Sheikah

Man, you should just stop. That looks just terrible. Mind you, I think the original Pokémon designs look far better than what has come since, so I feel like we're coming from totally different angles.

You're totally cray . This thing looks like some 90s-era discharge, it'll be sent out to die. I totally understand how shallow it sounds, but there's something about N64-era style 3D that realy hits the eyes in all the wrong ways in this day and age.

The combat is indeed shite. However, it's a hell of a game with excellent world building and story.

Yeah but man...that pile of shite is still in HD. I actually think this detracted from the Direct, as in they'd have better off not shown it. [emoji38]

My thoughts on the Direct as I watched it: 3DS WarioWare: really wished this was on Switch instead. Happy to see the 3DS die at this point; Switch is doing so well that I don't see why they can't just focus all their efforts there. Dillon game: looked atrocious, probably the worst thing shown! Thought it was very odd for a game that looks like this to come out in 2018. Can't see this doing very well in the UK. Mario and Luigi: no interest in this...never had interest in any of these games. Detective Pikachu: no. Luigi's Mansion original level: pretty cool for those that want it, but not something I'd be interested in. Switch Kirby: looked like another Kirby cash in. Didn't see any real ideas worthy of a new title here, but obviously turns Nintendo a buck. Okami: Christ, I forget there are still platforms that the game hasn't been released on. Fantastic game, but at this point I'd be shocked if people didn't already have a system it was released on. Octopath traveller: looks excellent, and one of the better and more interesting things shown. My only fear is that the RPG story will be a little on the generic/traditional side (a la Bravely Default) rather than something like FFIX (which is still traditional but has a good/interesting story). No More Heroes sequel: looks decent, could be worth a look. Dark Souls + amiibo: I'm no amiibo fan, but I could see that amiibo being desired by those interested in them. Clever tie in, although it does devalue the brand a little to see it pawned out to a toy. Still, Dark Souls is excellent and the fact it's coming to Switch soon is good news for the uninitiated. Mario Tennis: one of the worst things shown in my opinion. Watching this was like watching paint dry, except probably less interesting. Them "new features" like being able to pause to aim your shot seemed like absolute garbage - who came up with that? This just really doesn't interest me at all. Captain Toad: no interest in Captain Toad, and that hasn't changed. Undertale: awesome. Everyone should check this game out when it hits, if you haven't already. Crash Bandicoot: cool. Got this already on PS4, although haven't got too far with it. Little Nightmares: genuinely interesting, and something I might consider getting at some point. South Park: very good for Nintendo's image, and although I've not heard stellar things it's a good thing to have available. Hyrule Warriors: I'm quite interested in this, having never got the previous ones. Even though it's the "Warriors" format, I've heard it's a good take and it's the kind of thing I could see myself dipping into. I'll probably get it when the price is right. Splatoon 2 DLCs and shtuff: no interest in this at all. Smash reveal: doesn't excite me at all to be honest. Melee was absolute gold, but the games since haven't been nearly as good. It also seems like it's a port/compilation, so I don't see the potential for it to be a new game that takes it back in the right direction. All in all there is a decent amount of stuff here, and variety. A fair number of ports but still something for everyone. Admittedly, a lot of it doesn't excite me or apply, but there's some things I can see myself getting. I see the Switch as a good secondary console at this point, with the option to pick up games I didn't already get on my other consoles that I can play when travelling.

This trailer for this was genuinely hilarious - like, possibly the worst looking console game released in modern times?

This is essentially the best "included games" month of any system so far given that Bloodborne is basically game of the generation. Anyone who hasn't got Bloodborne yet and is willing to stick with it rather than assume it's too hard for them (it isn't really) is in for a real treat.

Isn't this system usually to make money though in app games? There's no microtransactions in this so it seems weird to have such a system.

Maybe, but would have been nice to have the quest as the thing to unlock them though.

