Nicktendo

The Wii and the Gamecube were never enough for me personally. I was a multi-platfrom gamer back in those days. As I've gotten older, my time for gaming has shrunk and I barely have enough time to play everything I want on my Wii U and 3DS. The fact that they are only going to be supporting one console is great for me! I still have my PC if there's something I really want to play that's unavailable on NX. I completely understand that Nintendo doesn't do enough for most gamers, but I'm in that minority, I guess, that is content with that. Personally, I don't want to spend money on another console just to play a few releases that I could probably pick up on Steam anyway and that will run on my PC with the graphics on the minimum setting.

That was a hell of a lot of fun tonight! Great amounts of choas, should make brilliant highlights. @Glen\-i yeah, I won't be doing that anymore

I'm in this week!

There has been a lack of realistic racers on Nintendo consoles for years! In fact the last decent one that even springs to mind is World Driver Championship on the N64. If Nintendo don't want to give us analogue triggers on the NX then I guess we'll be left waiting even longer, maybe forever.

So I'm watch Chelsea vs. West Ham on the local TV station and I have to say the new Premier League graphics are ugly as sin! Who ever thought this was a good idea? I wouldn't be surprised if the person who 'designed' this rubbish picked up a massive cheque as well.... Thankfully SKY, BT and the BBC use their own graphics. All of which are at the very least inoffensive!

I've put around 30 hours into it so far and I'm only at the start of year 2. I've also completely ignored the relationship aspects... Definitely a time sink, but tremendous fun.

I also remember hanging out with him in AC back in the day. A really great guy and a passionate gamer. 29 is so young. Rest in peace.

My suggestion is quite simple and borrows mainly from what someone said before. Have a new league starting every 3 or 4 months. Minimum of somewhere between 40 and 60% attendance (decided by all of us democratically) to be included in the final results. Working off the same average we do now - Points / GPs = average points. My only concern is when we have two groups running when we have 16 or more players. I'm all for divding it by top 8 / bottom 8 etc. but I think the points earned should ideally reflect the league table standings, i.e. group one's points are multiplied by 1.25 and group two's by 0.75 or something like that, so there are no huge unfair jumps or drops in the standings. Those that don't meet the minimum attendence requirements would automatically be in group 2. I've been working the past few weeks on a Thursday and will continue to do so until the end of August, so that's me out for the time being.

I agree that the cinema is the fuction, but it's also where the majority of the money is made. How many people will still buy it on Sky Box Office? How many people buy it on disc compared to 20 years ago? Alternatively, how much does Hollywood make from someone just waiting and watching their film on Nextflix six months later? The production costs go up, as does the price of the ticket or the disc or the box office viewing. Of course, gaming is not the same as film in many regards, but if we're talking specifically about blockbusters, games which push the boundaries of technology, then the costs will always rise (see bold highlight). Graphics in the yearly franchise updates have to improve, as does A.I, physics etc, otherwise, what's the point in buying the new game? All of this costs money, money which the consumer surrenders to get that improved experience. Cease to improve a franchise and it's audience will fall off. No Man's sky is a good example of an "independent film" (with Sony support), something which genuinely pushes the boundaries in an innovative and interesting way, but does so in a cost-effective way. It hasn't been without its problems though, particularly the endless delays. I'd be interested to see if this can be a real big seller, or whether it will go the way of other games of its ilk and sell a good, but not great number and make the developer a decent haul of cash. Do you think it can reach mainstream blockbuster levels of sales, 5, 10, 15 million? I'm genuinely asking here. Remasters and remakes are great, and I love seeing these great games in full HD with new controls etc, but they are not, in my opinion, the games which really sell systems.

