it to the regular Switch too and it's only 70 quid less, which could be attributed to the lack of 70 quid joycons - but it has several other compromises too. These consoles are generally overpriced because they know they can get away with it. If you want to play the next Pokemon you have to buy the console.

Not if they reduced the cost of the base original unit too. Which they really should be doing by now. For reference, less than 2 years into the PS4's life the system received an official price drop from 350 to 300 quid, and also included the Nathan Drake Collection... Were there any solid rumours about the lite version? It could be that the rumour was that there was a new model coming, which now has been confirmed...

Absolutely, if you were to buy the joycons alone they cost 70 quid. This is 70 quid less than the original Switch. Yet you are losing a lot of other features too, and getting a smaller screen with no 1080P output option. It's basically just a 720P display tablet now with some attached controllers. You can buy cheaper phones now with more power than that and higher resolution screens. My 2018 iPad was around 200 quid in fact.

Is there any proof of that? Nintendo releasing this version makes it even less likely in my eyes. They have probably figured out where the money is based on the 2DS (comparing it to the New 3DS).

Very disappointing for me. Where other companies are focusing on pro versions, Nintendo are going down the lite route. This is a downgrade in almost every sense so it's not really targeted at us, rather kids or people with less money who don't already have a switch. That said...Switch was what, £270 at launch? And if they do the old dollar to pound switch for this new model, it feels like a bad deal to me. Like, I would expect the cost of the standard Switch to have dropped at least £50 by now, since it's been out a while and they must surely be cheaper to manufacture. That would make this new console only marginally cheaper than what the standard Switch should really cost by now. There's also the ramifications of dropping joycons from the box...they sold these things at a premium £70 and justified it by showing off the tech inside like the shaking of ice cubes. What are the chances that these features will be supported to the fullest now that not all Switch players have the joycons? Call me bitter but I'm not seeing great value, nor is it a great endorsement of the Switch's current features. If anyone is thinking of getting one just for the D-pad, you're mad. [emoji14]

Right, but "regulation" can mean the destruction of a component - gambling/lootbox mechanics in Belgium, for instance. Sometimes the best form of regulation is to ban something rather than soften it.

That's just what happens to non-Nintendo games after they've been out a while. I heartily recommend AC Odyssey by the way, it's a great game.

Wasn't this one a remake of Back to Nature? If so, fuck yeah.

You realise that's not always true, right? Regulators can rule that lootboxes are illegal gambling. In fact, that's exactly what happened in Belgium.

If you're scaling back the use of the word 'majority' then you literally cannot believe in that statement anymore. In fact if you agree it's no longer the majority then you are in fact arguing the opposite (and in favour of my point). That the majority are interested in indies!

You said would it have reviewed the same - I see no reason why not. Look at games like Undertale, Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Stardew Valley, Binding of Isaac, No Man's Sky, Rocket League. All very successful financially, most are critically acclaimed, and all before they went to Switch (or never in the case of NMS). All game sales are higher now than they've ever been. What's your point dude? What an odd conclusion, how did you interpret me as saying that? Just because there is a lot overlap in audience between systems, doesn't mean everyone on each system will buy specific types of games. Not everyone with a Switch buys indies...especially considering all indies are on the eShop and not everyone buys digital or has an account (particularly kids). A lot of kids will get a Switch just for Mario and Pokémon. Let's not move the goalposts here Ronnie. What I disagreed with was your statement that the majority (>50%) of PS4 gamers will not touch an indie. Consider that there are so many PS Plus subscribers getting these indies in their sub too...it makes it so people have easy access to the games. There's so much variety that I find it unlikely that the majority of PS4 owners won't play any indie games at all, either on PS4 or their Switch/PC.

I wouldn't say it's more to do with ignorance, but that is also a factor. Like, there are definitely people to who judge a game with low-fi graphics and dismiss it, but then there are also people who want big, high value games in a sub they are paying £40-50 for per year. Back in the PS3 days you really got full price retail titles all the time with Plus and the switch over at the start of the PS4's life really irked subscribers. I'd say it depends heavily on the indie game too. Like people will play Rocket League no problem, but dismiss something else. Are people on PS4 into a less diverse range of indies? No doubt. But I'd still say the majority of PS4 gamers will play at least some indies, whether on PS4 or a Switch/other console they own.