You're right, it's a non-argument. Because it's already happened with free to play, subscription-free games like Fortnite. That shows exactly the point I'm making - you don't need to wrap everything up in your subscription plan. And in the case where people will have been playing 18 months and a furore is likely, you definitely don't. It's bad PR for one, and the other point is that it's a legacy game that came before the service and will therefore probably only benefit at the OS level. What is difficult to understand about that? I regularly play my Switch and have probably the majority of people on here added, yet when I check my friends online on Switch there's nothing like what I see on my PS4 friends list playing the so called "big" multiplayer games as often. Not even close. I am quite convinced that games like Mario Kart for the vast majority are more casual, occasional experiences and that's why I don't feel the subscription model would be particularly justified, at least in my case. Nintendo also only make so many games, and only a selection of them have good lasting online multiplayer. And then the third party games with multiplayer are usually almost always better suited to the more powerful consoles. And for the record I would not consider Smash among the online games worth the subscription - Smash online has never felt snappy to me and generally not enjoyable to play that way, it's not a patch on local multiplayer. Obviously this post is very anecdotal and you will get people saying "well I feel the opposite", but almost every night I boot up my PS4 I can easily find 5-10 N-Europers playing multiplayer games. Nothing like that for me on Switch.

I don't really understand why they implemented this system for blades to be honest. Almost feels designed so that you won't get them all. Would have been better to have them as some kind of sidequest to unlock each one, like guardian forces in Final Fantasy VIII.

But you knowing it's coming surely doesn't have any bearing on other people, which is why it's odd to see you then say you don't understand other people's viewpoint. I knew "it" (quotation marks as we don't really know what "it" is) was coming and I still think the idea to reverse an 18 month free online situation in certain games is poor. From a PR situation it's ridiculous, never mind what warning they may have given (poor warning advertising IMO). Mostly though, I don't think paid online is suited to a lot of Nintendo's games. I see Mario Kart as the game you might whip out just once in a while that doesn't feel suited to paying subscriptions. That's just me I know, but I also don't see enough there that would want to make me pay the subscription, unless the other stuff we will get is that good. Well I can only hope that their use of vague language is to give them flexibility in this matter.

I think that's a good point, and something I agree with. And also part of the problem - their ambiguous language (which they continue to use) is most likely deliberate to allow for them to adapt as needed. What this means though is that people don't actually know if Mario Kart, for instance, will remain free to play or not. It would have been better if they had set a firm date up front and said exactly what would be covered and offered by the service. 280 quid is a lot to ask without divulging how good an online service the system will have.

There is something incredibly antagonistic about the bolded part of your post, as if Reggie couldn't have tried to explain it better than that if he tried. They haven't been giving it away "for free" as a kind "demo" as you paint it - it simply hasn't been ready to give in any other way, which is a fault and not a plus. For the console to launch without very basic features present in the (now old) Xbox 360 is bad, not something to be spun into a positive. So long as you spin like that you will run into these challenges. I'm not sure you're always aware you're doing it. And to then make a like-for-like comparison to giving PSN away for free for 18 months...come on. PSN is a feature-rich and established service, whereas what we have now with Switch isn't worth a penny. The reason they haven't charged for what they're giving us right now on Switch is because it's bollocks.

It most definitely does have to be cloud saves. Manual save exporting will do nothing when something actually goes wrong spontaneously.

It's a shame that almost all debates must end this way Ronnie. If you think I'm equating death threats/destruction of property with people calling out industry bullshit then you don't know me very well. I do think Nintendo have made missteps here, and potentially more if they paywall too heavily. One thing to remember is that their service remains relatively unproven and still an unknown - I'm hoping that this means they don't enforce it hard as soon as it releases.

I bet you nodded your head in agreement at EA's "sense of pride and accomplishment" comment on Reddit. XDPeople's sense of standing up to industry bullshit is one of the better things to come from the gaming community in recent years.