For sure there are great examples like Overwatch, but you and I both know these are the exception to the rule. Splatoon is also a fantastic example of this. Gaming has indeed exploded since the 90s, and prices have adjusted accordingly for the mass market. More people buying games = lower price points. GTA 5 is bigger and better in every way than it's predecessors, but that's down to the advances in technology and capability of the hardware. GTA 3 was also ridiculous for it's time, as was DK64, Gran Turismo 2, the original Zelda etc etc. This trend will undoubtedly continue, but so will the rising costs, which is the crux of my argument. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, I'm simply suggesting that at some point there won't be the user base to support these ever-expanding projects, and as that time draws closer, we'll likely be offered a gradually worse deal as gamers, and these exploitative practices will become more commonplace. Look at it this way, the number of people going to the cinema has dropped off massively since the 90s with the advancement of technology, the Internet, more forms of entertainment etc. Many independent cinemas have shut their doors in the past 20 years and huge multiplexes are pretty much all that remain, standing on the outskirts of cities. Films are more expensive and grand than they have ever been, yet to compensate their increasing production costs, prices have risen many, many times above inflation, not just for tickets, but for everything else like drinks and popcorn. Who's to say that same cut off point for gaming isn't right around the corner if things continue this way? While at the same time admitting that "only on Xbox" doesn't quite have the same meaning it once did? I'm sure that every serious PC gamer has already upgraded or plans to upgrade to Windows 10, especially considering it was free for 7 and 8 users.

I don't disagree with you, but having DLC on the disc or holding back content is definitely something that wouldn't have happened back then, though it is standard fare in 2015. They may be giving gamers what they want in some cases, but they also may be giving them what they haven't got in others. Banjo Kazooie and Tooie are perfect 1990s examples of re-using assets, but they were two complete games, set in different worlds and were seperated by a £50 price tag. I bought the first, was massively satisfied and rented the second becuase I was unwilling back then to spend that much money on a similar, but also complete experience. It totally bombed as well. We all, as gamers, have a choice how to spend our cash. PC gaming has always been different, admittedly more so back then, and hard-drives give us the choice whether to spend more on expanding, if we like the game, just like I did for Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros (even if the pricing wasn't great). The point I'm trying to make is that this content is not always good value, or as I mentioned before, is already on the disc or planned before release, this in partuclar is what I despise, and something that seems to becoming more common. Those of us like me, and probably you, who are happy with our game which comes on the disc or is F2P are seemingly at a disadvantage. Firstly, because competative gaming gives the advantage to those who spend. For example, I have absolutely no hope of ever taking over a gym on Pokemon Go unless I spend 5 hours a day playing it, which I can't, therefore I can't get the full experience without paying. Paying to win is cheap (in the bad sense ) and unsatisfying, and I also would never even give it a thought. Secondly, the actual on-disc content seems to be becoming less and less, and as I mentioned in my previous posts, there will become a point where gamers like you and I could just say no becuase a retail game may no longer justify it's £40 price tag. This is a problem I see happening mainly with blockbuster games more than anything else. Humble bundles and Playstation Plus are undoubtedly great, but so were bargain bins in 1998, or second hand games. It seems to me that it's just an evolution of that for the digital age.

We have already seen countless examples of how DLC is announced before a game's release, or is included on the disk with a microtransaction unlocking it. Pre-order bonuses are now a thing. Special editions. Exploitative practices are now accepted as the norm. People who do spend extra money, above the £40 base are always at an advantage if the game is competative, even Pokemon Go is evidence of that. Like I said, if you want the "full experience" you are asked to pay more. The reason we didn't see it in 1998 is because developers were less able / willing to exploit gamers. You paid for a game and bought the entire work of the developer. Nintendo, by the way, is just as guilty as other developers of these practices, but it highlights how gaming in it's 1998 form would now be unsustainable. Anyway, to get back to the original point. I'm much happier Nintendo have chosen to go down this route as opposed to the standard next-gen route mainly for the points I've outlined above, but mostly because I don't think they have the desire or the funds to compete with Sony and Microsoft and it would end in disaster. They seem to perform better when they're forced into a corner.

Games have gotten much cheaper as the culture has shifted more to the mainstream, and thank god! But these games you talk about which are F2P generally don't push the latest hardware like the blockbuster games seen on the next gen consoles and cost a fraction of the price to develop. The blockbusters may cost the consumer less from the offset but then you have to deal with microtransatcions and season passes which bump the price up considerably, granted they're a choice but necessary if you want the "full experience" (also day one patches, while not an expense, demonstrate just how stressful and maximum profit driven the industry has become). There's a reason the last 3 GTA generations have seen sequels or expansion packs, to get more profit out of the gamer on the technology they were developed using. The same is true for games like FIFA, CoD or Assassin's Creed.