Of course they would, unless you are saying reviewers are not able to look past the system the game is on when reviewing games? You have to remember that before Switch, indie games sales were split between PC, PS4 and X1. Like, that wasn't an option - those were the only ways to play then. And the games? Often they came out on PC first, then PS4 a while later, then X1 later still - it's hard to collate sales figures with such staggered releases. Now people who are into their indies can get them on Switch and get the huge bonus of portability. It doesn't surprise me at all that Switch has much bigger sales of these titles. Now Switch is big it is getting indie games quickly and I've no doubt people are more likely to get the Switch versions even if that means a little wait. I think you are also hugely underestimating the amount of people who have a Switch and a second console/PC. You like to talk about this so called mainstream that have one system and just a couple of games, but the reality is that the Switch and PS4/X1/PC (combined) have sold millions and millions of systems. There's going to be a hell of a lot of overlap. I particularly think this is true for Switch owners - there are just so many big games that don't come to Switch that I imagine the majority (>50%) of Switch owners have a second console/PC. Not completely different markets at all, for the reasons listed above. Of course, that was never in question. There will be a greater proportion of people on Switch 'into' indies than PS4, as a small minority of Switch owners will only be into indies. This is compounded by the fact a lot of the Switch titles are indies and that Switch misses out on most big third party games, particularly the ones that soak up people's time and leave them little time to play much else. My problem was with your initial quote: "The majority of the Sony audience just aren't interested in anything that isn't either a) annual casual games like FIFA/COD or b) the big AAA games."I think this is very unlikely to be true once you factor in people who own Sony and do like indies (even if not many, say just Stardew Valley), and also the people who also own a Switch and buy their indies there. Obviously there are no stats either way to argue/disprove your initial point, but I find it very unlikely.

Before Switch there was no other place for non-PC gamers to play indies - just PS4 or X1. So unless every person who likes indies sold their PS4 2 years ago when Switch came out, you are wrong to suggest that there is some kind of avoidance of the console by indie gamers. It just happens that PS4 has a bigger install base, so you have a lot of people playing indies as well as people who only play one or two games.

Now they're not selling as well sure, people into indies often get them on Switch (a console many people really into games also have). But there's no denying loads of people bought Minecraft on PS3/X360 back in the day, and subsequently Stardew Valley on the current consoles. A lot of people had already bought their current systems before Switch dropped, so before Switch ther was no other way for non-PC gamers to play indies. People are still into indies, just the place they're playing them has changed. Indies do generally sell less well than big games though (obviously there are exceptions), that's just the nature of them. The PS Plus argument also goes deeper than what you are suggesting - a lot of people harbour discontent towards indies being monthly games because indies are cheaper (and shorter). They therefore see it as they're getting less value for their sub.

Most likely people bought Switch for the big titles too (Zelda, Mario, Mario Kart, etc). I think Nintendo push indies due to the gaps they can't fill as well as the advantage they have with regards to portability. Sony probably look at that and see they can't compete (or at least isn't worth the effort) so aren't putting as much effort in. I think it's less that people don't want the games, people do jump on indie games (see Minecraft, Stardew Valley, etc). And yeah, big exclusives do sell the system. Or the client, in the case of epic store

You said the majority of the PS4 audience aren't interested in indie titles which I suspect is untrue, in a large part due to many people owning more than one console/having bought at least one indie title. Vita sales do not disprove this point as that's an entirely different situation, a lot of people will not buy a console just for indies.

Not true, many people who own a Switch also have a PS4/X1/PC since Switch misses out on too many big/high profile games. So in actual fact the “indie interested” Switch audience is not a pure audience generally speaking, rather they are choosing to buy their indie titles on Switch. And why wouldn’t they? Indie titles generally have no graphical cutbacks to run on Switch due to their lower graphical fidelity, and for the most part don’t majorly support online (so no reason to shun the Switch version). Yet have the big advantage of portable play. I for one often pick up Switch versions of indie titles even if a PS4 version is available. A lot of indie titles feel pick up and play and the Switch feels well suited to that.

Actually the workers on some of these games do want it to fail. Here's an excerpt (and quote) from the Kotaku article about Anthem's downfall: I agree with that view - while it would hit the developers' bonuses for people to not buy their games it would send a message and potentially bring about change. With 2 flops in a row and media coverage there is a chance now that Bioware might do something about it.

You're definitely a skilled gamer though (saying this based on the kinds of games I know you've completed/100%'d). For the average gamer it's probably a different story.

Yeah I think streaming is inevitably the route gaming will eventually go (by and large). Once internet reaches crazy speeds across the board (in a long time) there'll be little reason not to.