Sheikah

Tell that to Valve with the Steam Deck, which has done pretty well for itself, all things considered. Also, Nintendo continue to produce consoles which have chips, and they use a different manufacturer to Sony and Microsoft for their chips (and likely will for Switch 2), so that's not really a reason not to release a Switch Pro or 2. They could have done a more expensive Switch Pro which wouldn't need as many units manufacturing as it would only be targeted at the more core users willing to spend more.

Yes, Switch absolutely needed a Pro model to tide the generation over, or a Switch 2 sooner. It felt very outdated even a year after launch and recent standards that we've come to expect (HDR, 60 FPS, 4K, SSDs) are usually sorely absent with Switch and very noticeable. I would literally never buy a multiplatform game on Switch as it's a significantly lesser experience than the current gen models. Also I would never pay for Switch online being as feature lacking as it is, so there's that too. Switch may continue to sell well but there is extra money to be made that Nintendo are missing out on. People are showing with the popularity of the PS5, XSX and Steam deck that they are willing to pay a good amount for the latest spec.

For £210 you should expect the most minor level of revision to accommodate a bigger battery. They have already incorporated several extra parts that take up internal space (e.g. the paddles) which aren't on the standard controller.

Is that really the case though, you would think they'd be able to create efficiencies by optimising the internal design of the controller to free up space. These things are rarely designed in the most optimal way first time round. A slightly better battery wouldn't be that much bigger.

Yeah, I also felt the game just sort of stopped. I felt it was a real missed opportunity that there wasn't really anything else to be gained from maxing out affinities. It also felt like the game was going to gear you up to seeing the Olympus gods but that never happened.

The thing is though, it would make sense for them to pay a negligible amount more for an ever so slightly better battery just to tick the box of saying "better battery", purely as they will have lost some sales from this revelation. The sort of enthusiasts buying this product are in the know. I guess we can chalk this up to incompetence.

In that case you're in for a treat. Those PS1 versions with all that loading (including just opening the menu) were horrendous. I played most of these on PC back in the day, but I also got FFVI on GBA which was excellent.

Why is it to be expected? For the price I would absolutely expect a higher capacity battery. Like you say, the battery isn't exactly stellar to begin with.

Why you all foaming at the gills for this? These games have been released a thousand times already.

I have to agree this game is insanely overrated. It's fun for sure but not close to being one of my favourite roguelites, particularly in terms of endgame content. Binding of Isaac and Nuclear Throne are still top tier for me. I can certainly appreciate why the game has done so well though, stylistically, presentation and theme-wise (as well as voice acting) is spot on.

It means bewitched or charmed, apparently. You're welcome.

Problem with that is if you trade your legendary for the other one then you don't have the original one anymore. Some people want to keep both, not just have a tick mark in their Pokédex.

That's not true at all, I know back in the Red and Blue days many people who bought both games to get the different Pokémon. And since Gold and Silver there's been different legendaries too, so even more incentive. Unless things have changed in terms of what you get on each game then I imagine that a sizeable chunk of people still buy both.

Interesting, since I quite enjoyed Death's Door. Will have to check this one out.

It usually quickly corrects itself. The hours estimate is based on averaging the connection speed every second, which at the beginning is typically almost nothing.

Exactly. For the money, and compared to competitor VR headsets, this is actually very good value. But it is still expensive, so attracts the usual sort of ire.

Well you said Sony have a terrible history with BC. That is simply untrue - only one of their home consoles did not have BC. Mentioning other consoles was to show this is better than some of their competition. Yes they did. This is no different to the DSi dropping GBA support or the Wii Mini dropping Gamecube support. And the reason I bring these examples, before you comment, is that it's not uncommon for cheaper revised models to drop BC features. They need to bring the unit cost down somehow. That said, the newer models continued to play PS1 games, so BC wasn't entirely gone. You might but that doesn't mean most will (again, going by previous data on BC use). Given how negative you are about "lacking content" it makes no sense to me that you would even buy PSVR2, even if it did have BC.The sorts of people who would pay this kind of money are enthusiasts, people who likely already have PSVR1 or want the latest tech - the kind of people that I don't think will be put off by the issue of practicality.

But it costs significantly more. Probably £1.2k at least for a high-end PC that runs VR at high settings, then £500+ on top for a standard VR model (even then likely outspecced by PSVR2). Valve Index costs £920. So you could even be paying more than double for that high end PC VR setup than PSVR2. Suddenly PSVR2 looks good value - albeit not mainstream priced. Factor in that many people either have or intend to acquire a PS5 anyway and you can basically cross the console off the cost of the VR setup. Not so with a PC VR setup - unless you upgraded very recently and went high on specs, most people will need to upgrade some parts for VR at good quality to be viable. I doubt it will have much effect in the grand scheme of things, people generally don't buy new systems to play old games. Certainly didn't stop the Switch taking off. What will make the difference is how well Sony support it with new software, and how good the tech works. PSVR1 was rather low spec and that didn't help it - so I can totally see why they're focused on making a more premium product this time. Also you are wrong on PlayStation's "terrible history of BC". Aside from the PS4 every sequel home console they made has had backwards compatibility. PS2 could play PS1, PS3 could play PS1 and PS2 (latter was better in the US, and launch model only), and PS5 can play PS4. Only PS4 has no BC. Meanwhile the SNES, N64, GameCube and Switch have no BC. And if you're going to cite the different media in use, if Nintendo wanted to they could have still allowed Switch to play Wii U games digitally, or release an optional external disc drive. Instead they would rather sell the games again on Switch. Microsoft are doing it best, but Nintendo are doing it worst.

People will pay more than £1k just for a high-end PC to play VR games, not even counting the cost of then buying the headset.

I disagree here, I actually think that price is reasonable for the specs. No it's not cheap but decent virtual reality headsets never are (and they're a bit 'you get what pay for'). I'm not sure what people were expecting given the known specs. People are already clamouring to buy a PS5 at £480, at £40 more this is not outside the realm of affordability for enthusiastic early adopters. And as we saw with PSVR1, the price will come down with time. I also feel like this sort of price is a lot more acceptable now - not just because of the XSX and PS5, but how people will drop far more than this on new phones they don't really need. This isn't like the £210 DualSense Edge, that was a pisstake on a whole different level.

Funny you should say that, I always consider Switch multiplatform scores to be inflated on Metacritic despite usually being the technically inferior option. Same for Xbox - not by much but Switch and Xbox scores often tend to be a few points higher than PS4/5 versions. Different critics I guess.

This looked really good, still very recognisable but a huge graphical and technical upgrade. Can't wait.

I know, only £210 for the new controller.

Are they smoking dope? £210?

I couldn't help but think of this post when Eurogamer posted this article today. TL;DR but using consoles (and particularly the PS4) for watching catchup/Netflix etc. is incredibly energy inefficient compared to a Chromecast at least. Per the metrics a PS4 uses 30 times as much energy as a Chromecast while using it for streaming.