I don't disagree with you at all, but it would be interesting to see how much Sony and Microsoft spend on development and marketing now, compared to 2006 and whether they are making more or less percentage profit. Microsoft has already announced that Xbox games are coming to PC as cross buy for the windows store. To me that's an admission that their home console division is failing.

I know it's still happening, when I come back to the UK I'll subscribe to sky sports and go to Leeds games despite being appalled by the price! I know, I'm a sucker. Eventually there will be a line, which each person will draw when they don't feel they get their money's worth. I did that with cinema going years ago and with having a second home console before this gen. Gaming is a hobby, a time killer or a form of entertainment. As budgets go up, so does the price for the consumer. One by one they'll say enough is enough and find something else to spend their money on.

Sure it's happening everywhere, especially in film. But Hollywood films are mostly garbage and a good low budget Indy film can still make a decent profit, people vote with their wallets. Marketing plays a role for sure, yet more money. When is it going to be too much though? Are people going to pay £20 for a cinema ticket? The same is happening football, which is unsustainable and heading for a big crash in the future. It's obscene. Gaming is in someways becoming a copy of the film industry with microtransatcions etc. grinding more and more money out of the consumer. People only have so much disposable income. That means people will buy less games, see less films, skip a week of the football. Nintendo did what was necessary in the 80s to ensure the survival of their video games market, now their doing the same, but in a different way. It's really very simple in my view. Don't like the look for a film? Don't go see it. Don't like the price of your local team's football match? Don't go. Don't like motion controls? Don't buy the game. Nintendo is doing what they need to do to survive. Nobody is dictating anything. If enough people do like what they're doing, they will buy their products and Nintendo will continue down their chosen path. If not, they'll do something else until they go bust when enough consumers reject what's offered to them.

I think quite the opposite, and that Sony and Microsoft's safe approach as you describe it is what's going to end up being the death of gaming in it's current form. The amount of money these big budget titles demand is constantly growing, and the profit margins are getting smaller and smaller (unless you're Rockstar or Activision). A huge number of companies have gone under in the past 10 years for exactly this reason. Innovation comes with huge risk and generally the most profitable titles are those which receive yearly updates or have big brand names. Namely your FIFAs and your CoDs etc. I'm not for one second saying innovation is non-existent, but one could argue how the need to make a profit would either stifle it or force a developer to "play it safe". Now I admit that I don't own a next generation console but I've read many complaints both on here and through friends that the PS4 and Xbox One have been disappointments. I'm sure there are plenty of great games which have huge scope / scale and do things which were simply not possible on previous generation tech, but at what cost? As for story and soundtrack, I think you could argue that the tech doesn't matter as much, but how it's used. And for how long can it be kept up? GTA5 cost 100 million dollars (or more?) to make, how many other developers would be prepared to make that kind of investment? Granted a GTA game was always guaranteed to make that kind of cash back in a matter of days! Mobile and indy games have shown that developers can make a tidy profit where this kind of beefy hardware isn't a development requirement and I genuinely believe Nintendo is making the right decision by going down this road. It was a choice between possible death or certain death

Not really. I said software sells systems, but if people don't know about that software then it can't and won't sell them. Nintendo is larely ignored by the popular gaming media (take their ridiculous YouTube policy for example), therefore if Nintendo want their games to be seen, they need to do more from a marketing perspective. Nintendo games on a PS4 will never happen, so Nintendo need to market to casuals, and these gamers that their games a WORTH buying a Nintendo console for, because they can't be played elsewhere.

If people see a game they want to play, they will buy the system they can play it on. One could argue that this wasn't strictly true about the Wii U, however. Splatoon, Mario Maker and Mario Kart 8 should have shifted way, way more consoles, but didn't mainly because of poor marketing. The attach rate for all of these games is on levels that Sony / Microsoft could only dream of. Had Nintendo done more marketing wise, the Wii U would be in a lot more homes than it currently is. People buy a games console primarily to play games, therefore software is generally king when it comes down to it. No software, no purchase. In this regard, as you say, Nintendo should be fine, but they have to market the damn thing.