It's confusing in the sense that there are many people who don't know Switch will go pay to play online. Maybe confusing isn't the right word, rather shocking. There are also those that have been playing it so long that they assume this is how it is now. Whatever Nintendo do there's going to be a shock/confusion either way. Selective pay to play is already a reality. Your nephew was confused when his Plus subscription ended but that would be immediately rectified when he tried to open the game, no? Either way, it's not a harmful thing to have some games not need a subscription. At best, some people that just want to play MK needn't pay an annual subscription if it remains free to play. At worst, they get "confused" and pay for a subscription that they didn't know they didn't actually need to carry on playing MK. In that case, they'd still be no worse off than if an online subscription had been required, since they'd still be paying out. There is literally no downside to the consumer for legacy games to be free. None at all!

I don't see how saying it's "anti-consumer" is contentious. If they restrict access to something previously accessible by paywalling then...hell yes that's an anti-consumer move. It's hardly a "pro" one, is it?

Most people are saying they don't see "how" they could do it or Nintendo will most likely not do it, rather than actually supporting it (which makes sense, given it's anti-consumer). The thing is, there's going to be confusion no matter what they do as people will be caught out one way or another. Either they paywall old games and people get caught out (as they inevitably will), or keep some old games free and people may be somewhat confused as to which games need online subscriptions. Though, given PS4 has plenty of free to play games (e.g. critical success Fortnite), I don't really see that as much of an issue. Nintendo should think about how often the carrot is better than the stick, particularly with a new service, as it's clear they're not fully decided on its implementation yet. Rather than the the stick approach of "pay or lose the access you once had", consider the "here's something cool we're giving you" approach (a la PS Plus at its inception).

When you start talking about "features" I can't help feel you are deliberately missing the point here. This is not about a hard choice between paid online (and the features that may bring) and free online (which may potentially be basic), which is the point you mostly just argued there. Rather, a choice between A) paid for online with free legacy game support versus B) totally paid for online. So far you have not justified why B) is preferable over A) in any way other than from Nintendo's naturally profit-guided perspective. There is no reason why any consumer should want to ask for some previously accessible content to be paywalled. In fact it is somewhat concerning to see that viewpoint held. With regards to a muddied message with "pick and choose" online, I can see nothing more muddied and confused than the people who will wake up one day to find their old games need a subscription to play now. No matter what Nintendo have done to publicise "what's coming" (very little IMO), lots of people will still be caught out regardless. What is better - confusion that benefits the consumer, or benefits Nintendo?

But when asked if you'd rather be greeted by a message telling you to pay if you want to continue playing MK online, you'd agree it's better for that message not to appear in the first place right? Because if you disagree with me on this one, you're basically saying you'd rather see that message appear than not appear. To me, that's like, crazy. Nobody so far has been able to justify this in any other terms than "it's good for Nintendo". The same company-sided justification can be used in defence of any publisher and microtransactions - always great for them, but bad for us. I'm not financially invested in those companies so...I'm not going to say something like "paywalling old content that doesn't need to paywalled is a good idea". I do find the "sense of entitlement" comment a little strange. A sense of entitlement of...the thing you've already been having for 18 months anyway? Never mind that those affected are people who invested in your console early on, who might deserve to carry on playing those games they bought, rather than asking them to pony up more cash. I personally don't see a muddied message at all - these were games released in the dark days as far as their online services went. Even if they add party chat at an OS-level with their new service, it would take considerable upgrades to MK for me to see the added value you're suddenly getting for the money if you're just casually playing MK now and then.

So you would prefer to load up Mario Kart and be asked to pay 20 dollars to continue playing online, versus paying nothing?

What I mean is that the whole situation is so ridiculous (charging for online partway through the console life) that there are no examples or indicators that we can reliably consult to figure out what Nintendo mean by this. Personally I think they were being vague at the time with their language to adapt a needed. I really think it would be odd (and anti-consumer) for them to charge so long after they released those games, but Nintendo being Nintendo it wouldn't surprise me if they do paywall everything.

Who knows what it means apart from Nintendo... In fact, maybe not even Nintendo right now.