Sheikah

Also, P4 is one of the best games ever, while Catherine is a genuine scream fest.

Ah man, you got him there.

I don't think backwards compatibility in this instance is doing much at all for Microsoft - as I've said before, it's something people go on about wanting but it actually impacts very little at the end of the day. Most people don't buy new consoles with a strong desire to play their old games on it (especially when they still own the old console). PS4 was less backwards compatible than X1 and Wii U but that didn't hurt it a bit. Where it could be important is if BC is in place at the start of the next refresh, meaning that there could be more of a "Pro" upgrade each time (as in, only the console 2 refreshes ago loses support running the latest games).

I think as well we have seen Zelda, 3D Mario, Mario Kart and Splatoon in these few months as a big factor. Great sales now but I wonder how Nintendo will keep momentum going at the same level over say 7 years.

I watched it live and I found it really entertaining. Detroit Become Human was particularly awesome I thought, really made me want to buy the game!

Yeah Bravely Default was an utterly generic experience, even if the battle system was quite finely tuned. I remember playing it in utter disbelief how far narrative standards and level design had fallen in the 10 or so years since Final Fantasy IX. I would love if PS1 era FF-style RPGs returned to Switch in true form.

It's a good win for the Switch but I can't deny that I feel nothing for this series. Have 1 and 2 on Wii U but just couldn't get into the series at all.

It's not even a particularly good game. This is coming from a massive BK fan too.

Yup, this basically sums up the problem - there's no permanence to Nintendo's display name system. Well, except permanent friend codes, but nobody remembers people by them.

I think it's annoying for about 2 minutes then gives me the freedom to change my Switch username whenever I like. Both the name that appears to my friends, AND the tag that appears online to everyone. But you have the freedom to change your display name on PS4 too. You just get to choose who sees that display name - choice is a good thing, no? Honestly, the way Switch does this is a bit of a mess. If someone changes their display name on my Switch, which has happened, I have literally no clue who they are. It's kinda mad that there is no permanent handle for people for you to refer to. I have genuinely been searching friend codes in google to be linked to N-Europe to see who some of the people on my list are. Not that it matters much mind, what with the Switch's innate lack of a messaging system.

And you can change the name that appears to people on PSN - and your profile picture. Don't know why we are still talking about this. You choose who sees that name, sure, but that's a good thing. If I choose to use my real name (as many do on Switch), I'd also like to choose who sees that. Out of interest, what is your opinion on the friend code being arbitrary and something you most likely will need to look up to share with someone, versus a handle? It feels like you are avoiding certain inadequacies to make a point here.

Yup, exactly the same as the Switch with its friend code. Not that it would even matter if you could (or can) change your friend code, as it'd still be arbitrary.

That's fine that you disagree, but at least provide some explanation as I literally countered every point you put out. You most definitely can change the name that will appear to others. And you can also set your own photo or picture that friends see on your profile, rather than the PSN avatar. I also fail to see how (*checks Switch friend code*) "5442-9012-6148" (my friend code) is better than "Meltigemini" (something I didn't have to look up). In order to befriend someone on Switch, at least one of you is going to have to look your friend code up, because it's just arbitrary. Not so on PSN.

PS4 has Switch beat on this one. If you had a choice between a unique and arbitrary long number or unique words and numbers of your choosing, you'd definitely pick the latter. On the PS4 you can set and change your name just the same, and make it so that appears as your main name with your tag also appearing beneath it. This includes a surname, if you want. On the Switch, at a glance you basically see people's chosen first name (e.g. when they log in), which is quite annoying as my list is full of people called Chris and Matt who I have no idea who they are. It's also difficult to remember people's individual friend codes so looking at them doesn't help you much. I could look at my friend list on Switch full of N-Europers and quite honestly I wouldn't be able to tel you who all of them are.

My game of the year is Breath of the Wild by a considerable margin.

Would be interested to hear how good you think the game is as you progress, as this could potentially be my Christmas game.

I think that is basically what I was trying to say. [emoji14]

Yeah I very much got the impression from the video that if you had ever played an AC console game there is no way you would even consider this.

Excellent news, loved the first game. It was a massive shame that we never got a proper sequel over here on the big consoles again, so great to see them go back to their roots.

Anyone who has never played Skyrim before is in for a real treat.

You can switch to third person mode but it controls really badly. It's not made to be played like that unfortunately.

Zelda needs to win everything over Mario as far as I'm concerned. Just win everything actually.

Ah but it works both ways - yes that is based on a value decided in 2013, but you're comparing it back to a value that was similarly introduced one year and ridden for a generation. So it isn't really more than that - and I acknowledge this is a PlayStation example, but with the impact of cartridge costs and Nintendo having a weirdly fluctuating relationship with third parties (and most likely levies) I think this is a pretty fair case series to look at. Much harder to compare say N64 with expensive cartridges and Wii with DVDs. That's because they know most people after then won't buy at full price. It's also impossible to say that they're making less money (/sales) because of this without knowing stats. Now we know more than half of Destiny 2 console sales were digital, we simply don't know the true extend of the copies sold. Ok, looking back at your post you do list "DLC" along with microtransactions as ways to increase return. That said, it was preceded by you saying "It makes no sense and it's the reason we're seeing big publishers hamper games in such an egregious way." I don't think anyone would think of Witcher 3's expansions as being something that subtracted from the main experience, rather accompanied it beautifully. I also think most people here have made a distinction between meaningful DLC/expansions and lootboxes and microtransactions. My point has really been that AAA can be done without microtransactions. The loot boxes and microtransactions that currently plague AAA are due to greed. If EA make more revenue just from microtransactions than Witcher 3 made from the game then I have a hard time being anything but cynical!

I don't follow you, your stats show that the prices have remained the same. You're arguing over...5 dollars? While also seemingly ignoring the extra revenue developers get from Plus which will help top up their development costs. Developers also make DLC now, which they weren't able to in the past - that's often half the cost of the game again for most definitely not half of the original investment. Nowhere near in fact. I have presented a point to you that you have as yet not been able to counter. It is a very simple point - if modern AAA game development needs microtransactions to exist, then how did Witcher 3 come to be developed, sold and not bankrupt the company? So far you have countered with the point "Witcher 3 sold really well". Well guess what, so do many of the AAA games with microtransactions in them. Answer me why they couldn't make their big, Witcher 3 size game without including microtransactions. I argue that they don't want to leave money on the table.

Great to hear you agree with me. At least in PlayStation land where up is up and down is down, they're not getting cheaper over time then.