The plot thickens. Eurogamer posted this article in 2009 claiming the 3DS would use nvidia chips. Could they be wrong again? http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ds2-vs-psp2-article

While this news should definitely be taken with a pinch of salt, I'm feeling pretty confident about these developments and the direction in which Nintendo seems to be headed. For me the biggest news, and undoubtedly the most sensible, is consoildating handheld and console development onto one device. Specs for me personally are not much of a worry because the 3DS is still consistently pumping out great games and the Wii U proves that big hitters needn't be multi-million dollar projects to be original, innovative and engaging. If it's a step above Wii U, great, if not I won't be too fussed, but I do think directing focus towards "mobile" gamers as opposed to the "hardcore" is a battle Nintendo is much more likely to win in terms of both audiences and developers. As for the device itself, I have no objection to anything demonstarted in the tech video above or in Eurogamer's article, but I would prefer to make more solid judgements once Nintendo reveal it for themselves. The idea does have tonnes of potential though. As someone who regularly games on a 3DS at home and uses off-TV play, I don't see this as a huge deviation from what I've already been used to for the last 2-3 years, but the thought of one Fire Emblem, one Animal Crossing, Mario Kart or Pokemon that can be played on the small screen or on the TV is awesome and the end of splitting time between console and handheld is something I'd definitely welcome! It seems to be the ultimate system for those who love to game alone, but also want the big-screen multiplayer experience every once in a while, or even vice versa. I really hope Nintendo really nail the OS though. This is my biggest worry. I want an end to the rebuying of VC titles every generation and the need to "empty the fridge" every so often. Give us a decent OS, cloud saving and a decent amount of HDD space, please! I have absolutely no objection to an Android or iOS style system which is often updated and heavily integrated with things like My Nintendo, the E-Shop and promotional discounts. Even something along the lines of badges or acheivements would be fantastic, didn't they say something at E3 about rewards for playing? If it were something so simple as themes or background music, I'd be all over it. Smoothness and real personalisation are what I'd like to see in the OS. It may not be popular with all gamers, but I want them to completely do away with the console generation cycle system in favour of a more smartphone oriented one. For those of us that want to adopt to a more powerful device every 18 months / couple of years, give us the option. Give the market a choice and, where appropriate, scale games appropriately to each device (Pokemon Go is advertised as iPhone 5 and up, but Miitomo or Pokemon Shuffle are compatible with older ones, for example). If a device is 4-5 years old, maybe it can't play the very latest releases, but would appeal to younger or casual gamers at a much lower price point as a way in to the ecosystem. This would hopefully end the droughts, end the endless waits (especially for new console news) and allow the company to grow steadily as opposed to taking a huge risk every four or five years. Imagine and brand new and updated Nintendo every two years :awesome: Just call it a "Nintendo" as well, please. No nonsense. -"Wanna come to my house and play Nintendo?" -"No need, I have my Nintendo right here!" Nostalgia speaking. Whatever NX ends up being this is all pretty f-n exciting and I can't wait for September, at least until they inevitably delay any announcments until November.

Pestneb hits the nail on the head. Corruption is inherent in the Russian system. The building of the new stadium in St. Petersburg is a perfect example of this. It was started 10 years ago and still isn't finished, it has cost millions and millions of pounds, yet they periodically complain there is no money left, and get given more. More than half of the money is uncounted for, i.e. it's found it's way into someone's pocket. I've bribed police officers on a few occasions in order to evade punishment for minor crimes, such as drinking in the street or not having the correct documents with me. Nothing major, but £15 or so is better than being taken to jail or officially fined. Traffic law violations are almost exclusively delt with by bribes, but usually upwards of £100. Punishments for speeding in Russia include year long bans, so it's much better for people to just pay a hefty bribe. The fact that the police get such a low wage doesn't help, but corruption is widely accepted and is seen as the norm. Can you imagine even offering a police officer a bribe in the U.K?! Having a "white salary" is also seen in Russia as prestigious, and is usually found in the big ineternational companies. Most regular jobs pay a "black salary" where the majority of your wages are paid in cash in an envelope and maybe a small, token amount will be paid into your bank. The tax laws are so regressive and anti-business that for smaller companies, this is the only way they can survive. So tax evasion is also considered normal. Apart from the influece of the French upper classes in the 18th Century (The Russian elite even took on French as the political language), Russia has had almost no influence of European civilization, especially if we talk about the peasents at the time. Peter the I saw Europe as something which Russia could work towards, as something that could help Russia become stronger if it tried to emulate Europe, hence why St. Petersburg was built to look like a European city, but in reality this never found it's way outside the upper classes and royal family, who of course were eventually overthrown in 1917. Again Pestneb is right that this will be turned into a political victory for Russia and I already have heard people talking about it in this way, how it's the fault of the USA, that WADA is based in Canada and is biased... But it was always going to be this way because "cheating the system" is accepted here. Now, I'm not making excuses for what Russia has done, not at all, but the way they see it is that everyone else is just as corrupt as they are, they just don't like to admit it. The USA is corrupt, just not in the same ways. And when they present themselves as the clean, honest, and fair leaders of free society, the Russians know they are being fed a load of lies and take particular offence to being dictated to by this kind of self-righteous people. Hence partially the general dislike of America and/or the West.

And how long would I last in the U.S or Britain if I started telling foreigners to go home? How long would I last if I started saying homosexuality is an illness? If I advocated Sharia Law? If I wanted to legalise paedophilia? Freedom of speech does not exist in a politically correct world. Russia has freedom of speech but it's political correctness is very, very different from ours. Or that of Iran. Saudi Arabia. Poland, even. Each country operates within its own legal framework based on history, culture, religion and politics. In Amsterdam I could say I want to shag a 15 year old and it would be perfectly acceptable within the legal framework of that country. In the U.K., U.S., or Russia for that matter, I'd be set on by an angry mob. Peter Hitchens is a mostly a vile human being (imo) but he's lived and worked in Russia and gave a great lecture on it at Oxford University. Video's on YouTube. His views on political correctness as a way of controlling dissent are also fascinating. Just because we have 'a great system' doesn't mean it should fit everyone else. I honestly think it comes down to the fact that Russia is a mostly white Christian nation and therefore we are inclined to see them as we see ourselves. Crucially though, they have a very different culture from ours, an incompatible one even, maybe... And therefore we tend to view them more critically than we would than those who are more ethnically different from us.

I agree completely with what you're saying, particularly about how the U.K. would be very unlikely to get caught up in this sort of mess. I do wonder though, if this had been China and not Russia, would the reaction have been different? I was also against the Beijing Olympics and didn't watch any of it, but the fact that we have many mutual financial interests and that they are more open financially to the West, seems to warp the view of our leaders when it comes to things like human rights. Russia still seems to get treated as the old, uncooperative enemy. Incidentally, despite the shaky start, there seemed to be a lot of international goodwill to Russia following Sochi. The controversy based discussion was mainly around the Olympic ring that didn't light at the ceremony and little else. It seemed to be a success. Two weeks later Crimea happened, and the rest is history.

Considering I have a Master's degree in Russian history, live in Russia and speak Russian to an advanced level, I find that comment pretty insulting. I don't claim to know how Russia works but I could give you a much better insight than any Western media source. I am by no means a supporter of the regime in Russia, but I understand, in the context of geopolitics why it exists in its current shape. The 90s was a very harsh lesson for everyone in Russia with regards to what happens when they play by Western rules, the poverty and sheer economic destruction went largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. I'm sure Edward Snowdon and Chelsea Manning will attest to the fact that no government has a perfect record. Would Snowden last long in the US? The sense of patriotism and love for their country runs deeper in Russia than anywhere I've ever experienced. Not in the balls to the wall cries of USA, USA sense you see in America, but it's deeply rooted into people's sense of personality, culture and history. There's a reason the 'Russian soul' exists as a concept. Speaking out internationally against Russia amounts to treason in many respects, not that it's right, but it's simply how it's viewed. It's fine to criticise and disagree, but to do it so openly on a global scale is seen as a betrayal. There are many, many issues which exist today in Russia. A number of which are looked at unfavourably by the West, of course, with good reason. But similar problems also exist in the West and it's the level of hypocrisy that infuriates me personally. I have no trouble criticising Russia or the government, but I would prefer to do so from a neutral standpoint, and not one where the mirror of the West is held up against them. That mirror is just as dirty as Russia's. Critics of Russia should stop judging it by Western standards, especially when China is rarely afforded similar treatment. Russia is not, and has never been a traditional 'Western' nation and expecting it to behave like one is like expecting apples to taste like oranges.